HEX Official Record Inhabit PLN50850
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 1 of 20
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In The Matter of the Application of ) Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
)
Julian Prosser, on behalf of ) Soundview Drive Lots 5 and 6
Inhabit, LLC )
)
For Approval of Reasonable Use ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
Exceptions and Variances ) AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for reasonable use exceptions and major variances to allow the construction of a
single-family residence on each of two undeveloped lots, Lots 5 and 6 (Block 4) of Fort Ward
Estates, adjacent to 2171 Soundview Drive NE, is APPROVED. Conditions are necessary to
address specific impacts of the proposal.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Hearing Date:
The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on June 28, 2018. The
hearing record was kept open until July 2, 2018, to receive additional information from the City.
Testimony:
The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing:
Annie Hillier, City Planner
Julian Prosser, Applicant Representative
Mary Dombrowski
Eileen Safford
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. Letter from Annie Hillier, dated June 23, 2017; Memorandum from Janelle Hitch, P.E., to
Annie Hillier, dated June 19, 2017; Memorandum from Assistant Chief Luke Carpenter,
Fire Marshal, to Annie Hillier, dated June 9, 2017; Kitsap Public Health District, Pre-
Application Checklist, dated June 12, 2017
2. Master Land Use Application, received November 14, 2017
3. Wetland Delineation Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan, Ecological Land Services, Inc.,
dated September 13, 2017
4. Letter from Michael Staten, Envirotech Engineering, to Julian Prosser, dated October 9,
2017
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 2 of 20
5. Environmental Checklist, dated November 14, 2017
6. Project Narratives, dated November 14, 2017
7. Site Assessment Review Application, dated November 14, 2017
8. Site Plans (four sheets), undated
9. Notices of Complete Application, dated December 12, 2017
10. Information Request, dated December 15, 2017
11. Email from Brandon Clinton to Annie Hillier, dated December 19, 2017, with email
string
12. Notice of Application/SEPA Comment Period, dated December 22, 2017; Affidavit of
Publication, Bainbridge Island Review, dated December 22, 2017
13. Public Comments:
a. Email from Rob Furwell to Annie Hillier, dated December 30, 2017
b. Email from Carolyn Siscoe to Annie Hillier, dated January 5, 2018
c. Letter from Mary Victoria Dombrowski, dated December 26, 2017
d. Letter from Eileen Hurley Safford, undated
e. Letter from Eileen Hurley Safford to Christy Carr, dated December 1, 2016
14. Wetland Delineation Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan, Ecological Land Services, dated
January 17, 2018
15. Notice of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), dated May 15, 2018
16. Public MDNS Comments:
a. Letter from Mary Victoria Dombrowski to Annie Hillier, dated May 16, 2018
b. Email from Carolyn Siscoe to Annie Hillier, dated May 29, 2018
17. Notice of Public Hearing, published June 1, 2018; Affidavit of Publication, Bainbridge
Island Review, dated June 1, 2018; Certificate of Posting, dated June 1, 2018
18. Public Comments and Staff Response:
a. Email from Brian Berdan, dated June 8, 2018
b. Email from Carolyn Siscoe to Annie Hillier, dated June 1, 2018, with email string
c. Additional Email from Carolyn Siscoe to Ann Hillier, dated June 1, 2018, with
email string
d. Email from Carolyn Siscoe to Ann Hillier, dated June 6, 2018, with email string
e. Email from Ann Hillier to Carolyn Siscoe, dated June 7, 2018, with email string
19. Wetland Delineation Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan, Ecological Land Services,
revised June 14, 2018
20. Buffer Impact Map, Figure 3, dated June 15, 2018; Email from Julian Prossor to Annie
Hillier, dated June 18, 2018, with email string
21. Staff Report, dated June 28, 2018
22. City PowerPoint Presentation (eight slides)
23. Excerpts from 2016 Comprehensive Plan, pages LU-22 and LU-23
24. City’s Proposed Revisions to Conditions of Approval, dated June 28, 2018
25. Fort Ward Action Plan Excerpts, dated November 1996
26. Safford v. Inhabit LLC, Kitsap County Superior Court, No 18-2-01783-18, Complaint to
Quiet Title for Adverse Possession, and Summons, dated June 26, 2018
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 3 of 20
27. Email from Carolyn Siscoe to Annie Hillier, dated June 28, 2018
The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based on the testimony and
exhibits:
FINDINGS
Application and Notice
1. Julian Prosser, on behalf of Inhabit, LLC (Applicant), requests approval for reasonable
use exceptions (RUEX) and major variances to allow construction of a single-family
residence on each of two undeveloped lots, Lots 5 and 6 (Block 4) of Fort Ward Estates,
adjacent to 2171 Soundview Drive NE. Both lots are completely encumbered by wetland
buffers. The RUEXs would allow for development not to exceed 1,200 square feet on
each lot and the Applicant has proposed building envelopes of 1,179 square feet for each
lot. The variances would allow for a reduction in the required front yard setbacks, from
25 feet to 5 feet, to ensure that the proposed development envelopes are located as far as
possible from a Category III wetland east of the project sites. As mitigation for the
proposal, the Applicant would enhance the wetland buffer on-site and replace an
improperly installed culvert off-site to restore the natural hydrology of the area wetlands
system.1 Exhibit 2; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 20; Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 1
through 9.
2. The City of Bainbridge Island (City) determined that the applications were complete on
December 12, 2017. On December 22, 2017, the City provided notice of the application as
required by Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) 2.16.020.K, including mailing
notice to property owners within 500 feet of the property and to government agencies and
departments, publishing notice in the Bainbridge Island Review, and posting notice on the
property and at the City’s other official posting locations. On June 1, 2018, the City
provided notice of the open record hearing associated with the application by publishing
notice in the Bainbridge Island Review, posting notice on-site and at the City’s other official
posting locations, and mailing notice of the hearing to property owners within 500 feet of
the property and to government agencies and departments. As discussed in detail below, the
City received comments from applicable government agencies and departments related to its
notice materials as well as several comments from area residents on the applications.
Exhibit 9; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 17; Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 6 and 7.
State Environmental Policy Act
3. The City acted as lead agency and analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposal, as
required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C Revised Code
1 The property contains two contiguous lots identified as tax parcel numbers 4146-004-005-0004 (Lot 5)
and 4146-004-006-0003 (Lot 6). Exhibit 12. A legal description of the lots is provided with the site plan.
Exhibit 8.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 4 of 20
of Washington (RCW). The City initially used the optional Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) process, under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-
355, and issued notice of the threshold determination with the notice of application. At
that time, the City stated that it expected to issue a DNS for the proposal but noted that
mitigation measures may be required. The City reviewed the Applicant’s Environmental
Checklist and other information on file and determined that, with mitigation, the proposal
would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Accordingly,
the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on May 15, 2018,
with 16 mitigation measures. The mitigation measures require the Applicant to:
Protect groundwater and wetland flora and fauna by ensuring that roofing
materials are made of a non-leaching material that is not harmful to the
environment.
Temporarily fence the wetland buffer prior to commencing any construction
activity.
Install a split-rail fence along the edge of the native vegetation buffer area.
Install at least two signs per lot indicating the presence of a protected wetland
buffer.
Obtain approval of the final wetland mitigation plan prior to building inspection.
Obtain appropriate hydraulic and hydrologic analysis prior to any modification to
the culvert.
Obtain all required permits and approvals prior to culvert replacement, including a
right-of-way (ROW) permit and a Critical Areas Permit from the City, and a
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
Install the replacement culvert prior to final building permit inspection or provide
a surety consistent with BIMC 16.20.180.
Submit an alternative mitigation proposal if the culvert replacement proves
infeasible or the proposal is withdrawn.
Submit a contingency plan to the City, for approval, addressing impacts from
performance standards in the mitigation plan not being met.
Limit the amount of lighting on the exterior of the residences, install motion
sensor lighting on the exterior of the house, and record a covenant limiting the use
of pesticides on the properties.
Restore any disturbances to the ROW from construction activities.
Submit a bid comparison/analysis to demonstrate that minimal excavation
foundation systems have been considered.
Ensure that surface stormwater from driveways and parking spaces receives
treatment prior to being discharged or leaving the site.
Utilize permeable materials or permeable jointing, where feasible, for hardscaping
to allow infiltration.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 5 of 20
Use diffuse flow methods to discharge roof surface stormwater into the wetland
where full infiltration on-site is not feasible.
Exhibit 15.
4. Despite using the Optional DNS process, the City provided for a comment and appeal
deadline for the MDNS of May 29, 2018. The City received two comments specific to its
SEPA determination: Mary Dombrowski commented that, with the potential for
disturbance to Soundview Drive NE, it would be beneficial to all area residents to have
the roadbed moved to the center of the 60-foot ROW; Carolyn Siscoe submitted an email
expressing strong opposition to the proposal, noting concerns with wetland protection,
traffic, and aesthetic impacts from the proposed development. The MDNS was not
appealed. Exhibit 5; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 13; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 16: Exhibit 21, Staff
Report, page 6.
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Property
5. Lots 5 and 6 are undeveloped and located on the east side of Soundview Drive NE, in the
Fort Ward Estates area of Bainbridge Island. City Planner Annie Hillier testified that the
property is designated Open Space Residential, two units per acre (OSR-2), under the
City Comprehensive Plan. City staff analyzed the proposal for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and identified goals and policies applicable to the proposal,
including: preserving and enhancing the Island’s natural systems, natural beauty, and
environmental quality; encouraging sustainable development; and protecting and
enhancing wildlife, fish resources, and ecosystems.2 Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 8
and 9; Exhibit 23; Testimony of Ms. Hillier.
6. The property is within the “R-2” zoning district. The purpose of the R-2 zoning district is
to “provide residential neighborhoods in an environment with special Island character
consistent with other land uses such as agriculture and forestry, and the preservation of
natural systems and open space, at a somewhat higher density than the R-1 district.”
Single-family dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 zone. BIMC 18.06.020.C. The
proposed single-family residences would be subject to the Fort Ward Overlay design
guidelines and would be reviewed against such guidelines at the time of building permit
submittal. The lots do not meet the minimum lot dimensions of BIMC 18.12.010. Under
BIMC 18.30.050, however, nonconforming lots that were lawfully created and recorded
with the county auditor’s office, as occurred here, may be used for permitted purposes
notwithstanding the minimum lot area, width, or depth requirements of the municipal
code. Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 4 and 9.
2 City staff specifically identified the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive P lan as relevant to
the proposal: Environmental Element Goals EN-1, EN-4, and EN-5. Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 8 and
9.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 6 of 20
7. Surrounding properties are also designated OSR-2 and zoned R-2. Properties to the west
and north contain single-family residences. Three properties to the south each received
similar RUEXs and major variances in 2017 for the development of single-family
residences. Properties to the east are undeveloped and contain a Category III wetland and
its associated buffer. Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 4 and 5.
Critical Areas
8. As noted above, a wetland buffer associated with the Category III wetland to the east
extends over the entirety of the property. Ecological Land Services (ELS) prepared a
Wetland Delineation Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan (Wetland Report) for the
Applicant, dated September 13, 2017. ELS later revised the Wetland Report on January
17 and June 14, 2018, as additional project information became available. The Wetland
Report3 delineated a Category III wetland (Wetland A), east of Lot 6 and extending south
along the eastern edge of Lot 5, requiring a 150-foot buffer. BMC 16.20.160. Because
wetland buffers do not extend beyond improved roads, however, the Wetland Report
determined that the effective wetland buffer would be 110 feet, extending across both
properties and up to Soundview Drive NE. Wetland A receives direct precipitation and
surface water runoff from adjacent properties. During winter and spring, Wetland A
flows north through a culvert under Belfair Avenue, into a wetland north of Belfair
Avenue, and then northerly through a series of wetlands into a stream that flows into
Blakely Harbor. The Wetland Report observed that the culvert under Belfair Avenue was
improperly installed and only allows water to travel between Wetland A and the greater
wetland system beyond the culvert during high precipitation events. Exhibit 3; Exhibit
14; Exhibit 19.
9. The municipal code provides that wetland buffers must remain undisturbed or as
enhanced vegetation areas for the purpose of protecting the integrity, function, and value
of wetland resources. Any buffer modification proposed must be through an approved
buffer enhancement plan meeting the requirements of BIMC 16.20.180, including a
buffer enhancement plan. BIMC 16.20.140. As described below, the Wetland Report
includes a buffer enhancement plan. In addition, the Applicant would provide permanent
wetland buffer and fencing. BIMC 16.20.140.I. 6. Exhibit 19; Exhibit 21, Staff Report,
page 2.
10. The Wetland Report evaluated mitigation sequencing and determined that, although no
work would take place in Wetland A, wetland buffer impacts would be unavoidable
because the wetland buffer encumbers both lots. The Wetland Report indicated,
however, that siting the two residences as close to Soundview Drive NE as possible,
through reducing the front yard setback, would alleviate wetland buffer impacts. The
Wetland Report noted that developing the two proposed residences, with driveways,
3 All references to the “Wetland Report” are intended to refer to the third iteration of the report, dated June
14, 2018.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 7 of 20
would result in permanent impacts to 5,308 square feet of the wetland buffer. As on-site
mitigation to mitigate for impacts to the wetland buffer, the Applicant would remove
approximately 11,221 square feet of non-native shrubs and grass from the wetland buffer,
and plant approximately 5,913 square feet of native, replacement vegetation. The
Applicant would also install a line of lower growing conifer trees and a split-rail fence
along the buffer edge to further protect the wetland buffer. The mitigation plan also
requires maintenance of the planting areas and monitoring of the buffer mitigation area
for seven years, and includes a contingency plan if performance standards are not met.
The Bainbridge Island Land Trust was contacted, but no opportunities for additional
wetland restoration or enhancement on other area properties were identified. Exhibit 19;
Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 11 through 17.
11. The Wetland Report also identified off-site mitigation measures that the Applicant would
employ to mitigate for impacts to the wetland buffer. The wetlands in the Fort Ward
Estates are part of one large system that has been divided into smaller individual wetland
areas by roads. The Wetland Report determined that the culvert under Belfair Avenue
was placed at an elevation that does not allow the continued flow of water into the
northern wetland areas, which expanded the wetland size south of Belfair Avenue and
altered the natural hydrology of the wetland system. As off-site mitigation, the Applicant
would replace the improperly installed culvert. The Wetland Report noted that doing so
would restore the hydrologic continuity of the area wetlands system, improve wildlife
passage, and increase diversity within the northern wetlands. The Applicant would need
to obtain all required permits for a culvert replacement, including a ROW permit from the
Department of Public Works, an HPA from WDFW, and a Critical Areas Permit from the
Department of Planning and Community Development prior to commencing
construction. Exhibit 19; Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 11 through 17.
12. Planting native trees and shrubs around each proposed home would mitigate stormwater
generated on the developed lots. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques would also
be used, including pervious pavement to allow stormwater to infiltrate. Rooftop
rainwater would be discharged toward the wetland buffer via splash blocks. The wetland
buffer would provide filtration before discharging to the wetland. Envirotech
Engineering prepared a Soils Report for the Applicant, dated October 9, 2017. The Soils
Report determined that stormwater infiltration facilities would not be feasible, due to
seasonal groundwater and permanent groundwater existing at shallow depths of less than
one foot beneath potential drainage facilities. The Report recommends dispersion or
other stormwater management means for the residential developments. The Soils Report
also determined that the existing bearing soils and conditions are not suitable for
traditional foundation construction. The report recommends removal of topsoil, with
imported and engineered fill of a compacted depth of at least 20 inches placed and
compacted within the project area. The Applicant would submit a stormwater
management plan meeting minimum requirements 1 through 9 of the 2014 Stormwater
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 8 of 20
Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), as adopted by the BIMC,
at the time of building permit application. Exhibit 4; Exhibit 19; Exhibit 21, Staff Report,
page 4.
13. The City code identifies aquifer recharge protection areas (ARPAs). BIM C
16.20.100.E.2(b) provides that an ARPA must include all existing native vegetation on a
site, up to a maximum of 65 percent of the total site area. A lower percentage is allowed
if necessary to achieve a development area of at least 12,500 square feet on a parcel. The
City determined that, because the two lots do not contain 12,500 square feet, an ARPA
designation is not required. Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 17 and 18; Exhibit 24.
Reasonable Use Exceptions
14. As noted above, the Applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence, with 1,179
square feet of lot coverage, on each of two lots entirely covered by wetland buffers. The
City code provides for reasonable use exceptions (RUEXs) where the City’s critical areas
ordinance (Chapter 16.20 BIMC) would deny all reasonable use of the property; where
there are no reasonable alternatives with less impact to the critical area or its required
buffer; where the proposal minimizes the impact through mitigation sequencing; where
the proposed impact is the minimum necessary; where the inability to derive reasonable
use of the property is not the result of actions by the Applicant; where the proposed total
lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for residential development; where the
proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on
or off the property; and where any alterations are mitigated. BIMC 16.20.080.
15. The Applicant submitted a project narrative addressing the criteria for a RUEX under
BIMC 16.20.080. The project narrative suggests that the proposal would meet the criteria
for a RUEX because:
The wetland buffer encumbers the entire property. Because of the small size of
the lots, other techniques such as buffer averaging would not be sufficient to
create a functional building envelope. Obtaining a RUEX is the only way to
create buildable lots.
The wetland and buffer were existing conditions and not created by the Applicant
or the previous owner.
Strict application of the critical areas code would deny all reasonable use of the
lots.
One single-family residence would be built on each lot and each residence would
have a total footprint of less than 1,200 square feet. Additionally, through careful
architectural design each residence would blend with the existing neighborhood.
The proposed residences would be modest in scope and have the minimum
necessary impacts on the wetland buffer.
ELS provided a sensible mitigation plan that, to the maximum extent feasible,
mitigates the impacts on-site as well as provides off-site mitigation through
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 9 of 20
replacing the culvert under Belfair Avenue. Replacing the culvert would provide
a functional lift for the existing wetland system. Replanting native vegetation and
removing invasive vegetation would also enhance the existing habitat.
The proposal would not pose an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the site and would be consistent with other building and zoning
regulations.
Exhibit 6.
16. City staff also analyzed the proposal for compliance with the RUEX criteria from BIMC
16.20.080 and generally concurred with the Applicant’s assessment. Staff specifically
noted:
The Applicant would not be able to develop the lots without the requested RUEX.
With lot areas of 6,970 and 8,712 square feet, the zoning code would support
approximately 1,394 and 1,742 square feet, respectively, on the two lots. Lot
coverage of 1,200 square feet, however, is considered reasonable on lots
completely encumbered by critical areas or associated buffers. The Applicant has
proposed lot coverage of 1,179 square feet of lot coverage on each lot.
The project avoids impacts to the wetland by locating the development within the
buffer and outside of the wetland itself, in areas dominated by grasses and non-
native shrubs. The project would minimize impacts by locating the development
as far away from the wetland as possible, in a portion of the buffer with low
function. The associated variance request, if granted, would further ensure
development does not impact the wetland. The project would use pervious
pavement to reduce stormwater impacts.
The proposal would include compensatory mitigation for permanent buffer
impacts through installation of native plants around the development and
protection of the buffer with a line of conifer trees and a fence.
Replacing the culvert under Belfair Avenue would reconnect a historically
connected wetland system on both sides of the right-of-way that was disrupted
due to improper culvert installation.
The Applicant met with staff on May 10, 2018, and further reduced the area of
impact on Lot 6. With these changes, the proposal would be the minimum
necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property.
The land was approved for division on 1960 as part of the For Ward Estates
Division 1 Plat, long before the Applicant or the Applicant’s predecessor
purchased the property.
The wetland delineation report and mitigation plan indicates that the size of
Wetland A has continued to increase since the culvert under Belfair Avenue was
first improperly installed. Replacing the culvert would improve hydrologic
connectivity and wildlife passage, and increase diversity within the northern
wetlands. This would also allow for greater plant diversity to spread throughout
the wetland system, improving water quality. Although replacing the culvert may
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 10 of 20
shrink the boundary of the wetland over time, it would not shrink the wetland
beyond its original boundary as delineated in 1992. In addition, the water quality
and habitat functional lifts would outweigh the impacts from the reduced size of
Wetland A.
The wetland delineation report and mitigation is based on best available science
and would adequately compensate for impacts to the critical area, resulting in no
net loss of critical area functions and values. Replacing the culvert may, in fact,
result in net ecological gains for the critical area, as the wetland would regain its
history hydrologic connectivity.
Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 10 through 16.
Major Variances
17. Variances are the mechanism by which the City may grant relief from the provisions of
the zoning ordinance where practical difficulty renders compliance with certain
provisions of the code an unnecessary hardship, where the hardship is a result of the
physical characteristics of the subject property and where the purpose of the
comprehensive plan is fulfilled. BIMC 2.16.120. Here, a wetland buffer covers the
entirety of both lots. The lots were created in 1960, prior to the enactment of the critical
areas ordinances. The Applicant requests a variance from the required 25-foot front yard
setback to five feet in order locate each proposed residence as far away from the wetland
as possible. With the variance, the future residences would still be located approximately
40 feet from the developed portion of Soundview Drive NE. Exhibit 21, Staff Report,
pages 19 through 21.
18. City staff analyzed the proposal for compliance with the variance criteria under BIMC
2.16.120 and determined:
The requested variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 5 feet
would be consistent with all other provisions of the municipal code.
The need for a variance has not arisen from previous actions taken or proposed by
the Applicant.
Reasonable use of the property would be denied without a RUEX because of the
presence of wetland buffers encumbering the entire property. Granting the
variance would allow less intrusion into the wetland buffers by locating the
proposed single-family residences as far from the wetland edge as possible.
Denying the variance would increase impacts to the wetland. Additionally, the
ROW for Soundview Drive NE is 60-feet wide and the developed portion of the
ROW is approximately 20-feet wide, located on the western edge of the ROW.
Accordingly, despite the reduced front yard setback, the single-family residences
would be located approximately 40 feet from the developed portion of Soundview
Drive NE, providing a physical separation from the developed portion of the
ROW exceeding the 25-foot setback requirement.
Exhibit 21, Staff Report, pages 18 through 21.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 11 of 20
Written Comments
19. The City received written comments from applicable departments and agencies reviewing
the proposal, including:
Department of Public Works Development Engineer Janelle Hitch noted that a
stormwater management plan would be required, that a shared driveway between
lots should be assessed to minimize hard surfacing, and that low impact
development techniques should be considered. She also noted that all work
would be subject to transportation impact fees under Chapter BIMC 15.30 and
that a ROW permit would need to be obtained prior to any work being performed
within the City’s ROW.
Fire Marshal and Assistant Fire Chief Luke Marshal commented that the project
must comply with all provisions of the municipal fire code and that future
development may require the installation of fire hydrants or residential fire
sprinklers.
Kitsap Public Health District noted that a Building Clearance for Sewered
Properties (Sewered BC) permit would be required prior to building permits being
issued.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) provided an email, dated
December 19, 2017, detailing the circumstances that would require an Army
Corps permit for the work replacing the culvert.
Exhibit 1; Exhibit 11.
20. The City also received several comments from area residents in response to its notice
materials. Specifically:
Rob Fulwell wrote the City expressing opposition to the proposal. He stressed
that wetlands and their associated buffers exist for good reason, that protected
areas in the neighborhood are already under siege, and that any residence
developed on the property would likely have continual water and pest problems.
Brian Berdan wrote expressing opposition to the proposal, also noting that
wetland buffers should be respected.
Carolyn Siscoe provided several comment letters in opposition to the proposal.
Specifically, she expressed concern that reducing front yard setbacks would
decrease front gardens and natural sound barriers and create a “blight” in the
neighborhood inconsistent with other properties. Ms. Siscoe also expressed
concern over: the proposed home sizes the aesthetic impacts from development,
the lack of consideration of wildlife and wildlife corridors, and the need for
additional study related to wetland impacts and impacts to area wildlife.
Mary Dombrowski wrote the City with concerns about the alignment of the paved
portion of Soundview Drive NE and associated safety issues. She also expressed
concern over potential wetland impacts, aesthetic impacts from the buffer
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 12 of 20
reduction, and the possibility that title to the lots in question is clouded because
other residents have used the lots continuously for approximately 30 years.
Eileen Safford provided several comment letters in opposition to the proposal.
Specifically, she expressed concern over the wetland and wetland buffers
associated with the property being “chipped way at since the current sewer system
made building on surrounding lots possible.” She also reiterated Ms.
Dombrowski’s concerns about the alignment of Soundview Drive NE.
Exhibit 13; Exhibit 18.
Testimony
21. City Planner Annie Hillier testified generally about the history of the property and the
process that occurred in reviewing the proposal. She stressed that, in reviewing the
proposal, the City sought to ensure that the off-site wetland received the greatest
protection and that the current proposal would achieve that. Ms. Hillier noted that three
lots south of the subject property received similar RUEXs and variances in 2017. She
explained that, due to the small lot sizes, opportunities for on-site mitigation to wetland
buffer impacts would be limited but the Applicant would also provide off-site mitigation
through replacing the improperly installed culvert under Belfair Avenue. Ms. Hillier
noted that additional approvals would be required prior to culvert replacement and that, if
culvert replacement were deemed infeasible, the approved RUEX would need to be
modified. She explained that the City requested additional information throughout the
review process and that resulted in the Applicant submitting three iterations of the
Wetland Report. She noted that the wetland delineation did not change between the three
versions of the Wetland Report, that the second version added information about the
culvert replacement, and that the third version incorporated changes that the Applicant
proposed to further reduce wetland buffer impacts on Lot 6. Ms. Hiller explained that the
City independently reviewed the Wetland Report (one of the City’s long-range planners
was trained as a wetland biologist) and concurred with its assessment. She also noted
that the City has no plans to realign Soundview Drive NE. Testimony of Ms. Hillier.
22. Applicant Representative Julian Prosser testified that he plans to live with his family in
one of the two residences and use the other residence as an investment property. He
noted that, currently, Soundview Drive NE is not well maintained and that the proposal
would enhance the streetscape and be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Prosser
explained that he is an architect and would ensure that appropriate engineering and
construction practices are used during project development. Testimony of Mr. Prosser.
23. Mary Dombrowski testified about the history of the Fort Ward area. She noted that the
area is part of a national historic district and that, several years ago, interested
stakeholders came together to develop the Fort Ward Action Plan. The City later adopted
much of the plan and the group received accolades for producing the plan. Ms.
Dombrowski stressed that she would like to see development comply with the Fort Ward
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 13 of 20
Action Plan, especially in relation to garage location and the potential for a shared
driveway serving both lots. She also reiterated the concerns she raised in the written
comments she previously submitted to the City and stressed that now would be the time
to move Soundview Drive NE south of Belfair to the center of the ROW. There is
significant traffic in the area, especially related to school bus stops, and either having the
ROW of corrected or clearly demarcating where the property line for the proposal ends
and the ROW of begins would be beneficial. Testimony of Ms. Dombrowski.
24. Eileen Safford testified that she is a long-time neighboring property owner and that she
and her husband believe they have a legitimate claim to these properties through adverse
possession. At the hearing, Ms. Safford brought a copy of a lawsuit she filed in superior
court, the day before the hearing, further bolstering this argument. In addition to the
adverse possession claim, Ms. Safford reiterated many of the concerns she previously
expressed in written comments submitted to the City, including concerns about wetland
impacts, inappropriate development, and the alignment of Soundview Drive NE. In
addition, she expressed the belief that, because the Applicant was aware that the property
was encumbered by wetlands when he purchased it, a RUEX should not be granted.
Testimony of Ms. Safford.
25. In response to public testimony, Ms. Hillier noted that the proposal would be reviewed
against the Fort Ward Design Guidelines at the building permit stage and that traffic
impacts would also be evaluated when the Applicant applies for building permits.
Testimony of Ms. Hillier.
26. Mr. Prosser testified that a shared driveway for the two lots was considered early on
during the review process. It was determined, however, that the Applicant could achieve
a project design with fewer impacts to the wetland buffer without a shared driveway than
would be possible with a shared driveway. Mr. Prosser also stated that the Applicant
would agree to a condition requiring that a clear demarcation between the property line
and the ROW on Soundview Drive NE be provided, such as through use of a split-rail
fence. Testimony of Mr. Prosser.
Staff Recommendation
27. Ms. Hillier testified that City staff reviewed the proposal and recommend approval with
the 16 SEPA mitigation conditions, and several additional conditions. Mr. Prosser
testified that the Applicant would comply with the City’s recommended conditions.
Exhibit 21, Staff Report pages 1 through 4; Testimony of Ms. Hillier; Testimony of Mr.
Prosser.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 14 of 20
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
The Hearing Examiner has authority to hear and approve, approve with conditions, deny, or
remand a request for a Reasonable Use Exception or Major Variance. BIMC 2.14.030; BIMC
2.16.100; BIMC 2.16.120; BIMC 16.20.080.E.
Criteria for Review
Reasonable Use Exceptions
Criteria for review and approval of reasonable use exceptions are as follows:
1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the
property;
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the
critical area or its required buffer;
3. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with
mitigation sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
4. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to
allow reasonable use of the property;
5. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is
not the result of actions by the applicant, or of the applicant’s predecessor,
that occurred after February 20, 1992;
6. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for
residential development;
7. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare on or off the property;
8. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance
with mitigation requirements applicable to the critical area altered;
9. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with
the best available science and results in no net loss of critical area
functions and values;
10. The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action; and
11. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
BIMC 16.20.080.F
Major Variance
A major variance may be approved or approved with conditions if:
a. The variance is consistent with all other provisions of this code, except
those provisions that are subject to the variance, and is in accord with the
comprehensive plan;
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 15 of 20
b. The need for a variance has not arisen from previous actions taken or
proposed by the applicant;
c. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone, but that is denied to the property in question because of special
circumstances on the property in question, and will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other
properties in the vicinity in which the property is located;
d. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone in which the property is located; and
e. The variance is requested because of special circumstances related to the
size, shape, topography, trees, groundcover, location or surroundings of
the subject property, or factors necessary for the successful installation of
a solar energy system such as a particular orientation of a building for the
purposes of providing solar access.
BIMC 2.16.120.E.1.
The criteria for review adopted by the City of Bainbridge Island City Council are designed to
implement the requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In
particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to
ensure consistency with City development regulations, considering the type of land use, the level
of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040.
Conclusions Based on Findings
1. With conditions, the proposal would meet the Reasonable Use Exception criteria of
BIMC 16.20.080.F. The City provided reasonable notice and opportunities to comment
on the applications and the City’s SEPA determination. The City determined that, with
mitigation, the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
The MDNS was not appealed. A wetland buffer covers both Lots 5 and 6, and strict
application of the City’s critical areas ordinances would deny all reasonable use of the
property. Neither the City nor public comments suggested any alternative uses for the
property. The Applicant is proposing lot coverage of 1,179 square feet on each lot. The
Applicant submitted a Wetland Report setting out mitigation sequencing that would
minimize the impact on critical areas. The Wetland Report also determined that the
proposal would be the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. The
lots were created in 1960, prior to the adoption of the City’s critical area ordinances, and
are not the result of any action of the Applicant. Public comment was received in support
of protecting wetlands and wetland buffers, as well a neighborhood character and
concerns about additional traffic. No evidence, however, was presented that the proposal
would pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the
property. The Applicant’s Wetland Report contains monitoring and contingency plans,
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 16 of 20
along with enhancement of the remaining wetland buffer on the two lots. The Applicant
would replace a culvert under Belfair Avenue to restore the natural flow of water and
better connect the wetlands north and south of Belfair Avenue. The City determined that
the Wetland Report and mitigation plan is based on the best available science and would
result in no net loss of critical area functions and values. The Wetland Report and
mitigation plan address the cumulative impacts of the action on both lots. No
information was provided about whether additional RUEXs in the area would be
required. With conditions, the proposal would be consistent with the City’s other
applicable regulations and standards, except for the requirement for a 25-foot front yard
setback.
Conditions are necessary to ensure that the proposal complies with the 16 conditions
required by the MDNS. In addition, conditions are necessary to ensure that the proposal
would be subject to the Fort Ward Overlay design guidelines; the proposed residences
would meet all setback and height requirements for the zoning district (apart from the 25-
foot front yard setback); the Applicant submits a stormwater management plan at the time
of first building permit application; building permits comply with the City’s adopted Fire
Code; the Applicant records a notice to title of the presence of the wetland, wetland
buffer, and mitigation plan; and the Applicant obtains all other required permits,
including an HPA for replacement of the culvert. In addition, in light of the pending
litigation involving the adverse possession claim, the Applicant shall sign a “Hold
Harmless Agreement,” prepared in conjunction with the City, clearly indicating that: the
matter involves a civil dispute between the Applicant and the adverse possession
claimant; that by granting the RUEXs and variances the City in no way is involving itself
in the dispute between the parties; and that the Applicant proceeds at its own risk in
moving forward with the proposal prior to adjudication of the adverse possession claim in
superior court.4 Findings 1 – 27.
2. With conditions, the proposal would meet the Major Variance criteria of BIMC
2.16.120.E. The variance is consistent with all other provisions of the BIMC, except the
front yard setback. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages
sustainable development, as well as preservation and enhancement of the city’s natural
systems, natural beauty, and environmental quality. The need for a variance has not
arisen from previous actions taken or proposed by the Applicant. The variance is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, possessed by
other property in the same vicinity and zone, i.e., the ability to construct a single-family
residence on a buildable lot. This property right would be denied because of the special
circumstances on the property in question, due to the wetland buffer covering the
property. Granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
4 Although not directly on point, Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985), cautions against moving
forward with development with an adverse possession claim pending.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 17 of 20
property is located. The variance is requested because of special circumstances related to
the presence of a nearby Category III wetland and a wetland buffer that covers the two
lots. As noted above in Conclusion 1, conditions are necessary to ensure that the
proposal complies with the MDNS and all other federal, state, and local requirements as
well as requirements unique to this proposal. Findings 1 – 27.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for reasonable use exceptions
and major variances to allow construction of a single-family residence on each of two lots, Lots
5 and 6 (Block 4) of Fort Ward Estates, adjacent to 2171 Soundview Drive NE, is APPROVED,
with the following conditions:
SEPA Conditions:
1. In order to protect the ground water and the wetland flora and fauna from the proposed
development, the roofing shall be of a non-leaching material that is not harmful to the
environment. Examples of non-leaching materials are, but are not limited to, metal and
tile roofs. Any alternative method proposed requires approval by the City, prior to final
building permit issuance, and must address BIMC water quality standards, Chapter 13.24
BIMC, to ensure that wetland flora and fauna functions and values are
maintained/enhanced.
2. Prior to commencing any construction activity, the Applicant shall have the wetland
buffer temporarily fenced between the areas of construction activity, a maximum of 15
feet from the proposed residence. The fence shall be made of durable material and shall
be highly visible. The fence shall be inspected as part of the building permit. The
temporary fencing shall be removed once the construction activity is complete and
replaced with permanent fencing (see condition #3, below).
3. A split-rail type fence shall be installed along the edge of the native vegetation buffer
area. The rails shall be high enough to allow small mammals and wildlife to pass
through. The fence shall be indicated on the building permit application and in place
prior to final inspection on the building permit.
4. A minimum of two signs per lot indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer
shall be placed on the fence, prior to final inspection on the building permit. Signs shall
be made of metal or a similar durable material and shall be between 64 and 144 square
inches in size.
5. The wetland mitigation plan, including mitigation goals and objectives, performance
standards, maintenance and monitoring measures, and contingency actions, shall be
submitted with the building permit application and approved prior to final building
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 18 of 20
inspection. All plantings shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection, or a
surety shall be provided in accordance BIMC 16.20.180.
6. Any modification to the culvert must be supported with a hydraulic and hydrologic
analysis consistent with the Department of Ecology’s 2014 Stormwater Management
Minimum Requirement #8 (MR #8), Wetlands Protection and must include a quantitative
downstream analysis of the downstream system. The quantitative downstream analysis
shall demonstrate that the storage of stormwater and attenuation of peak flows will not be
altered to the detriment of the downstream property owners, wetlands, and drainage
channels and conveyances. The Wetlands Protection analysis must demonstrate
compliance with Guide Sheet 3B to maintain the existing hydroperiod of the wetlands;
the analysis shall demonstrate that daily and monthly inputs to the adjacent wetland and
downstream wetlands do not vary by more than 20% and 15% respectively, compared to
existing conditions. Any anticipated impacts to landowners or downstream flow
increases must be mitigated up to the 100-year storm discharge. These analyses shall be
submitted with the Critical Areas permit (Condition #7).
7. All required permits and approvals shall be obtained prior to culvert replacement,
including a Right-of-Way (ROW) Permit from the Department of Public Works, a
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
Critical Areas Permit from the Department of Planning and Community Development. A
copy of the HPA shall be included in the materials submitted with the Critical Areas
Permit application and ROW Permit application.
8. The replacement culvert shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection for the
first SFR, or an assurance device shall be provided in accordance with BIMC 16.20.180.
9. If the required analyses (Condition #6) prove the culvert replacement infeasible or the
Applicant decides to retract the culvert replacement proposal, an amendment to the
RUEX with an alternative mitigation proposal shall be approved prior to building permit
issuance, and conditions 6-8 do not apply.
10. If the performance standards in the mitigation plan are not met, a contingency plan shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development for approval.
Any additional permits or approvals necessary for contingency actions shall be obtained
prior implementing the contingency plan.
11. To reduce impacts to the wetland, the Applicant shall limit the amount of lighting on the
exterior of the residence to the minimum necessary, shall install motion sensor lights to
the rear of the house facing the wetland, and record a covenant to limit the use of
pesticides on the properties.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 19 of 20
12. Disturbance to the 60-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) from construction activities shall be
restored in accordance with the Public Works ROW restoration requirements. Disturbed
road shoulders and vegetation strips shall be replaced with the standard 3-foot-wide
crushed surfacing top course gravel ballast shoulder. Disturbed areas beyond the road
prism shall be regraded to provide drainage via grassed swales and/or replanted. The
house construction shall allow drainage from the ROW to continue to the wetlands along
the side yards to match existing drainage patterns, where it occurs.
13. Each lot shall submit a bid comparison/analysis to demonstrate that the Applicant has
considered utilizing the minimal excavation foundation systems per the 2012 Low Impact
Development Guidance Manual for Puget Sound as a means of minimizing impacts to the
site and adjacent wetlands. The bid/comparison analysis shall demonstrate that the
Applicant has engaged with the appropriate design and construction professionals to
explore this foundation system option. The bid shall be obtained from a designer or
installer with previous experience building with this technology.
14. Surface stormwater from driveway and parking spaces shall receive pre-treatment prior to
discharging to the wetlands or leaving the site by directing stormwater to vegetated
dispersion strips, rain gardens where soils allow, or the use of permeable pavement
(outside of the ROW only), or other alternatives consistent with MR #5, On-Site
Stormwater Management of the stormwater manual.
15. Hardscaping shall be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide permeable
jointing where feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface filtration of surface
stormwater.
16. Diffuse flow methods (i.e., BMP C206: Level Spreader, or BMP T5.10B: Downspout
Dispersion Systems) shall be used to discharge roof surface stormwater into the wetland
where full infiltration on-site is not feasible.
Project Conditions:
17. The proposed residence shall meet the setback and height requirements for the R-2
zoning district, with the exception of the 25-foot front setback. To ensure the 5-foot front
yard setback is met, the Applicant shall have the setback marked and inspected by
planning staff prior to commencing construction.
18. The Applicant shall record a notice to title of the presence of the wetland, wetland buffer,
and mitigation plan, prior to the issuance of the building permits.
19. The proposed single family residences are subject to the Fort Ward Overlay design
guidelines and shall be reviewed for compliance with the guidelines at building permit
submittal.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Soundview Drive Lots 5 & 6, Nos. PLN-50850A/PLN-50850B
Reasonable Use Exceptions and Variances
Page 20 of 20
20. A stormwater management plan is required and must meet minimum requirements 1
through 9 of the 2014 SWMMWW as adopted by the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code
at the time of the first building permit application.
21. A building clearance for Sewered Properties (Sewered BC) is required prior to the
issuance of the building permits.
22. The proposal and future building permits shall comply with all provisions of the adopted
Fire Code. Future development may require the installation of fire hydrant(s) or
residential fire sprinklers to meet fire flow requirements.
23. The Applicant shall clearly demarcate the boundary between the properties and the
undeveloped ROW associated with Soundview Drive NE through use of a split rail fence,
landscaping, or other such visual device.
24. In light of the pending litigation involving the adverse possession claim, the Applicant
shall sign a “Hold Harmless Agreement,” prepared in conjunction with the City, clearly
indicating that: the matter involves a civil dispute between the Applicant and the adverse
possession claimant; that by granting the RUEXs and variances the City in no way is
involving itself in the dispute between the parties; and that the Applicant proceeds at its
own risk in moving forward with the proposal prior to adjudication of the adverse
possession claim in superior court.
Decided this 17th day of July 2018.
ANDREW M. REEVES
Hearing Examiner
Sound Law Center
EXHIBIT LIST
Soundview Drive Lot 5 RUE & VAR (PLN50850A)
Soundview Drive Lot 6 RUE & VAR (PLN50850B)
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: June 28, 2018
Annie Hillier, Planner City Hall – Council Chambers
Hearing Examiner: Andrew Reeves
NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE
1 Preapplication Letter-Checklist, with memos from COBI Development Engineer,
Bainbridge Island Fire Department, and Kitsap Public Health District
06/23/2017
Dated
2 Application – Two Reasonable Use Exceptions and Two Major Variances 11/14/2017
Received
3 DRAFT – Wetland Delineation Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan 11/14/2017
Received
4 Soils/Drainage Report 11/14/2017
Received
5 Environmental (SEPA) Checklist 11/14/2017
Received
6 Project Narrative 11/14/2017
Received
7 Site Assessment Review Application 11/14/2017
Received
8 DRAFT – Site Plan 11/14/2017
Received
9 Notice of Complete Application 12/12/2017
Dated
10 Information Request Letter 12/15/2017
Dated
11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Email Correspondence 12/19/17
Received
12 Notice of Application and SEPA Comment Period, Mailing List, and Affidavit of
Publication
12/22/2017
Dated
13 Public Comments, received during SEPA comment period various
14 REVISED – Wetland Delineation and Buffer Mitigation Plan 02/06/2018
Received
15 Notice of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) 05/15/2018
Dated
16 Public Comments, received during the MDNS comment period 05/29/2018
Dated
17 Notice of Hearing, Mailing List, Affidavit of Publication, and Certificate of Posting
Signs
06/01/2018
Dated
18 Public Comments, received throughout the application review various
19 FINAL – Wetland Delineation Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan 06/14/2018
Received
20 FINAL – Site Plan 06/14/2018
Received
21 Staff Report 06/28/2018
Dated
Exhibit 1
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
June 23, 2017
Limited Liability Company
303 Madison Ave. S., Ste 108
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for meeting with City staff on June 20, 2017 to discuss your proposal to construct two single
family residences (SFRs) on two lots at Fort Ward Estates. A summary of the land use review process,
applicable Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) regulations, comments from reviewers, fees,
submittal requirements, and next steps is provided below.
General Information
Pre-Application Conference Date: June 20, 2017
Project Name and Number: Inhabit LLC Pre-App – PLN 50850 PRE
Project Description: Construct two SFRs on Lots 5 and 6 (Block 4) of Fort Ward Estates, on Soundview
Drive NE. Lot 5 contains a mapped wetland on its eastern edge, and both lots are encumbered by
associated wetland buffers.
Project Address: 2171 Soundview Dr. NE (Lot 5) and TBD (Lot 6)
Tax Parcel Number(s): 4146-004-005-0004 (Lot 5) and 4146-004-006-0003 (Lot 6)
Tax Parcel Size: 0.2 acres (Lot 5) and 0.16 acres (Lot 6)
Zoning/Comp Plan Designation: R-2
Planning Contact: Annie Hillier
Development Engineer: Janelle Hitch
Land Use Review Process
Applications Required
Reasonable Use Exception: BIMC 16.20.080 – A reasonable use exception (RUE) is intended to ensure
reasonable use of a property when reasonable use of that property cannot be achieved through any
other means. Given the extent of the water quality buffer and the inability to achieve reasonable use
of the property through other means (i.e. buffer averaging, a habitat management plan, or a
variance), an RUE appears to be the only way to develop the properties as proposed. Criteria for
review and approval include a maximum total lot coverage of 1,200 square feet, and a mitigation plan
in accordance with BIMC 16.20.110.
Variance (Major): BIMC 2.16.120 – The major variance process may be used for deviation from zoning
standards in BIMC Title 18 that the director determines exceed the threshold for minor variances
under BIMC 2.16.060. A variance is authorized only for lot coverage, size of structure or size of
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
setbacks. As proposed, reducing the 25 ft. front yard setback to 5 ft. (Lot 6) and 10 ft. (Lot 5) would
require major variances.
Note: Development of single family residences would require building permit applications.
Fees
Planning Fees: $5,724 (VAR) + $1,272 (RUE) per lot
Health Fees: $109 per lot
Approval Body
Quasi-judicial decision by Hearing Examiner (BIMC Table 2.16.010-1)
Review and Recommendation
BIMC 2.16.100:
SEPA Environmental Review*
Director (review and recommendation)
Planning Commission (optional)
Public Hearing (report presented to hearing examiner)
Other required reviews and supplemental information:
Critical area report* (this includes the wetland delineation and mitigation plan)
Kitsap Public Health District review
Bainbridge Island Fire Department review
Planning Division review
Development Engineer review
*The SEPA checklist and critical area report are application submittal requirements. See the
Administrative Manual for additional submittal requirements (http://www.ci.bainbridge-
isl.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/100).
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Requirements – Planning Checklist
BIMC 2.16 – Land Use Review Procedures
Review procedures for a Reasonable Use Exception are outlined in BIMC 2.16.100 and BIMC
16.20.080; review procedures for a Variance (major) are outlined in BIMC 2.16.120.
BIMC 16.04 – Environmental Policy
The projects are subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as provided in
Chapter 43.21C RCW and BIMC Chapter 16.04. One SEPA checklist will be required upon application
submittal.
BIMC 16.12 – Shoreline Master Program
The subject properties are outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
BIMC 16.20 – Critical Areas
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
The subject properties are completely encumbered by a wetland and its associated buffers. As such,
mitigation on-site does not appear to be an option. An application for an RUE requires a critical area
report, including a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with BIMC Section 16.20.110 (Mitigation
Plan Requirements). As discussed, the applicant proposed mitigation impacts on the adjacent City-
owned property. City staff is inquiring into the possibility of mitigating wetland impacts on the
property, and will follow-up with the applicant/agent accordingly. Please note, the RUE and VAR
applications cannot be submitted without a mitigation proposal.
Please note the RUE criteria for review and approval in BIMC 16.20.080.G, which include no
reasonable alternative to the proposal; minimum impact to the wetland; and total lot coverage
(building footprint) does not exceed 1,200 sq.ft.
Staff also discussed the need for the applicant to demonstrate minimal impact to the wetland; and
particularly a reduction in the amount of proposed lawn/yard area.
BIMC 18.09 – Use Regulations
Development of single family residences is a permitted use under BIMC 18.09.020, subject to the
development standards as outlined in BIMC 16.20 Critical Areas.
BIMC 18.12 – Dimensional Standards
Lot Coverage: 20%*
Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.**
Side Yard Setback: 5 ft. min
Total Side Yard Setback: 15 ft.
Rear Yard Setback: 15 ft.
Max Building Height: 30 ft.
* Lot coverage restricted to 1,200 sq. ft. per RUE criteria for approval
* *Seeking variance from front yard setback
BIMC 18.15 – Development Standards and Guidelines
Development shall comply with the parking standards as set forth in BIMC 18.15.020, which requires
two spaces for each primary dwelling unit. Further it is recommended that hard surfaces be
minimized by utilizing a shared driveway between lots. The general parking requirements outlined in
BIMC 18.15.020.B also encourage two-track driveways (also known as Hollywood or wheel strip
driveways).
BIMC 18.18 – Design Standards and Guidelines
Development of single family residences on the subject properties shall comply with the Fort Ward
Design Guidelines (BIMC 18.18.030.J).
BIMC 20.04 – City Fire Code
The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted Fire Code (International Fire
Code, 2015 Edition).
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
Department/Agency Comments
Development Engineer Comment:
Janelle Hitch provided the attached comment and can be reached at (206) 780-3783 or
jhitch@bainbridgewa.gov.
As discussed during the Preapplication conference, Janelle recommended revising the site plan to
reduce hard surfaces to less than 5,000 sq.ft. Janelle also intends to provide information regarding the
City-owned right-of-way in front of the two properties, and how this might impact the applicant’s
landscaping plans.
Bainbridge Island Fire District Comment:
Fire Marshal, Luke Carpenter, provided the attached comment and can be reached at (206) 842-7686
or lcarpenter@bifd.org.
Kitsap Public Health District Comment:
Steve Brown, Environmental Health Specialist, provided the attached comment and can be reached at
(360) 337-5285 or steve.brown@kitsappublichealth.org.
The fee for a Reasonable Use Exception and a Variance (major) is $5,724 (VAR) + $1,272 (RUE) per lot,
due at time of submittal. The Health District also requires $109 per lot for review, due at time of
submittal as a separate check. Please review the City’s new Administrative Manual
(http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/100) for all submittal requirements. Once
you are ready to submit an application for the Reasonable Use Exception and the Variance (major),
contact Jay Harris at (206) 780-3770 or jharris@bainbridgewa.gov to schedule an intake appointment. If
you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 780-3773 or ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov.
Sincerely,
_________________________________
Annie Hillier
Planner
Please note that information provided at the pre-application conference and in this letter reflects existing codes and standards, currently
available information about the site and environs, and the level of detail provided in the pre-application conference submittal. Comments
provided pursuant to pre-application review shall not be construed to relieve the applicant of conformance with all applicable fees, codes,
policies, and standards in effect at the time of complete land use permit application. The comments on this proposal do not represent or
guarantee approval of any project or permit. While we have attempted to cover as many of the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire related
aspects of your proposal as possible during this preliminary review, subsequent review of your land use permit application may reveal issues not
identified during the is initial review. If the city’s pre-application review indicates that the City intends to recommend or impose one or more
conditions of permit approval, and if the applicant objects to any of said conditions, the applicant is hereby requested and advised to provide
written notice to the City of which conditions the applicant objects to and the reasons for the applicant’s objections.
Bainbridge Island Fire Department
Memo
June 9, 2017
TO: Annie Hillier, Planning Department
FR: Assistant Chief Luke Carpenter, Fire Marshal
RE: Inhabit LLC PLN50850
The submittal has been reviewed resulting in the following comments:
1. The proposed project shall comply with all provisions of the adopted
Fire Code.
2. Future development may require the installation of fire hydrant(s) or
residential fire sprinklers to meet fire flow requirements.
kitsappublichealth.org
Pre-application Checklist
Date: June 12, 2017
C.O.B.I. Planner: Annie Hillier
Applicant: Inhabit LLC
Project Name: Inhabit LLC PRE
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The following items will need to be applied for/submitted to the Kitsap Public Health District before COBI will
accept your permit application:
Building Clearance for Sewered Properties (Sewered BC) prior to the issuance of the building permit.
2017 Fees: Short Plat (onsite) - $475.00 (9 lots or less), Plat (on-site) - 10 or more lots - $555.00 plus $41.00 per lot (after 10), Plat on sewer -
$158.00, large lot subdivision - $109.00, BSA’s – fees vary (contact the Health District)
Other Land Use Apps. - $218.00 (or $109.00 with copy of the submitted BSA or Building Clearance attached)
Site Plan Review - $109.00 (BSA required at time of submittal if on septic)
Building Clearance - $241.00, B.C. Exemption-$79.00, Commercial B.C. - $284.00-$393.00, Sewered B.C. - $66.00
$109.00 per hour may be billed for any additional time spent on project review.
See the Health District fee schedule for details.
________________________________________________________________________________________
This list may not address all Health District requirements. It is based only on the information provided.
Please call if you have any questions.
Steven J. Brown Environmental Health Specialist II (360)728-2277
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Prepared for:
Julian Prosser
330 Madison Avenue, Suite 108
Bainbridge Island,WA 98110
(206)550-9004
Prepared by:
Ecological Land Services, Inc.
1157 3rd Avenue, Suite 220A
Longview, Washington 98632
(360) 578-1371
Project Number 2405.01
September 13, 2017
Wetland Delineation Report
and
Buffer Mitigation Plan
for
Fort Ward Lots 5 & 6
Bainbridge Island,Washington
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5& 6 RUE Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report i August 23, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................1
SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................................1
VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................2
SOILS ................................................................................................................................................3
HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................................3
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY .................................................................................................4
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREAS ...........................................................................................4
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................4
WETLAND CATEGORIZATION .....................................................................................................4
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS ..................................................................................................4
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ...................................................................................................5
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL .....................................................................................................5
MITIGATION SEQUENCING ..............................................................................................................6
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................................7
MAINTENANCE ..............................................................................................................................11
MONITORING PLAN .......................................................................................................................11
CONTINGENCY PLAN .....................................................................................................................12
SITE PROTECTION .........................................................................................................................13
LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................13
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................14
FIGURES & PHOTOPLATES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Buffer Impact Map
Figure 4 Soil Survey Map
Figure 5 National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 6 Bainbridge Island Critical Areas Map
Figure 7 WRF -150’Offset
Figure 8 WRF –1 KM Offset
Figure 9 Wetland Comparison Map
Figure 10 Mitigation Plan Overview
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5& 6 RUE Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report ii August 23, 2017
Figure 11 Wetland Rating Figure –303(d)/TMDL
Photoplates Site Photos
APPENDIX A
Wetland Determination Data Forms
APPENDIX B
Western Washington Wetland Rating Form
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5& 6 RUE Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report iii August 23, 2017
SIGNATURE PAGE
The information and data in this report were compiled and prepared under the supervision and
direction of the undersigned.
___________________________
Joanne Bartlett, PWS
Senior Biologist
Laura Westervelt
Biologist
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 1 August 23, 2017
INTRODUCTION
Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS)was contracted by Julian Prosser to conduct a wetland
boundary delineation and report for Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 and 6,which is comprised of parcel
numbers 4146-004-005-0004 and 4146-004-006-0003,within a portion of Section 11,Township
24 North, Range 2 East of the Willamette Meridian,in Bainbridge Island, Washington (Figure 1).
This report summarizes findings of the wetland delineation according to the City of Bainbridge
Island Municipal Code (BIMC), Chapter 16.20.160 (2007)for delineation methodology, wetland
categorization, and required buffer widths.
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 (Ecology), and locally by Bainbridge Island.
To determine the current presence or absence of wetlands on this property, ELS biologists
collected data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils.The delineation site visit was conducted on
June 10, 2016 during which,one wetland was delineated east of Lot 6 and along the east property
line of Lot 5.There was also a delineation site visit conducted on lots 2, 3, and 4 to the south on
September 9, 2016, which continued the wetland boundary to the southern extent.The boundary
of the wetland was delineated using consecutively numbered fluorescent flagging labeled
“WETLAND DELINEATION.” Wetland boundaries were determined through breaks in
topography, changes in vegetation, and evidence of surface hydrology. Vegetation, hydrology, and
soil data was collected at four test plots to verify the wetland boundary delineations (Appendix A).
The wetland boundary was mapped using a Trimble handheld Global Positioning System (GPS)
unit to show the extent of the wetland on the site map (Figure 2).
SITE DESCRIPTION
Lots 5 and 6 are located on the east side of Soundview Drive NE (Photoplate 1)in the Fort Ward
Estates area of Bainbridge Island (Figure 1).They are rectangular-shaped parcels with Lot 6
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 2 August 23, 2017
oriented north to south and Lot 5 oriented west to east (Figure 2).The properties are level on the
west side and slope down gradually into a shallow depression on the east half (Photoplates 2 and
3).The properties are undeveloped,but the level areas near the road are being mowed and utilized
by neighboring residents for storage of vehicles. The two lots are composed mainly of disturbed
upland forest (Photoplates 1, 2, 4, and 5)with a deciduous tree canopy occurring in places.The
shrub layer is extremely dense below the sparse trees and creates an impenetrable barrier.The
adjacent properties are undeveloped, with the exception of the properties across Soundview Drive
which are developed residentially.The right-of-way of Belfair Avenue lies north of Lot 6 but is
unimproved and used as a pedestrian path.
The wetland was identified and delineated east of Lot 6 extending south along the east edge of Lot
5 (Figure 2). Wetland A is situated in a depressional trough bordered by residential development
on the southeast and south sides. It is a depressional system dominated by a combination of
forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent vegetation communities (Photoplates 3,4, and 5).The
wetland has a seasonally flooded hydroperiod with northerly water flow into a culvert at the north
end that conveys water into wetlands north of Belfair Avenue (Photoplate 4).
The project will propose 2 single family residences, one on each lot. A mitigation plan has been
prepared to address the impacts associated with constructing the homes within the water quality
buffer.Mitigation is proposed as a combination of onsite enhancement and replacement of the
culvert.The culvert was not installed at the proper grade and is angled up to the north so water
only leaves the wetland during periods of high precipitation events (Figure 9).
VEGETATION
Wetland Vegetation
Wetlands A is comprised of forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent communities.There were no trees
at Test Plot 1 in Wetland A but the adjacent tree canopy is dominated by western red cedar (Thuja
plicata,FAC)and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata, FACU). The shrub layer was dominated by
dense rose spirea (Spiraea douglasii, FACW)and Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC)with
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC)occurring in Test Plot 4. Lower percentages of
pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp.lasiandra, FACW), English hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna,
FAC), and English holly (Ilex aquifolium, FACU)occur in wetland test plots.Lady fern (Athyrium
cyclosorum, FAC), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW), and large-leaf avens (Geum
macrophyllum, FACU) dominate the herbaceous layer with lower percentages of sword fern
(Polystichum munitum, FACU),horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC),velvet grass (Holcus lanatus,
FAC),soft rush (Juncus effusus, FACW),and American vetch (Vicia americana, FAC)also
present.
Upland Vegetation
The upland areas onsite are composed of forested and shrub communities. The upland test plots
did not include trees,however the adjacent forest was dominated by western red cedar, red alder
(Alnus rubra,FAC), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU).Shrub vegetation in upland
test plots is dominated by Nootka rose,English hawthorn, and Himalayan blackberry with lower
occurrences of evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus, FACU). The herbaceous layer is
dominated by sword fern,velvet grass, and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata, FACU) with lower
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 3 August 23, 2017
percentages of trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus, FACU), veronica (Veronica americana, OBL),
horsetail, fringe cup (Tellima grandiflora, FACU), bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus, FAC),
soft rush, and large-leaf avens also present.
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 2015) website,
Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (7)is mapped across both lots (Figure 4).Cathcart soils
are not classified as hydric (NRCS 2014)and do not have inclusions of hydric soil map units.
Areas mapped as 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.
Wetland Soils
The evaluated wetland soils at Test Plots 1 and 4 were composed of silt loam to clay loam with
black to dark grayish brown (10YR 2/1 to 10YR 4/2) soil matrix colors.Redoximorphic features
were observed at 5 to 15 percent of the matrix and having dark yellowish-brown to yellowish-
brown (10YR 3/5 to 10YR 5/8) colors.The soil profiles meet the criteria for hydric soil indicators
F3 because of the depleted matrix chromas and presence of redoximorphic features.
Upland Soils
The evaluated upland soils at Test Plots 2 and 3 consisted of gravelly silt loam to silt loam with
brown to dark grayish-brown (10YR 3/2 to 10YR 4/2) soil matrix colors.The upland soil profiles
appear to meet the criteria for hydric soil indicator F3 because depleted matrix chromas were
recorded.However, the soil profiles were determined to be non-hydric because the profiles lacked
redoximorphic features and closely match the description for Cathcart silt loam, which is not
classified as hydric.These areas are determined to be upland due to the lack of hydrophytic
vegetation and/or wetland hydrology.
HYDROLOGY
Hydrology was not observed in Wetland A during the June 2016 site visit but there were indicators
of surface water at the north end during the growing season. Although surface water was not
present in the wetland, the soil sample was glistening at Test Plot 4 indicating that the soil remains
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 4 August 23, 2017
damp. The source of hydrology to Wetland A is mainly direct precipitation and surface water
runoff from adjacent developed properties.It appears that Wetland A fills with rain water and
runoff during the winter and spring to a depth that allows flow of water north through the culvert at
the north end (under Belfair Avenue). The culvert appears to be angled slightly with the higher end
at the north, which prevents water flow until the wetland is flooded beyond its boundaries (Figure
9).This is evident when previous delineation maps are compared over time.The culvert conveys
water into the wetland north of Belfair Avenue. The wetland north of Belfair Avenue is part of a
series of wetlands that extend northerly to the north end of Fort Ward Estates. The wetlands
discharge into a stream that flows northerly to Blakely Harbor.Water was not present in the
upland areas and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)does not map wetlands on or within 250 feet of the
property (Figure 5).The findings of the ELS delineation do not agree with the NWI mapping
because wetland is present along the east edges of the two lots.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.
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREAS
The Bainbridge Island Critical Areas map (BI 2015)maps wetland outside the east boundary of Lot
6 and extending onto the east boundary of Lot 5 (Figure 6), which represents Wetland A.The ELS
biologists agree with the general mapping of wetland (Figure 2).
CONCLUSIONS
WETLAND CATEGORIZATION
The wetland is situated in a depression having emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested vegetation
classes and a seasonally flooded hydroperiod.The wetland was rated according to Washington
State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington-2014 Update (Rating System)(Hruby
2014).Wetland A received 17 points on the rating form and is considered a Category III,
Depressional system rated based on functions (Appendix B).
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS
The BIMC Chapter 16.20.160 specifies buffers based on wetland category, scores for habitat
functions on the rating form, and the intensity of the proposed land use in accordance with the
2014 wetland rating system.The BIMC has not been revised to meet the 2014 rating system scores
so does not reflect the new point totals for determining the buffer widths based on habitat scores.
However, Ecology has developed guidance for converting 2004 wetland rating system habitat
scores to the 2014 wetland rating system habitat scores.Water quality buffers are required for all
wetlands and habitat buffer widths are required for wetlands scoring moderate to high habitat
functions on the rating form.Wetland A is a Category III wetland that received a moderate score
for habitat function. Because these lots are less than 1 acre in size, development on both are
considered high intensity land use, which increases the width of the water quality and habit at
buffers.BIMC requires an 80-foot water quality buffer and a 70-foot habitat buffer because of the
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 5 August 23, 2017
moderate habitat score and the high intensity land use proposal.The 150-foot buffer extends
beyond the west property boundaries and across Soundview Boulevard.However,buffers do not
extend beyond improved roads that serve more than one home;the buffer width for Wetland A
extends only to Soundview Boulevard. Therefore, the total buffer width provided to Wetland A is
110 feet.A 15-foot building and impervious surface setback is also specified from the edge of
critical area buffers.
Buffer reductions are permitted by the BIMC Section 16.20.050 through the buffer averaging
process.The buffer is reduced in one location and increased in another by the same square footage
to create a buffer that averages the required buffer width. The BIMC also permits reductions of the
habitat buffers for wetlands if it can be documented that the reduction will provide a buffer that
result in adequate protection for the wetland. A habitat management plan and buffer mitigation are
required as part of this reduction process. Buffer reductions for water quality buffers are permitted
only through the formal variance or Reasonable Economic Use Exception processes.
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
The project proposes building one single family home on each lot.The two lots are entirely
encompassed by the current wetland buffers, right-of-ways, and front yard setbacks. The required
water quality and habitat buffers extend beyond the west lot boundaries so no habitat buffer occurs
on these lots. Administrative options for buffer reduction do not apply to water quality buffer
widths.Even if administrative reductions were permitted, it would not allow enough buildable
area to accommodate the proposed homes. Therefore, in order to accommodate homes on each lot,
the water quality buffer will need to be reduced by the Reasonable Use Exception process. Buffer
mitigation is required to compensate for the buffer reduction per the BIMC 16.20.050.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The project proposes construction of a single family home on each lot as close to Soundview
Drive as possible (Figure 3).The entirety of each lot is encompassed by wetland buffers, the
right-of-way of Soundview Drive, and front/side yard setbacks.Any construction on the lots will
impact the water quality buffer.The wetland was rated as a Category III with a moderate habitat
score (5 points)and so requires a total buffer of 150 feet.The homes will be situated within the
150-foot wetland buffer where the vegetation is dominated by grasses and non-native invasives,
which primarily include Himalayan blackberry (Photoplate 1).Combined, the homes will
represent a total of 6,114 square feet of impact to the wetland buffer.The driveway, walkways,
and hardscaping associated with both houses represent 2,400 square feet of pervious pavement.
While the typical requirement for buffer mitigation is a ratio of 1:1, the project on these lots
cannot meet this requirement because the reduced buffer only totals 4,578, for a ratio of 1.33:1,
impact to enhancement. There is also little opportunity on the lots to improve buffer conditions
because it is so densely vegetated with Nootka rose and hawthorn trees. Therefore, the mitigation
will include a combination of onsite buffer enhancement around the proposed homes and
replacement of the culvert under Belfair Avenue. Replacing the culvert will restore the
hydrologic continuity of this wetland to the wetland north of Belfair Avenue (Figure 9).Buffer
enhancement will include planting of native vegetation (small trees, shrubs, and herbaceous
vegetation) around the house with a line of lower growing conifer trees (shore pine) and a split-
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 6 August 23, 2017
rail fence along the buffer boundary.The houses on these lots, encompassed by wetland buffer,
will result in permanent impacts to the buffer function but will have minimal impact on the
wetland. The proposed home sites will result in removal of non-native shrubs and grass from
10,692 square feet of the wetland buffer, 4,578 square feet of which will be replanted upon
completion.The minimum buffer width occurs on Lot 5 because the lot is oriented west to east
whereas; Lot 6 is oriented north to south. The homes will be situated 23 feet from the wetland
boundary on Lot 5 and 32 feet on Lot 6.
MITIGATION SEQUENCING
The 150-foot wetland buffer covers the two lots and extends beyond Soundview Drive.The
proposed homes with driveways will occupy 6,114 square feet (the two lots combined)of the
buffer. The houses are also constrained by the setbacks required from the property lines, which
include a 15-foot side yard setback to the north and south. Additionally, there is a 25-foot front
yard setback from the Soundview Drive right-of-way, which significantly reduces the area
available for home construction on these lots.As part of the mitigation process, projects proposed
within a wetland buffer are required to address the mitigation sequencing process to assess whether
the project can avoid,minimize, rectify, or reduce impacts before identifying compensation or
mitigation measures.
Avoiding Impacts:The undeveloped lots are vegetated by somewhat disturbed upland plant
communities along the west halves.The east halves are encompassed by dense upland and wetland
shrub communities. The proposed house locations are composed of grasses and non-native shrubs
and are strewn with vehicles from the adjacent residences. The project proposes no work in the
wetland itself and so avoids impacts to the wetland environment. The project cannot avoid impacts
to the buffer because the properties are completely composed of buffers and setbacks.
Minimizing Impacts:The project is minimizing the impacts by proposing the houses as close to
Soundview Drive as allowed by the setbacks in a portion of the buffer that has low function.In
addition, reduction of the front yard setback is proposed to minimize the impacts to the wetland
and buffer.Both houses have been positioned so that they are as far from the wetland as possible
and the footprints have been minimized to the extent possible.The location and orientation of the
house is in keeping with the Fort Ward Design Guidelines.The homes use the same design and
orientation to provide small affordable housing units and to keep construction costs low.
Rectifying the Impacts:The project represents a permanent impact to the buffer so cannot rectify
the impacts to the affected habitats.
Reducing or Eliminating the Impacts:The project cannot reduce or eliminate the impacts by
preservation and maintenance.
Compensating for the Impacts:The project cannot avoid, rectify, or reduce the impact to the
wetland buffer but has minimized the impact to the extent possible by proposing the houses as far
from the wetland boundary as possible. Because the proposal cannot avoid all impacts to the
wetland buffer, mitigation in the form of buffer enhancement is proposed.The enhancement plan
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 7 August 23, 2017
Reducing or Eliminating the Impacts:The project cannot reduce or eliminate the impacts by
preservation and maintenance.
Compensating for the Impacts:The project cannot avoid, rectify, or reduce the impact to the
wetland buffer but has minimized the impact to the extent possible by proposing the houses as far
from the wetland boundary as possible. Because the proposal cannot avoid all impacts to the
wetland buffer, mitigation in the form of buffer enhancement is proposed.The enhancement plan
will involve installation of native plants around the houses after they are constructed to represent as
natural a buffer setting as possible. In addition, a line of conifer trees will be installed along the
buffer edge to improve the noise and light screening function of the buffer. The mitigation also
includes replacement of the culvert under Belfair Avenue currently used as a pedestrian path.
Replacement will reconnect historically connected wetland systems on both sides of the road.
Other options for mitigation were explored as part of the project proposed immediately south on
Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Soundview Drive. These options included contacting the Bainbridge Island
Land Trust to determine whether there were opportunities available for mitigation on properties
controlled by the land trust. The land trust determined that they had no avenue for accepting funds
or assistance with restoration or enhancement on local properties. The city owned lands adjacent
to the lots are also not available for mitigation opportunities. Therefore, the combination
mitigation plan was selected for a comparable ratio based on the functional lift achieved by
reconnecting the wetlands on both sides of Belfair Avenue hydrologically in addition to onsite
buffer enhancement.
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
The inner 80 feet of wetland buffer is densely vegetated with Nootka rose and English hawthorn
trees that provide a very protective buffer for the depressional wetland. The mitigation plan
proposes to focus on increasing species diversity by planting around the future homes and
minimizing the cover by the houses.Invasive plant removal will be conducted where feasible and
necessary in the dense shrub buffer during implementation of the plan.The native trees, shrubs,
and herbaceous plants will be installed around the proposed homes once construction is completed
(Figure 10). The split rail fence will be installed at the edge of the reduced buffer following
completion of the homes.The existing buffer vegetation is very dense and impenetrable from the
future building sites on each lot.The installation of shore pines at the edge of the buffer is
intended to provide another level of protection for the wetland from the future homes as well as
increase coniferous diversity. The placement of the fence is intended to provide a clear
demarcation of the critical area and buffer to prevent continual access by future residents.
The mitigation plan also includes specifications for replacement of the culvert under Belfair
Avenue to provide a better hydrologic connection between the wetlands that lie within Fort Ward
Estates.Because of the size and orientation of the lots as well as the condition of the existing
buffer vegetation, mitigation options are limited to the areas immediately adjacent to the proposed
homes. The limited mitigation options make it difficult to provide a 1:1 ratio that will adequately
compensate for the buffer impact.Therefore, a portion of the proposed mitigation will involve
replacement of the culvert under Belfair.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 8 August 23, 2017
Wetland Functional Lift
The wetlands in Fort Ward Estates were historically part of one larger system that upon
development of the area were divided into somewhat individual wetlands by roads (Belfair Avenue
to the north of these lots and Richardson Street to the northeast). During construction,culverts
were placed beneath the roads but the one at Belfair was placed too high in elevation so did not
allow the continued flow of water into the northern wetland areas. Due to the lack of hydrological
continuity caused by the improperly installed culvert,the original area of wetland south of Belfair
Avenue has expanded considerably (Figure 9). It appears that a larger culvert was installed several
years ago but it remains slightly higher in elevation than the bottom of the wetland south of Belfair
so has not restored hydrologic continuity. The wetland does not appear to have expanded as a
result of the new culvert but it has not allowed the wetland to restore to its original limits.
B-twelve Associates, Inc. conducted a delineation of the wetlands within Fort Ward Estates in
1992.The boundary identified in 1992 is significantly smaller than the boundary identified by
Wiltermood Associates, Inc. (Wiltermood)in 2006.The boundary identified during the 2006
delineation is located east of the 2017 boundary indicating that the wetland had expanded between
1992,2006,and 2017 site visits. These early delineation maps show the wetland south of Belfair
was smaller than it is currently further indicating that the culvert did not permit the wetland to
remain in its historic configuration and that this area of wetland was physically and hydrologically
disconnected from the other wetlands.
By improving the connection between the onsite wetland and the wetlands to the north, there will
be improvements in hydrologic connectivity,wildlife passage, and increased diversity within the
northern wetlands.When water is allowed to spread across both wetlands there will be an increase
in the ability of each wetland to function as one system for water quality improvement and water
quantity storage.It is recommended that the culvert be at least 24 inches across and is either
partially buried or bottomless. This will improve wildlife connectivity between the wetlands and
allow small animals such as frogs to move across the historic range.The wetland north of Belfair
Avenue is dominated by a dense community of soft rush.The increase in plant species diversity as
a result of seed sources reaching more areas will improve the water quality of the runoff that enters
the wetlands. The onsite wetland has greater plant species diversity and once the culvert is
replaced, the seeds from these plants will spread into the northern wetlands and thereby increase
the vegetation diversity.
Replacing the culvert will involve construction activities to occur very near and partially in the
wetlands.However, one construction is complete;the area will return to pre-construction
conditions and begin improving as discussed above.Vegetation along Belfair Avenue is
dominated by Himalayan blackberry and the soils are composed of densely compacted gravel.The
work will only impact the soils on Belfair Avenue and will avoid disturbance of wetland soils to
the extent possible.The result of culvert replacement may shrink the boundary of the wetland over
time, however it will not shrink beyond its original boundary as delineated in 1992 (Figure 9).
Despite the potential for shrinking, the water quality and habitat functional lifts associated with
culvert replacement outweigh the potential loss of area.
Buffer Functional Lift
The existing buffer is densely vegetated by native trees and shrubs that are for the most part
deciduous. There are few if any conifer tree species in the buffer because of the dense nature of the
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 9 August 23, 2017
deciduous shrubs. The buffer has high functions because of the dense shrubs but lacks diversity
because there are only a few plant species including Nootka rose, hardhack, and hawthorn.
Planting of native vegetation around the future homes will increase the vegetation diversity as well
as provide additional screening function to the existing buffer vegetation.Shore pines will be
planted along the edge of the buffer to further improve the function of the buffer vegetation.The
trees will be especially beneficial in the winter months after the deciduous shrubs and small trees
lose their leaves. Therefore, the installation of conifer trees will increase the function of the buffer
as well as the diversity of the plants within the buffer.
Stormwater Assessment
The stormwater generated on the developed lots will be somewhat mitigated by planting native
trees and shrubs around each proposed home as well as through the use of LID methods that will
minimize the impact to water quality and quantity issues in the wetlands. Most of the water
generated on the developed lots will be on rooftops and because it is considered clean water, it can
be discharged toward the wetland buffer via splash blocks. The water will receive additional
filtration through the densely vegetated buffer area as well as the native plantings around each
home. Therefore, the proposed homes will not impose any new or additional water quality impacts
to the wetlands. Although it appears because of the development, that there will be an increase in
the water generated onsite and discharged into the wetland. Because the lots are composed of
dense silt loam and silty clay loam that have become compacted over a long period of time, they
basically represent impervious surfaces. For this reason, the homes will represent a replacement of
impervious surfaces and will not result in a significant increase the quantity of water generated don
these lots. In addition, the replacement of impervious surfaces will ensure that the wetland
receives the same amount of water that it does currently and will not result in a significant
reduction in the source of water. Replacement of the culvert at an appropriate elevation will
establish a connection with the northern wetlands, which will result in each wetland providing
adequate storage and release of water.
Specifications for Site Preparation
The tasks listed below will achieve the wetland buffer mitigation goals and objectives.These tasks
are listed in the order they are anticipated to occur;however,some tasks may occur concurrently
or may precede other tasks due to site and procedural constraints.
Buffer Enhancement Area
1.Stake or flag the proposed planting areas to precisely identify where invasives will be removed
and native plants installed.
2.Remove existing invasive vegetation from the wetland buffer prior to installation of the
native plants.
3.Install plantings according to the schedule and specifications proposed herein.
Goals,Objectives,and Performance Standards
Project Goal:Improve wetland buffer functions to compensate for buffer reduction.
Objective 1:Control invasive species.
Performance Standard 1(a):During Years 1 through 7,invasive species will be removed and
suppressed in the buffer as often as necessary to meet a performance standard of no greater than
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 10 August 23, 2017
10 percent cover by invasive species.Percent cover will be recorded annually and included in
monitoring reports.
Objective 2:Improve native plant cover within the native shrub buffer community.
Performance Standard 2(a):The project will maintain 100 percent survival of installed plants
during the entire 7-year monitoring period.Plant species number will be recorded annually and
compared with as-built conditions for inclusion in yearly monitoring reports.
Objective 3: Increase native plant cover within the buffer and around the existing homes.
Performance Standard 3(a):There will be increasing cover by native plant species in the
enhanced wetland buffer over the 7-year monitoring period.
The yearly percent cover in the areas around the house shall be:
Year 1 -15 to 20 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 2 -20 to 25 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 3 -25 to 30 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 5 –40 to 50 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 7 -50 to 60 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Plant species percentages will be recorded annually and compared with as-built conditions to
determine overall success of the plantings.
Performance Standard 3(b):Shore pines grow relatively slowly so the cover is expected to
increase slowly over the seven year monitoring period. The trees shall be monitored for
increasing heights over the monitoring period as follows:
Year 1-up to 1.5 feet tall
Year 2-up to 2.5 feet tall
Year 3-up to 3.5 feet tall
Year 5-up to 5 feet tall
Year 7-up to 6 feet tall
Tree height will be recorded annually and compared with as-built conditions to determine overall
success of the plantings.
Specifications for Planting
The plants specified for installation are intended to diversify the existing plant community and
improve wetland buffer function.The plants proposed around the future homes will allow the
homes to be situated within a vegetated buffer dominated by native species, which improve the
function of the buffer as well as minimizing the impacts to the overall buffer area. T he shore
pines grow relatively slowly,and if maintained,will form a natural hedge of conifers that will
provide additional noise and light screening from the future homes.Their installation is intended
to improve upon the ground-level buffer function by increasing the density of conifer trees
alongside the existing native shrub community. The proposed location of the plants is presented
in the mitigation planting plan (Figure 10).
Plant Materials
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 11 August 23, 2017
Potted Stock
1.1 and 2-gallon potted plants will be purchased from a native plant nursery.
2.Potted stock will have a minimum size of 1.5 to 3 feet tall.
3.Potted stock will be kept in a shaded area prior to being planted.
4.The potted stock will have well-developed roots and sturdy stems with an
appropriate root-to-shoot ratio.
5.No damaged or desiccated roots or diseased plants will be accepted.
6.Unplanted stock will be properly s tored at the end of each planting day to prevent
desiccation.
7.The project biologist will be responsible for inspecting potted stock prior to and during
planting and culling unacceptable plant materials.
Planting Specifications
Removal of invasive plants can begin at any time following issuance of the permits by the city
and planting will take place during the winter months when the plants are dormant.Plants will
be installed as roughly indicated on the attached planting plan (Figure 10 )or in small
groupings to mimic the natural environment and to enhance species survival.Table 1 provides
a list of plants proposed for installation within the buffer based on the square footage of the
planting areas.Plantings will be spaced to allow for removal of invasive plants and each
planting may be protected by weed mat or similar product to prevent the re-growth of invasive
plants.
Table 1. Plant specifications for buffer mitigation area.
Species Name Spacing (feet from
center)
Minimum Size Quantity
Shore pine
(Pinus contorta contorta)
10 2-gallon, potted 12
Vine maple
(Acer circinatum)
10-15 Bareroot 4
Mock orange
(Philadelphus lewisii)
8 Bareroot 4
Pacific rhododendron
(Rhododendron
macrophyllum)
6 1-gallon, potted 4
Tall Oregon grape
(Mahonia aquifolium)
8 Bareroot 14
Salal
(Gaultheria shallon)
5 Bareroot 14
Evergreen huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum)
6 Bareroot 8
Sword fern
(Polystichum munitum)
3 Bareroot 20
Low Oregon grape
(Mahonia nervosa)
3 Bareroot 24
False Solomon’s seal
(Smilacina racemosa)
3 Bareroot 12
American dog violet 1 4” pot 12
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 12 August 23, 2017
(Viola labridorica)
Beach strawberry
(Fragaria chiloensis)
1 4” pot 10
Wood sorrel
(Oxalis oregana)
1 4” pot 14
Total Plantings 152
Planting Methods
1.Plant the specified trees in the winter 201-2018 (or subsequent winter) or after construction
activities are completed,as listed in Table 1.Planting after construction is completed is
recommended to avoid impacting the plants during construction.Space the trees roughly 10
feet apart along the edge of the buffer and just inside the split-rail fence.Plant the trees with a
tree shovel or comparable tool.
2.Place the trees in the planting holes so that their roots are able to extend down entirely
and do not bend upward or circle inside the hole.
3.Position the root crowns so that they are at,or slightly above,the level of the surrounding soil.
4.Firmly compact the soil around the planted species to eliminate air spaces.
5.Install anti-herbivory devices,such as seedling protection tubes or mesh protection netting,
around the stems of planted species when appropriate,and secure them with stakes.
6.Irrigate all newly installed plants as site and weather conditions warrant.
MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of the planting areas will occur for seven years and will involve removing invasive
plant species,irrigating planted species,and reinstalling failed plantings,as necessary. The
maintenance may include the following activities:
1.Remove and control non-native and/or invasive vegetation from within the wetland buffer a
minimum of two times during the growing season for the first five years.
2.Irrigate planted species as necessary during the dry season,approximately July 1 through
October 15.ELS biologists recommend that watering occur at least every two weeks
during the dry season for the first three years.The most successful method of watering
plants is using a temporary above-ground irrigation system set to a timer to ensure the
plants are regularly watered.
3.Replace dead or failed plants as described for the original installation to meet the
minimum annual survival rate and percent cover performance standards.
MONITORING PLAN
The buffer mitigation areas will be monitored annually for a 7 -year period following plant
installation.Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Bainbridge Island by December
31 of each monitored year. The goal of monitoring is to determine if the previously stated
performance standards are being met.The buffer mitigation area will be monitored once during
the growing season,preferably during the same two-week period each year to better compare
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 13 August 23, 2017
the data.During the first annual monitoring and maintenance event,representative monitoring
photo stations will be selected to provide yearly photos of the planted area.The entirety of the
planted area will be monitored each year and no individual monitoring units will be
established.
Vegetation
Vegetative monitoring will document the development of the natural evergreen hedge
along the edge of the buffer as well ass plantings between the homes .The following
information will be collected in the planted area:
Height and survival of installed trees.
Species composition of herbs,shrubs,and trees,including non-native,invasive species.
Photo documentation of vegetative changes over time.
Fauna
General observations will be recorded and photographs will be taken of wildlife during site visits
to the site for monitoring. Observations of insects and other invertebrates,amphibians, reptiles,
fish,birds,and mammals will be recorded and documented in the annual monitoring reports.Use
of the on-site buffer areas by any priority species also will be noted.
Monitoring Report Contents
The annual monitoring reports will contain at least the following:
Location map and representational drawing.
Historic description of project,including dates of plant installation,current year of
monitoring,and restatement of goals,objectives,and performance standards.
Description of monitoring methods.
Documentation of plant cover and overall development of plant communities.
Assessment of non-native,invasive plant species and recommendations for management .
Observations of wildlife,including,amphibians,invertebrates,reptiles,birds,and mammals
Photographs from permanent photo points.
Summary of maintenance and contingency measures proposed for the next season and
completed for the past season.
CONTINGENCY PLAN
If the performance standards are not met by the seventh year following project completion,or at
an earlier time if specified above,a contingency plan will be developed and implemented.All
contingency actions will be undertaken only after consulting and gaining approval from the City
of Bainbridge Island. The applicant will be required to complete a contingency plan that
describes (1)the causes of failure,(2)proposed corrective actions,(3)a schedule for completing
corrective actions,and (4)whether additional maintenance and monitoring are necessary.Yearly
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 14 August 23, 2017
plant replacement will be conducted if the survival rate falls below 100 percent during the
monitoring year.
SITE PROTECTION
The enhanced buffer area will be owned,maintained,and managed by the landowner s ,unless
such responsibilities are assigned to another entity.The owners will be responsible for
maintenance and monitoring of the planting areas for the prescribed 7-year period.
LIMITATIONS
The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted
professional consulting principles and practices.There are no other warranties, express or implied.
The services preformed were consistent with our agreement with our client.This report is prepared
solely for the use of our client and may not be used or relied upon b y a third party for any purpose.
Any such use or reliance will be at such party’s risk.
The opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when
services were performed.ELS is not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental
standards, practices, or regulations after the date of this report.ELS does not warrant the accuracy
of supplemental information incorporated in this report that was supplied by others.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 15 August 23, 2017
REFERENCES
City of Bainbridge Island. 2007.Bainbridge Island Municipal Code,Title 16.20 Critical Areas,
2007 Bainbridge Island, Washington.
City of Bainbridge Island. 2012. Bainbridge Island Geographical Information System. Online
document http://apps.bainbridgewa.gov:8080/PublicGIS/.Website accessed June 2016.
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. August 2014.Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington ,2014
Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-029. Olympia,
Washington.Effective January 1, 2015.
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
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html .Website accessed June 2016.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015.WA635 Kitsap County Area.
Online document http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm .Website
accessed June 2016.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014.Washington Hydric Soils List.
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/>.
Bainbridge Island Land Trust (BILT).2007.http://www.bi-landtrust.org/default.asp. Website
accessed March 2017.
NOTE:
USGS topographic quadrangle map reproduced using
MAPTECH Inc., Terrain Navigator Pro software.
LOCATION MAP
WASHINGTON
47.5834° Latitude
-122.5215° Longitude
SITE
SITE
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
SCALE IN MILES
30150
CAMAS
QUILCENE
QUEETS
NEAH BAY
CLALLAM BAY
5 542
542
209
LOPEZ
FRIDAY HARBOR
ORCAS
ANACORTES
LAKE
ROSS
ROCKPORT
BELLINGHAM
FERNDALE
LYNDENBLAINE
SEDRO WOOLLEY
MOUNT VERNON
OAK HARBOR
STANWOOD
DARRINGTON
ARLINGTON
EVERETT
MUKILTEO 9
MONROE
PORT
TOWNSEND
113 112
SEQUIM
ANGELES
PORT
101
FORKS
MORTON
KELSOLONGVIEW
HOQUIAM
ABERDEEN
MONTESANOOCEAN
SHORES
WESTPORT
RAYMOND
CENTRALIA
CHEHALIS
WINLOCK
CASTLE
ROCK
CATHLAMET
WOODLAND
5
12
12
6
5044
12
101
PACIFIC
BEACH
GRAYS
HARBOR
PACIFIC
LEWIS
COWLITZ
WAHKIAKUM
KALAMA
ELMA
5
BATTLE
GROUND
VANCOUVER NORTH BONNEVILLE
STEVENSON CARSON
MT. ST.
HELENS
MOSSYROCK RANDLE
PACKWOOD
EATONVILLE MT.
RAINIER
ROY
ORTING
BUCKLEY
ENUMCLAWPUYALLUP
DUPONT
TENINO
YELM
OLYMPIA
SHELTON
HOODSPORT
GIG
TACOMA
AUBURN
KENT NORTH BEND
SEATTLE
DUVALL
BOTHELL
SKYKOMISH
14
LA
CENTER
503
5
SKAMANIA
CLARK
MASON
KING
THURSTON
PIERCE
KITSAP
505
127
123
410161
101 3
3
18 90
2
WAY
101
101
ILWACO
OCEAN
PARK
LONG
BEACH
COPALIS
BEACH
JEFFERSON
CLALLAM
SNOHOMISH
SKAGIT
WHATCOM
ISLAND
SAN JUAN
AMANDA
PARK
SOUTH
BEND
KIRKLAND
REDMOND
BELLEVUE
HARBOR
FEDERAL
PORT
ORCHARD
BREMERTON
POULSBO
STEILACOOM
RIDGEFIELD
WASHOUGAL
SITE
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
1
:
2
4
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
20
0
0
40
0
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
S
o
u
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
N
E
Belfair Ave NE
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
Lo
t
6
Lo
t
5
80
'
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Bu
f
f
e
r
70
'
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Bu
f
f
e
r
TP
-
3
TP
-
4
TP
-
2
TP
-
1
09 10
05
We
t
l
a
n
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
I
I
De
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
e
d
Sc
r
u
b
/
S
h
r
u
b
Em
e
r
g
e
n
t
Se
a
s
o
n
a
l
l
y
F
l
o
o
d
e
d
08
07
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
1
:
2
4
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Jack
N S
W
E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
SI
T
E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Figure 2 SITE MAP
6/
1
5
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24N , Range 2E , W.M.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Kitsap County, WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
40
80
LEGEND:Site Boundary Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Wetland Buffer Test Plot Location Wetland Flag
NO
T
E
(
S
)
:
1.
Ae
r
i
a
l
f
r
o
m
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
™
2.
We
t
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
t
e
s
t
p
l
o
t
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
h
a
n
d
h
e
l
d
G
P
S
w
i
t
h
s
u
b
m
e
t
e
r
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
.
TP
-
1
1
Culvert
(18" Plastic)
15'
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
80'
15'
15'
15'
Lot 6
Lot 5
House
953 sq.ft.
House
930 sq.ft.
Deck
Garage
266 sq.ft.
Deck
Garage
245 sq.ft.
Belfair Ave
(Pedestrian Path)
9/
1
9
/
2
0
1
7
9
:
5
0
A
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
_
S
P
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
BU
F
F
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
M
A
P
9/
1
9
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Impact Areas-Lot 6 (3,460 sq.ft.)
Impact Areas-Lot 5 (2,654 sq.ft.)
Buffer Mitigation Area-Lot 6 (2,504 sq.ft.)
Buffer Mitigation Area-Lot 5 (2,074 sq.ft.)
Existing Native Vegetation-Lot 6 (3,601 sq.ft.)
Existing Native Vegetation-Lot 5 (2,343 sq.ft.)
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by NRCS at web address:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
LEGEND:
7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. Not hydric.
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
1
:
2
4
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
SO
I
L
S
U
R
V
E
Y
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
10
0
20
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by US Fish & Wildlife Service at web address:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/index.html
No mapped wetlands indicated onsite by US Fish & Wildlife Service.
SITE
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
1
:
2
4
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
NA
T
I
O
N
A
L
W
E
T
L
A
N
S
D
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
15
0
30
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by the City of Bainbridge Island at web address:
http://apps.bainbridgewa.gov:8080/PublicGIS/
LEGEND:
Wetlands
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
1
:
2
4
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
BA
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
I
S
L
A
N
D
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
A
R
E
A
S
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
10
0
20
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
FO
EM
FO
S/S
Intermittently
Flowing outlet
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
1
:
2
4
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
WE
T
L
A
N
D
R
A
T
I
N
G
F
O
R
M
-
1
5
0
'
O
F
F
S
E
T
6/
1
5
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
15
0
30
0
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial photo from Google Earth™.
LEGEND:
Wetland Unit Boundary
Vegetation Class Division
Contributing Basin
150' Wetland Offset
Scrub/shrub
Forested
Emergent
S/S
FO
EM
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
Rating
Question
Description Answers specific to Wetland being rated
D 1.1, D 4.1 Location of Outlet Wetland has an intermittently flowing outlet
D 1.3 Distribution of persistent plants Persistent, ungrazed plants > ½ of the area
D. 1.4 Area of seasonally flooded Area seasonally ponded > ½ of the wetland
D 2.2 Boundary of area w/in 150’ of the
wetland in land uses that generate
pollutants
>10% of the area within 150' in land uses that generate pollutants
D 5.2 Boundary of area w/in 150’ of the
wetland in land uses that generate
excess runoff
> 10% of the area within 150 feet in land uses that generate excess
runoff
D 4.3 Contributing Basin-
Contribution of wetland to storage in the
watershed
Area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the wetland
D 5.3 Contributing Basin covered in intensive
land uses
>25% of the basin is covered in intensive human land uses
H 1.1 Cowardin Plant Classes Emergent, Scrub/Shrub, Forested
H 1.2 Hydroperiods Seasonally flooded
H 1.4 Interspersion of habitats Moderate Interspersion of habitat
U
U
M/L
M/L
M/L
H
H
H
M/L
M/L
H
H
A
U
U
U
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
1
:
2
4
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
8
WE
T
L
A
N
D
R
A
T
I
N
G
F
O
R
M
-
1
K
M
O
F
F
S
E
T
6/
1
5
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
12
0
0
24
0
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial photo from Google Earth™.
LEGEND:
Wetland Unit Boundary
Contributing Basin
Accessible Habitat (0.1%)
Undisturbed Habitat (12.0% *Includes Accessible Habitat)
High Intensity Land Use (33.9%)
Moderate/Low Intensity Land Use (54.1%)
H
M/L
H 2.1 - Accessible habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon (0.1%).
H 2.2 - Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches (39.1%).
H 2.3 - ≤ 50% of polygon is high land use intensity.
U
A
So
u
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
N
E
Culvert
Lot 6
Lot 5
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial from Google Earth™
2.Wetland and test plots located using handheld GPS with submeter accuracy.
9/
1
3
/
2
0
1
7
9
:
1
5
A
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
9
WE
T
L
A
N
D
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
M
A
P
9/
1
3
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
50
10
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary (2016)
Wetland Boundary (2006)
Wetland Boundary (1992)
Approximate Wetland Boundary (2016)
Culvert
(18" Plastic)
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
Lot 6
Lot 5
9/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
1
2
:
4
5
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
P
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
F
o
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
_
S
P
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
10
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
9/
2
7
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3 3
4 4
4
4
5 5
5 5
5
5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5 5
66
6
6 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
66
7
7
7 7
77
7
7
8 8
8
8 8 8
8
88
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9 9 99
9 9
9
999
9
9
9
9 9
8 888999
8
8
9 999
9
9 9
9
9
999
10 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11 1111
11
13 13
13
13
13
13 13
13
13
13
13
13 13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Figure 11a-303(d) Map:There are no 303(d) waters mapped within the basin of the rated wetland.
Figure 11b:TMDL List for Kitsap County.There are no TMDLs for the drainage basin of the rated wetland.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
Phone: (360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/14/16
DWN:JB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Figure 11-Wetland Rating
Figure-303(d)/TMDL
Project Name:Fort Ward
Lots 5 and 6
Client:Prosser
Kitsap County, Washington
←Project site
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 1
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 1 was taken from the
northwest corner of Lot 5 facing
east. It looks down Belfair
Avenue,which is an unimproved
right-of-way that is currently
used as a pedestrian path. This
path borders the north property
boundary of Lot 5.
Photo 3 was taken from the
same location as Photos 1 and
2 facing south. It shows some
of the boats that had been
parked on the Soundview
Drive right of way, which is
currently unimproved. This
Soundview Drive NE lies to
the right of the frame.
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.
Photo 2 was taken from the
same location as Photo 1 and
looks southeast at the upland
vegetation that occurred near
the mowed, level area of Lot 5.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 2
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 4 was taken near the
middle of the mown area on the
west side of Lot 5 facing north.
It looks at the same boats
pictured in Photo 3 (Photoplate
1).
Photo 6 was taken from the
same location as Photos 4 and
5 facing south.It looks at the
thick shrub layer that began at
the boundary of Lots 5 and 6
and continued to the southern
boundary of Lot 6.
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.
Photo 5 was taken from the
same location as Photo 4 and
looks east at the upland
vegetation and another
example of the neighbors using
the vacant lots.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 3
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 7 was taken from the
northern extent of Wetland A
facing southeast. It demonstrates
the vegetation that was growing
in this area of wetland.
Photo 9 was taken from the
same location as Photos 7 and
8 facing west.It looks toward
the forested portion of Wetland
A, which was dominated by
pacific willows.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.
Photo 8 was taken from the
same location as Photo 7 and
looks south at the wetland
vegetation. This portion of
Wetland A was emergent only.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 4
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 10 was taken of the culvert
that outlets Wetland A to the
north. It was positioned at the
very north end of the wetland and
conveys water under the
pedestrian path picture in Photo 1
(Photoplate 1).
Photo 12 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 2 was
conducted.It was located
upslope of Test Plot 1 in the
forested upland.
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.
Photo 11 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 1 was
conducted.It was located
inside the northern wetland
boundary where the vegetation
was thick with tall shrubs.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 5
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 13 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 3 was conducted.
It was located in an open area of
upland west of the boundary.
Photo 15 was taken from the
middle of the wetland facing
north. Test Plot 4 is visible in
the foreground and the forested
portion from Photo 11
(Photoplate 4) is visible in the
background.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.
Photo 14 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 4 was
conducted.It was located
inside the western wetland
boundary where the vegetation
was dominated by emergent
species.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 6
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 16 was taken from the
same location as Photo 15
(Photoplate 5)facing east. It
shows the emergent portion of the
wetland in the foreground and the
forested portion in the
background.
Photo 18 was taken from the
same location as Photos 15, 16,
and 17 facing west. It looks
towards the thick shrub area of
Wetland A.
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.
Photo 17 was taken from the
same location as Photos 15 and
16 facing southeast. The
center of the depression had no
woody vegetation present.
APPENDIX A
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:5 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:5 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Spiraea douglasii 35 yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Rosa nutkana 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra 15 no FACW OBL species x1 =
4.Crataegus monogyna 15 no FAC FACW species x2 =
5.Ilex aquifolium 10 no FACU FAC species x3 =
50% =47.5, 20% =19 95 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Athryium filix-femina 20 yes FACW Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Ranunculus repens 10 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Geum macrophyllum 10 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Polystichum munitum 5 no FACU 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Equisetum arvense 5 no FAC 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =25, 20% =10 50 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC and FACW species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 1
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification:
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
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:Wetland A is a depressional system composed of a thick shrub layer having some forested and emergent areas. Test Plot 1 was located at the northwest
corner of the wetland boundary where the vegetation was forested with three layers.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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
0-8 10YR 2/1 100 silty cl loam no redoximorphic features
8-10 10 YR 2/1 95 10YR 3/6 5 C M silty cl loam
10-16 10YR 4/2 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M clay loam
cl clay
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix,RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer beginning within 10 inches and is at least 6 inches thick, therefore the soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3,
Depleted Matrix.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit but there was evidence to indicate wetland hydrology present as a sparsely vegetated concave surface and
the occurance of oxidized rhizospheres along living roots.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:3 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:67 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Rosa nutkana 50 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Crataegus monogyna 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.OBL species x1 =
4.FACW species x2 =
5.FAC species x3 =
50% =35, 20% =14 70 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Polystichum munitum 35 yes FACU Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Rubus ursinus 15 no FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Veronica americana 15 no OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Equisetum arvense 10 no FAC 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Tellima grandiflora 5 no FACU 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =40, 20% =16 80 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 2
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent 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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:The upland surrounding Wetland A was composed of a very thick shrub layer having some forested areas. Test Plot 2 was located in the forested area
outside of the northwest boundary of Wetland A in conjunction with wetland Test Plot 1.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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
0-10 10YR 3/2 100 silt loam No redoximorphic features
10-16 10 YR 4/2 100 silt loam No redoximorphic features
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer, however, Cathcart silt loam is mapped on the entire site, which is described as having a parent material made of
volcanic ash and is therefore naturally grey in color.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit and there was no evidence to indicate wetland hydrology.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:4 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:5 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:80 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Rosa nutkana 20 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Crataegus monogyna 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.Rubus armeniacus 15 yes FAC OBL species x1 =
4.Rubus laciniatus 5 no FACU FACW species x2 =
5.FAC species x3 =
50% =30, 20% =12 60 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Holcus lanatus 35 yes FAC Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Dactylis glomerata 25 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Rubus ursinus 20 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Lotus corniculatus 20 no FAC 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Juncus effusus 15 no FACW 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.Polystichum munitum 10 no FACU 3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.Equisetum arvense 5 no FAC 4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.Ranunculus repens 5 no FACW
9.Geum macrophyllum 5 no FACU 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =70, 20% =28 140 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% ==Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 3
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent 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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:The upland surrounding Wetland A was composed of a very thick shrub layer having some forested areas. Test Plot 3 was located in the forested area
outside of the west boundary of Wetland A in conjunction with wetland Test Plot 4.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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
0-10 10YR 3/2 100 gr si loam No redoximorphic features
10-16 10 YR 4/2 100 gr si loam No redoximorphic features
gr gravelly
si silt
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer, however, Cathcart silt loam is mapped on the entire site, which is described as having a parent material made of
volcanic ash and is therefore naturally grey in color.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit and there was no evidence to indicate wetland hydrology.
Project Site:Fort W ard Estates Lots 5 & 6
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:2 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Rubus armeniacus 10 yes FAC 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:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Ranunculus repens 75 yes FACW Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Equisetum arvense 25 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Vicia americana 20 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Holcus lanatus 15 no FAC 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Juncus effusus 15 no FACW 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.Athryium filix-femina 10 no FACW 3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =80, 20% =32 160 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC and FACW species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 4
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification:PFOC
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
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:Wetland A was a depressional system composed of a thick shrub layer having some forested and emergent areas. Test Plot 4 was located in the emergent
portion of Wetland A near the west wetland boundary line.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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 10YR 2/1 100 silt loam no redoximorphic features
6-11 10 YR 2/1 95 10YR 3/6 5 C PL silty cl loam
11-16+10YR 4/2 85 10YR 5/8 15 C M clay loam
cl clay
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer at least 6 inches thick, therefore the soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3, Depleted Matrix.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit but there was evidence to indicate wetland hydrology present as glistening in the soil.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6
APPENDIX B
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 1
RATING SUMMARY –Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #):Wetland A Date of site visit:9-13-16
Rated by J. Bartlett Trained by Ecology?X Yes No Date of training 11/14
HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N
NOTE:Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth/COBI Critical Areas Map
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions X or special characteristics _)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I –Total score =23 –27
Category II –Total score = 20 –22
X Category III –Total score = 16 –19
Category IV –Total score =9 –15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings 5 7 5 17
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
Score for eachfunctionbasedonthreeratings(order of ratingsisnotimportant)
9 =H,H,H
8 =H,H,M
7 =H,H,L
7 =H,M,M
6 =H,M,L
6 =M,M,M
5 =H,L,L
5 =M,M,L
4 =M,L,L
3 =L,L,L
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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 2
Maps and figures required to answ er 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 2, 6
Hydroperiods D 1.4,H 1.2 2, 6
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)D 1.1,D 4.1 2, 6
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)D 2.2,D 5.2 6
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3,D 5.3 6
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 7
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)D 3.1,D 3.2 8
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)D 3.3 8
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1,H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)R 2.4
Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2,R 4.2
Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure)R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2,R 2.3,R 5.2
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)R 3.2,R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
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
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)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
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure)S 2.1,S 5.1
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 3
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated,youprobablyhave a unit with multiple HGM classes.In this case,identify which hydrologic criteria inquestions 1-7 apply,and go to Question 8.1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO –go to 2 YES –the wetland class is Tidal Fringe –go to 1.11.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO –Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES –Freshwater Tidal Fringe
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.Groundwaterandsurfacewaterrunoffare NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO –go to 3 YES –The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland,use the form for Depressional wetlands.3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without anyplants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO –go to 4 YES –The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional)and usually comes fromseeps.It may flow subsurface,as sheetflow,or in a swale without distinct banks,The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO –go to 5 YES –The wetland class is Slope
NOTE:Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small andshallowdepressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The unit is in a valley, or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from thatstream or river,The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 4
NO –go to 6 YES –The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE:The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is notflooding6.Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to thesurface,at some time during the year?This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.NO –go to 7 YES –The wetland class is Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding?The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches.The unit seems to bemaintainedbyhighgroundwater in the area.The wetland may be ditched,but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO –go to 8 YES –The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses.For example,seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain,or a smallstreamwithin a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides.GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICHOFTHEHYDROLOGICREGIMESDESCRIBEDINQUESTIONS1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREASINTHEUNIT(make a rough sketch to help you decide).Use the following table to identify theappropriateclass to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored.
NOTE:Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated.If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope +Riverine Riverine
Slope +Depressional Depressional
Slope +Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional +Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional +Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine +Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 5
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions -Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0.Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch,OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points =2
Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch.points = 1
2
D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer)is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes =4 No =0 0
D 1.3.Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants >95%of area points =5
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants >½of area points =3
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants >1/of area points =110
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants <1/of area points =010
3
D 1.4.Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months.See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is >½total area of wetland points =4
Area seasonally ponded is >¼total area of wetland points =2
Area seasonally ponded is <¼total area of wetland points =0
4
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9
Rating of Site Potential If score is:12-16 =H X 6-11 =M 0-5 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1.Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 2.2.Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 -D 2.3?
Source Yes =1 No =0
0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:3 or 4 =H X 1 or 2 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1.Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e.,within 1 mi) to a stream,river,lake,or marine water that is on the
303(d)list?Yes =1 No =0
0
D 3.2.Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d)list?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 3.3.Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)?Yes =2 No =0
0
Total for D 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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 6
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions -Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0.Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet)points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch,OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints =2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
2
D 4.2.Depth of storage during wet periods:Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet.For wetlands
with no outlet,measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry,the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points =7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to <3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points =5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to <2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points =3
The wetland is a “headwater”wetland points =3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points =0
3
D 4.3.Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed:Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points =5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points =3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points =0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points =5
5
Total for D 4 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
D 5.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1.Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 5.2.Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 5.3.Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac,urban,commercial,agriculture,etc.)?Yes =1 No =0
1
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:X 3 =H 1 or 2 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1.The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems.Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated.Do not add points.Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g.,houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit.points =2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient.points =1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin.points =1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood.Explain why points =0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland.points =0
1
D 6.2.Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes =2 No =0
0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Value If score is:2-4 =H X 1 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 13
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
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland.Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ac 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
X 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:
The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy,sub-canopy,shrubs,herbaceous,moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon
2
H 1.2.Hydroperiods
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
Saturated only 1 type present:points =0
Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
0
H 1.3.Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
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
1
H 1.4.Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1),or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)is high,moderate,low,or none.If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water,the rating is always high.
None =0 points Low =1 point Moderate =2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH =3points
2
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 14
H 1.5.Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland.The number of checks is the number of points.
Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
Standing snags (dbh >4 in)within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m)and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch)in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree
slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
X At least ¼ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
X Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
2
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7
Rating of Site Potential If score is:15-18 =H X 7-14 = M 0-6 =L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1.Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:%undisturbed habitat 0.1 +[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]0 =0.1 %
If total accessible habitat is:
>1/(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points =33
20-33%of 1 km Polygon points =2
10-19%of 1 km Polygon points =1
<10%of 1 km Polygon points =0
0
H 2.2.Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:%undisturbed habitat 12 +[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]27 =39.1 %
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
1
H 2.3.Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon:If
>50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points =(-2)
≤50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points =0
0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1
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 1 =M X 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 15
WDFW Priority HabitatsPriorityhabitatslistedbyWDFW(see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats,and the counties in which they canbefound,in:Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008.Priority Habitat and Species List.Olympia,Washington.177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m)of the wetland unit:NOTE:This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands:Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors:Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish andwildlife(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests:Old-growth west of Cascade crest –Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha )>32 in (81 cm)dbh or > 200yearsofage.Mature forests –Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm)dbh;crown cover may be lessthan100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than thatfoundinold-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak:Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponentisimportant(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158 –see web link above).
Riparian:The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic andterrestrialecosystemswhichmutuallyinfluenceeachother.
Westside Prairies:Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wetprairie(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 –see web link above).
Instream:The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to providefunctionallifehistoryrequirementsforinstreamfishandwildliferesources.
Nearshore:Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats.These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,andPugetSoundNearshore.(full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves:A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock,ice,or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs:Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 -6.5 ft (0.15 -2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite,and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics toenablecavityexcavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of >20 in (51 cm)in westernWashingtonandare> 6.5 ft (2 m)in height.Priority logs are >12 in (30 cm)in diameter at the largest end,and >20 ft(6 m)long.
Note:All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressedelsewhere.
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 16
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland.Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0.Estuarine 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?
Yes =Category I No -Go to SC 1.2 Cat.I
SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing,and has less
than 10%cover of non-native plant species.(If non-native species are Spartina,see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or
contiguous freshwater wetlands.Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.II
SC 2.0.Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1.Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value?Yes –Go to SC 2.2 No –Go to SC 2.3
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
Cat.I
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.
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
Cat.I
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 17
SC 4.0.Forested Wetlands
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)
Yes –Go to SC 5.1 No =Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1.Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less
than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p.100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/ac (4350 ft2)10 Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.II
SC 6.0.Interdunal 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
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
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
SC 6.3.Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes =Category III No =Category IV
Cat I
Cat.II
Cat.III
Cat.IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types,enter “Not Applicable”on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 18
Wetland name or number A
This page left blank intentionally
Exhibit 4
Envirotech EngineeringEnvirotech EngineeringEnvirotech EngineeringEnvirotech Engineering
Geotechnical ◦ Environmental ◦ Drainage ◦ Roadway
PO Box 984
Belfair, Washington 98528
Off: 360-275-9374
Cell: 360-689-6045
October 9, 2017
Julian Prossor
Inhabit LLC
330 Madison Ave S, Suite #103
Bainbridge Island 98110
RE: Soils Report for Two Adjacent Residential Properties, Lot 5 and Lot 6
Soundview Drive NE, (4146-004-005-0004 & 4146-004-006-0003)
Bainbridge Island, Washington
To Whom It May Concern:
Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) completed this soils report for the referenced properties. A site visit
was conducted on October 8, 2017 in order to observe the soil conditions, and assess the feasibility of
drainage facilities, and the suitability of the founding soils for use as bearing strata. Information collected
from site observations, and field testing was completed by Michael Staten, P.E. with Envirotech.
Shallow probing was completed on both properties between Soundview Drive and the wetland. A layer of
unconsolidated fill, with a maximum observed depth of approximately 24 inches covered the buildable
areas of the two lots with decreasing fill to the north on lot 6. Natural, undisturbed soils beneath the fill
consisted of primarily silty clay with gravel (CL-ML), and some sand. The fines content exhibited
medium plasticity. The fill and native soils were field measured to be soft/ loose. Relative density was
assessed by measuring the resistance of hand tools within several locations of the planned building
foundation. Soil discoloration (mottling) was observed within 6 inches to 12 inches below the existing
ground surface. Groundwater was encountered at depths between 8 inches and 3 feet below the existing
ground surface.
Stormwater infiltration facilities are not feasible for the residential properties. This is due to seasonal
groundwater and permanent groundwater existing at shallow depths of less than 1-foot beneath potential
drainage facilities. We recommend that dispersion or other stormwater management means are employed
for all three residential developments.
It is concluded that the existing bearing soils and conditions are not suitable for foundation construction.
Envirotech recommends that a structural pressure of no more than 1500 psf for foundation widths of at
least 15 inches are placed atop ground improvement as provided herein. In addition, finished floors and
crawl spaces should be above high water elevations per code. Ground improvement should include
stripping the organic laden topsoil, fill, and any other deleterious materials located within and at least 3
feet beyond all planned foundation footprints. Exposed soils should be proof-rolled or otherwise densified
with heavy construction equipment during the dry season until unyielding conditions exist. Engineered
fill of a compacted depth of at least 20 inches shall be placed and compacted within the project area.
Both imported fill and existing on-site granular fill may be used as compacted fill for supporting
foundations. Engineered fill should be free of roots and other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any
Page 2of 2
other deleterious matter. Because of moisture sensitivity, importing and compacting engineered fill may
be more economical than compacting disturbed native soils. Engineered fill may be a commercial 5/8”
minus material. Alternatively, a fill shall include having the soils retained on the No. 4 sieve crushed
(angular), and should consist of the following gradation:
U.S. Standard Sieve % Finer (by weight)
6” 100
3” 80 – 100
No. 4 20 – 60
No. 200 0 - 8
Table 1
Partical Size Distribution of Engineered Fill
Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 12 inches for engineered fill. Each lift
should be uniformly compacted to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D
1557) and within 3% of optimum moisture content. Each lift surface should be adequately maintained
during construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding.
The foundation system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement, and a maximum differential
settlement of 0.75 inch. If excessive moisture is permitted within the excavation, or the founding subgrade
is significantly disturbed prior to constructing the concrete footings, an additional geotechnical inspection
is required. If you have any questions or need any further assistance, please contact Michael Staten at
360-275-9374.
Sincerely,
Envirotech Engineering
Michael Staten, P.E.
Project Director
10/9/17
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
PLN 50850 RUE Statement: 11/14/17
November 14th, 2007
Julian Prossor
Architect/Principal
Inhabit LLC
330 Madison Ave S
Suite #108
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Ms. Annie Hillier
Planner
City of Bainbridge Island
280 Madison Ave North
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) Written Statement:
PLN 50850
Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Ave NE: Fort Ward
Our proposal is to build one single family home each on lots 5 & 6 Soundview Drive NE. These existing
lots are located east of an existing mapped wetland (See attached report from ELS).
On both lots, the wetland and/or buffer encumbers the entire site. The small size of the lots (7150 Sq. Ft
& 8800 Sq. Ft) mean that other techniques such as buffer averaging can’t be used to create building
pads. Instead the RUE process is the only mechanism that the can be used to create buildable lots.
The wetland and buffer were existing conditions and not created by myself or the previous owners.
If chapter 16.20 of the City of Bainbridge island Municipal Code was applied, these lots would be
rendered unbuildable, Therefore the only practical way to build on these lots is through a RUE.
There is no other option.
Our proposal consists of building one single family home on each lot. Each house has a 1200 Sq.
footprint. Additionally, through careful architectural design each house is designed to blend into the
existing neighborhood context. The houses and associated drives are modest in scope and represent the
minimum necessary impacts to the existing wetland/Buffer.
Our environmental consultant, Joanne Bartlet of ELS has proposed a well thought out mitigation plan
that to the maximum extent feasible mitigates the impacts on-site as well as replacing the existing
culvert under the Belfair Ave trail to provide a functional lift for the existing wetland. Replanting native
vegetation and removing invasive will also enhance the existing habitat.
Our proposal also does not pose an unreasonable threat to public health, safety or welfare on or off the
site and is consistent with other COBI building and zoning regulations.
PLN 50850 VAR Narrative: 11/14/17
November 14th, 2007
Julian Prossor
Architect/Principal
Inhabit LLC
330 Madison Ave S
Suite #108
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Ms. Annie Hillier
Planner
City of Bainbridge Island
280 Madison Ave North
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
PLN 50850: Variance Narrative
Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Ave NE: Fort Ward
Our proposal is to build one single family home each on lots 5 & 6 Soundview Drive NE. These existing
lots are located east of an existing mapped wetland (See attached report from ELS).
In order to minimize the impact to the existing buffer/wetland we are requesting a variance to decrease
the size of the front yard. We are proposing a 5’ front yard setback for both lots. Because of the depth of
the existing right of way in this location, we feel that the visual impact of the front yard setback will not
be noticeable. Instead the houses will be consistent with the other homes on the street.
Additionally, since the homes to the south of our proposal (Lots, 2,3,4) have already been granted a
front yard variance, our proposed homes will present an attractive streetscape with a consistent front
yard depth.
The homes will be screened by plantings as shown on the planting plan.
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
December 12, 2017
Re: Reasonable Use Exception
File Name: SOUNDVIEW DRIVE LOT 5 RUE
Project Number: PLN50850A RUE
Submitted: November 14, 2017
The application for the above referenced project is complete in accordance with the submittal
requirements located in the Bainbridge Island Administrative Manual. A determination of a complete
application does not preclude the department from requesting additional information or studies; given the
proposed mitigation in City right-of-way, a request for additional information from the Public Works
Department is forthcoming.
Pursuant to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 2.16.020(K), the applicant must post a legal
notice of application on the property within five days of the publication of notice. The city will provide
the notice boards and posting instructions, you must provide the stake/post. The City will cont act you
when the notice boards are prepared.
Correspondence concerning this application should make reference to both the file number and
file name shown above.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier, (206) 780-3773, ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
Project Manager
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
December 12, 2017
Re: Variance
File Name: SOUNDVIEW DRIVE LOT 5 VARIANCE
Project Number: PLN50850A VAR
Submitted: November 14, 2017
The application for the above referenced project is complete in accordance with the submittal
requirements located in the Bainbridge Island Administrative Manual. A determination of a complete
application does not preclude the department from requesting additional information or studies.
Pursuant to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 2.16.020(K), the applicant must post a legal
notice of application on the property within five days of the publication of notice. The city will provide
the notice boards and posting instructions, you must provide the stake/post. The City will contact you
when the notice boards are prepared.
Correspondence concerning this application should make reference to both the file number and
file name shown above.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier, (206) 780-3773, ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
Project Manager
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
December 12, 2017
Re: Reasonable Use Exception
File Name: SOUNDVIEW DRIVE LOT 6 RUE
Project Number: PLN50850B RUE
Submitted: November 14, 2017
The application for the above referenced project is complete in accordance with the submittal
requirements located in the Bainbridge Island Administrative Manual. A determination of a complete
application does not preclude the department from requesting additional information or studies; given the
proposed mitigation in City right-of-way, a request for additional information from the Public Works
Department is forthcoming.
Pursuant to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 2.16.020(K), the applicant must post a legal
notice of application on the property within five days of the publication of notice. The city will provide
the notice boards and posting instructions, you must provide the stake/post. The City will contact you
when the notice boards are prepared.
Correspondence concerning this application should make reference to both the file number and
file name shown above.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier, (206) 780-3773, ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
Project Manager
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
December 12, 2017
Re: Variance
File Name: SOUNDVIEW DRIVE LOT 6 VARIANCE
Project Number: PLN50850B VAR
Submitted: November 14, 2017
The application for the above referenced project is complete in accordance with the submittal
requirements located in the Bainbridge Island Administrative Manual. A determination of a complete
application does not preclude the department from requesting additional information or studies.
Pursuant to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 2.16.020(K), the applicant must post a legal
notice of application on the property within five days of the publication of notice. The city will provide
the notice boards and posting instructions, you must provide the stake/post. The City will contact you
when the notice boards are prepared.
Correspondence concerning this application should make reference to both the file number and
file name shown above.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier, (206) 780-3773, ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
Project Manager
Exhibit 10
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-
wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
December 15, 2017
Inhabit Limited Liability Company
330 Madison Ave S Ste 108
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2544
Re: Information Request
File Name: Soundview Drive Lot 5 & 6 RUE
File Numbers: PLN50850A RUE & PLN50850B RUE
Dear Applicant,
Thank you for submitting applications for two RUE’s, as a part of your proposal to develop
single-family residences on Lots 5 and 6 of Soundview Drive. After reviewing the proposal, the
City requests responses to the following points:
General comments:
• The applicant provided a brief narrative as to how the RUE criteria are met. However,
there is not enough information to determine if these two approval criteria are met by the
proposal:
o There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal; and
o The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow
reasonable use of the property.
• The lot coverage for each parcel is below 1200 square feet, but a separate driveway and a
deck is proposed for each house. A shared driveway should be considered (both from a
wetland and stormwater impact perspective) and whether or not decks are “the minimum
necessary to allow reasonable use of the property.” Decks are not a primary appurtenance.
It also appears that the configuration of the house on Lot 6 could be revised to put the
garage in the front, thereby reducing the area of the driveway and turnaround (as is
proposed for Lot 6).
• The site plan appears to include two wetland edges, with different buffers measured from
each one. Please clarify the wetland boundary, and include both buffers (water quality and
habitat buffer).
2
Regarding the wetland report and mitigation plan:
• Where is the stormwater from the driveway (pollutant generating surface) going?
• Objective 1 of the mitigation plan should be clarified as to where it applies – just the
existing native vegetation, just the proposed planted area, or both? It should be both.
• The mitigation plan should include a performance standard and contingency action/s for
the culvert replacement component.
• The plant quantities do not seem adequate per Sound Native Plants plant calculator
(http://soundnativeplants.com/nursery/plant-quantity-calculator/). Plant spacing noted in
plant list is not accurately reflected on planting plan. Please revise the planting plan
accordingly.
• Plant species are not located to minimize off-site impacts of development. If minimizing
light and noise is the goal, this should be reflected in the plant type and location nearest to
where these impacts will occur (driveway, deck).
• The mitigation plan for the lots to the south include split rail fence. The fencing should be
coordinated with this proposal.
• If the comments mentioned above result in revisions to the wetland report and mitigation
plan, please also consider removing the redundancy on the top of page 7.
To facilitate completion of the permit review, please respond to the comments and revise
application materials accordingly, within 60 days (until all requested information is received
permit processing time will be tolled). Please ensure consistency between all application
materials (SEPA checklist, wetland report and mitigation plan, project narrative, and plan-sets).
Failure to respond may result in cancellation of the application in accordance with the following
provision:
BIMC 2.16.020.H. Voiding of application due to inactivity. A land use application,
whether determined to be complete or incomplete, for which approval has not yet been
granted, may be canceled for inactivity if an applicant fails to respond to the
department’s written request for revisions, corrections, or additional information within
60 days of the request. The planning director may extend the response period beyond 60
days if within that time period the applicant provides and subsequently adheres to an
approved schedule with specific target dates for submitting the full revisions, corrections,
or other information needed by the requesting department. (Ord. 2004-12 § 1, 2004)
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Annie Hillier, Planner
Exhibit 11
1
Ann Hillier
From:Clinton, Brandon C CIV USARMY CENWS (US) <Brandon.C.Clinton@usace.army.mil>
Sent:Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:22 AM
To:Ann Hillier
Cc:Heard, Kathryn E CIV (US)
Subject:RE: permitting question from the City of Bainbridge Island
Good morning Ann,
Thanks for your email. Corps authorization is generally required for, among other things, work occurring below Mean
High Water in navigable 'waters of the U.S.' under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the discharge of
dredged or fill material below Mean Higher High Water (tidal) or Ordinary High Water (non-tidal) in all 'waters of the
U.S.' under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Generally for culvert work, if the stream associated with the culvert flows intermittently or perennially and the work
involves a discharge of material below OHW, the work requires Corps authorization. Depending on the scope and
purpose of the proposal, many culvert replacement or repair projects can be authorized under the Nationwide Permit
program using a Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) or 3 (Maintenance).
Depending on the species present, you may be required to prepare a Biological Evaluation that assesses impacts to
Endangered Species Act-listed fish, amphibian, bird, or mammal species in the project area, a cultural resource report,
and/or a mitigation plan for permanent or temporary stream or wetland impacts. We require a Pre-Construction
Notification to begin the permit review process (like an application), and generally receive PCNs in the form of the
JARPA. Katie Heard (cc'd) is the Corps project manager for Kitsap County and can coordinate with you further if you have
additional questions before you submit your application.
Thanks,
Brandon
-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Hillier [mailto:ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 8:22 AM
To: Clinton, Brandon C CIV USARMY CENWS (US) <Brandon.C.Clinton@usace.army.mil>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] permitting question from the City of Bainbridge Island
Good Morning,
I received your contact information from a colleague of mine, Christy Carr. I am a relatively new Planner at the City of
Bainbridge, and am trying to get a sense of when permits from USACE are required. Specially, I have a project that
involves the proposed repair of a culvert in City right-of-way, that connects a wetland system in the Fort Ward area of
the island. Can you help me determine what kind of permit the applicant might need to apply for from USACE?
Thank you,
Annie Hillier
2
City Planner
Blockedwww.bainbridgewa.gov <Blockedhttp://www.bainbridgewa.gov/>
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
Exhibit 12
NOTICE OF APPLICATION/SEPA COMMENT PERIOD
The City of Bainbridge Island has received the following land use applications:
Date of Issuance:
Project Name & Number:
Project Type:
Applicant:
Owner:
Project Site & Tax Parcel:
December 22, 2017
Soundview Drive Lot 5 RUE & Variance (PLN50850A RUE &
PLN50850A VAR) and Soundview Drive Lot 6 RUE & Variance
(PLN50850B RUE & PLN50850B VAR)
Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
Inhabit Limited Liability Company
Inhabit Limited Liability Company
Lot 5: 2171 Soundview Dr. NE, TA# 41460040050004 & Lot 6: *no situs
address*, TA# 41460040060003
Project Description:
Construct two SFRs on Lots 5 and 6 (Block 4) of Fort Ward Estates, on
Soundview Drive NE. Lot 5 contains a mapped wetland on its eastern edge,
and both lots are encumbered by associated wetland buffers. Requesting
variance from front setback.
Environmental Review:
This proposal is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as
provided in WAC 197-11-800. The City, acting as lead agency expects to issue
a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) threshold determination for this
proposal. Utilizing the optional DNS process provided in WAC 197-11-355,
the comment period specified in this notice may be the only opportunity to
comment on the environmental impact of this proposal. The Proposal may
include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review
process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether
an EIS is prepared. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the
proposal may be obtained upon request.
Comment period:
The City will not take a final action on the proposal nor make a threshold
determination for 14 days from the date of this notice. Any person may
comment on the proposal and/or the SEPA review. Additionally, any person
may participate in a public hearing, if any, and my request a copy of any
decision. For consideration under SEPA environmental review, comments
must be submitted by January 5, 2018.
If you have any questions,
contact: Annie Hillier,
Planner
Department of Planning
& Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, WA
98110
(206) 780-3773 or
ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
PLN50850B VAR Soundview Drive Lot 5
December 22, 2017
Owner Address City State
ANSTIS FLORENCE GWENELLE TRUSTEE 2405 55TH ST SW Everett WA
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND METROPOLITAN PARKS & REC DIST 7666 NE HIGH SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
BIELMAN MATTHEW & BEKA 2033 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
BITTMAN TRISH KIM 2101 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
BLACKER ROAN & LETICIA 2017 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
BURRIS LARRY V & SUSAN M 4650 CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
CARROLL MARY ELIZABETH 2175 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
CHENEY JAMES C & JILL N 2405 55TH ST SW Everett WA
CHENEY ROGER ALLEN & BARBARA FAYE ANSTIS 2213 NE VICTORIAN LN UNIT A BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
CIBULA TIMOTHY S & SHARON M 2385 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
COLE THOMAS A II & GAIL L PO BOX 11489 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
COOK GREGORY & WADE ARLENE 9620 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
COWAN MARK S & CAROL S 9625 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
DENNISON JAMES B & ALISON J 2025 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
DIETSCH MICHAEL 4035 85TH AVE SE MERCER ISLAND WA
DOHERTY SEAN T & CHRISTINA 9684 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
DOMBROWSKI MARY V 2412 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
FARLEY PATRICK M & JOHNSON VANESSA 2130 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
FULLER BARBARA LYNN 2285 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
FULWELL ROBERT & AIMEE 1437A NW 62ND ST SEATTLE WA
GATZKE ALAN & FERRIN 2123 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
GOODWIN RUSSELL B & BARBARA J TTEES 8511 NAPLES DR Huntington Beach CA
HEMPHILL TIMOTHY & LAURA 3273 PLEASANT BEACH DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
HENRY RHONDA L 2100 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
INHABIT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 330 MADISON AVE S STE 108 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
JANUSZ DIANE 2148 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
KLINEFELTER JAMES H & LYNN S 2030 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
KRAMER JOSH & WEAVER KATHIE 2215 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
LEE SARAH MARGARET 1948 PARK VIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
MACFARLANE MARY J 2213 NE VICTORIAN LN APT C BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
MAES ADRIAN ANTHONY 2314 S WILKESON ST TACOMA WA
MARX FLORENCE MARY TRUSTEE 7104 265TH ST NW APT 410 STANWOOD WA
MARX WILLIAM H JR 7104 265TH ST NW APT 410 STANWOOD WA
PLN50850B VAR Soundview Drive Lot 5
December 22, 2017
Owner Address City State
MILLER JACQUELINE M & TIMOTHY D 2135 FORT WARD HILL RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
MONTA JOAN L TRUST 1736 164TH NE BELLEVUE WA
OLSEN JAMES & MARY 2412 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
OLSEN JAMES M & DOMBROWSKI MARY V 2412 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
PARKER JOHN E & CHRISTINE L 1249 OXFORD PL Morgantown WV
PICKLE SCOTT A & MICHELE L 9771 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
POEHNER CAPULET WOODSTONE & QUAINTON SARAH MCMILLAN TTEES 2267 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
PROPERTY BIZNESS 4 LLC 2112 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
PUGLIA CHRISTEN & BARRETT CHRISTOPHER T 2154 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
REPYAK DAVID C 14723 1ST LN NE UNIT 103 DUVALL WA
Resident 2225 Fort Ward Hill Rd NE Bainbridge Island WA
Resident 2232 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2274 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2324 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2333 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2074 Soundview Dr NE Bainbridge Island WA
Resident 2132 Soundview Dr NE Bainbridge Island WA
Resident 2178 Soundview Dr NE Bainbridge Island WA
Resident 2075 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2105 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2137 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2171 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2106 FORT WARD HILL RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2145 Belfair Ave NE Bainbridge Island WA
Resident 2011 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2193 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
Resident 2044 Belfair Ave NE Bainbridge Island WA
Resident 2156 BELFAIR AVE NE Bainbridge Island WA
Resident 9647 NE Radio School Rd Bainbridge Island WA
ROUS CHAD J & SARAH M 9642 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
RURAL AMERICAN PROPERTIES INC 21241 VENTURA BLVD STE 276 WOODLAND HILLS CA
SAFFORD DUANE & EILEEN 2224 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
SAKURAI ANDREW K 2363 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
PLN50850B VAR Soundview Drive Lot 5
December 22, 2017
Owner Address City State
SISCOE JOHN P & CAROLYN G 2300A SOUNDVIEW DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
STEWART JEFFREY B & HULET CHRISTINA M 14778 SIVERTSON RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
THOMPSON BERNARD F 19050 ANGELINE AVE NE SUQUAMISH WA
THORNTON MAXWELL & VALERIE 2179 FORT WARD HIL RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
VICTORIAN LANE OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 11274 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
WHITSON RICHARD & ERIN 6565 ISLAND CENTER RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
WURZER LYNNE D TRUSTEE 2772 MONTECITO DR FALLBROOK CA
YOUNG JOHN & PARVIN ESTHER 9307 MANDUS OLSON RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA
PLN50850B VAR Soundview Drive Lot 5
December 22, 2017
Zip
98203
98110-2621
98110
98110
98110
98110-2042
98110
98203
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98040
98110
98110
98110
98110
98107
98110
92646
98110-3211
98110
98110-2544
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98405
98292-6250
98292-6250
PLN50850B VAR Soundview Drive Lot 5
December 22, 2017
Zip
98110-2314
98008
98110
98110
26505
98110-3083
98110
98110
98110
98019-6450
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
98110
91364
98110
98110
PLN50850B VAR Soundview Drive Lot 5
December 22, 2017
Zip
98110
98110
98392
98110
98110
98110
92028
98110
Exhibit 13
Email 1 (Fulwell)
1
Ann Hillier
From:rob.fulwell@gmail.com on behalf of Rob Fulwell <rob@fulwell.com>
Sent:Saturday, December 30, 2017 7:57 AM
To:Ann Hillier
Subject:re: Soundview Drive Lot 5 RUE & Variance and Soundview Drive Lot 6 RUE & Variance
To whom it may concern,
We have a wetland and associated buffers in this location for good reason and I see no overriding justification for
granting a variance in this case.
The protected areas in this neighborhood are already under siege and we need to do our utmost to honor their purpose.
In my opinion, this is an attempt on the part of a developer to make a quick buck and the result will be a property with
continuing water and pest problems for any unfortunate buyer who does not understand their purchase.
Thank you for your attention,
Rob Fulwell
Email 2 (Siscoe)
1
Ann Hillier
From:globe@zipcon.com
Sent:Friday, January 5, 2018 2:23 PM
To:Ann Hillier
Cc:globe@zipcon.net
Subject:Comment 0n Soundview Dr Lot 5 & variance (PLN50850A RUE & PLN50850B VAR &
Soundview DR LOT 6 RUE & Variance (PLN50850B RUE & PLN50850B VAR).
Project site and Tax parcel LOT 5: 2171 Soundview dr NE TA #
41460040050004 &Lot 6: no situs address* TA # 41460040060003.
I believe no variance should be granted to the builders of these two lots bypassing the front setbacks. The setbacks
has encouraged front gardens pleasant as well as sound buffers to neighbor and walker bys. It creates a continuous
visual garden. To abruptly change the ambiance of our neighborhood because of this refusal to follow existing rules and
practices would create a blight in a crucial part of our neighborhood. And the front setback rule has been used ever
since the founding of Fort Ward Estates and created a cohesive looking neighborhood. There is no reason to change it. It
is not crucial to a builder enjoying his property which was bought with the full knowledge acceptance of the setback
rule. It is a bad precedence to set.
Everyone else in Fort Ward has followered the setback rule and it has resulted in a delightful residential neighborhood
encouraging high pedestrian involvement on Soundview, and Belfair. The lots are on Belfair which is the gateway to Fort
Ward Park which is heavily used by all ages. It is where the school bus has stop and is the major entry way onto the
residential areas from Fort ward Hill Road.
The builders by buying these two lots which ere among the last to sell and were the cheapest in this area because of
their wetlands associations acknowledged their acceptance of the building guidelines involving front setbacks and rules
by their purchasing. Now they wish to change the rules and the whole scope of the neighborhood. I do not believe it
should be granted. Building a smaller new home of 1200 sq ft or so is not a hardship.
There is downsizing in homes now. I see in the real estate ads many home of that size and smaller selling for upwards
$600,00 selling in Winslow. Their house will have many new features which will be attractive. We shouldn't put our
neighbor hood in jeopardy for something unnecessary.
The builders are not prevented the enjoyment of their property by not granting a variance which could ruin the
neighborhood and establish a an unfortunate precedence to be used by others in more dubious circumstance.
The City has a duty to not just uphold an existing rule " the front setback rule which has been in existence in Fort Ward
ever since the beginning of Fort Ward Estates and then some. I am sure some because of selfish reasons want to change
it but is a good rule that has created an livable neighborhood many want to live in and should be maintained.
Please keep me in touch with this request and its process.
thank you for your attention,
Also let me know you received my comment.
Carolyn Siscoe,
2330 Soundview Dr NE #A
Bainbridge Island, Wa 98110
206-842 8265
Email 3 (Dombrowski)
26 December 2017
Re: Soundview Drive Lot 5 RUE & Variance (PLN50850A RUE & PLN50850A VAR) and
Soundview Drive Lot 6 RUE & Variance (PLN50850B RUE and PLN50850B VAR)
To Whom It May Concern;
I am writing to oppose/condition granting of the above-referenced RUEs and VARs as follows:
•The southern block of Soundview Drive NE does not yet align with the northern block of
Soundview Drive NE. Relocation of the southern block of Soundview must be accomplished
before any other work is considered. Property owners on both the east and west sides of
Soundview Drive deserve equal setbacks from the center line of the ROW.
•Relocation of Soundview Drive is a safety issue. Vehicles making the turn from Belfair Drive
right onto Soundview must make a sharp turn with limited visibility. Proper location of the
southern block of Soundview to the center of the ROW will ameliorate the limited visibility at
that corner.
•The subject properties lie within wetlands/wetland buffers. Extreme caution need be taken not
to damage the wetlands lying between Soundview and Radio School Road. Building
envelopes which respect both the setback from the ROW and the wetlands/wetland buffer
dwindle the building envelopes into nonexistence. If permission is given to build, the smallest
possible footprint may be granted. The area under consideration has in existence a number of
"tiny houses". A permit to build a tiny house will best mirror existing development in the Fort
and conform to wetland buffer/setback from ROW..
•Both Lots 5 and 6 have been in continuous use for 30 years (?) by residents living in proximity
to Lots 5 and 6. These residents express a claim to eminent domain. Thus, title to the lots is
clouded and must be cleared before relief from setback and buffer restrictions is granted.
Thank you for your consideration of these factors. I look forward to your response.
Yours truly,
Mary Victoria Dombrowski
2412 Soundview Drive NE
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
maryvdombrowski@gmail.com
Email 4 (Safford)
I am writing to oppose the application for a RUE and variance for Soundview
Lots 5 and 6 (PLN50850A RUE & PLN50850A VAR and PLN50850B RUE and
PLN50850B VAR).
This is not the first time variances have been sought for these substandard
lots. In the spring of 2004, for example, applications similar to the current
ones were submitted. Obviously, that development did not happen.
Both lots 5 and 6 lie primarily in the wetland or wetland buffer. The wetland
does not recognize borders of property lines, yet it has been chipped away
at since the current sewer system made building on surrounding lots
possible. Lots to the east of these lots were built on based on inaccurate
wetland mapping, thus further degrading the wetlands and buffers. Lots
directly south of lots 5 and 6 are being developed, with reduction of
buffers. Allowing building on lots 5 and 6 will further degrade this wetland.
The entire wetland is at risk of being destroyed bit by bit.
In their SEPA checklist, the current applicant implies that the boundaries of
the wetland are due to the culvert being misplaced. Certainly, human activity
has impacted the wetland! The roadbed through the wetland (Belfair trail)
was put in by the military without regard to the wetland. Before that, the
wetland ran continuously from approximately Parkview, north to Port Blakely.
Before the current culvert was put in, the wetland was even larger. Here’s
what the wetland was like before the current culvert:
Replacing the current culvert will not “restore” the wetland, but reduce it’s
impact on the lots in question.
The southern section of Soundview Drive is not properly sited. The eastern
edge of the road is actually where the middle of the road should be, thus
giving the east side properties the illusion of a depth of approximately
fifteen feet more. This essentially increases the usable yard of the eastern
lots, while the western lots are left without the fifteen foot right of way.
Additionally, misalignment of the road at the intersection of Belfair and
Soundview creates a sharp turn and limits visibility. The trail that connects
Soundview to Radio School Road is heavily used by children going to and from
the school bus and by people accessing the park. As development on
Soundview increases traffic, this becomes more and more dangerous.
The City of Bainbridge Island is currently reviewing the Critical Areas
Ordinance. It is likely that changes to the ordinance could effect the
wetland and these lots. Doesn’t it make sense to wait to make a decision on
these lots until the ordinance is adopted?
Also please find attached my letter to Christy Carr of COBI regarding the
RUE VAR for the lots to the south of lots 5 and 6. All of these issues
remain, although maybe even more severely due to the proximity of the lots
to the wetland, road, and intersection, as well as the smaller size of the lots.
At the hearing for that application, the hearing examiner stated that he
believed these lots should not be developed, but felt his hands were tied.
Perhaps, since lots 5 and 6 are even more encumbered by the wetlands than
those to the south, there is a way to protect them.
Most sincerely,
Eileen Hurley Safford
2224 Soundview Drive NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
842-8181
ehsafford@icloud.com
December 1, 2016
Christy Carr, AICP
City of Bainbridge Island
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Re: Rural American PLN15354 RUE VAR
Dear Ms. Carr:
I am writing to implore your department to NOT grant any reduction of wetland buffers
or setbacks for the lots on Soundview Drive.
This wetland presents unique challenges. The property in and around this wetland was
divided into tiny lots in the 1960’s just before zoning was enacted that would have made
such small lots impossible. In the 1990’s, when the sewer plant was about to be built
rendering previously undevelopable lots buildable, many contiguous lots were put into
individual ownership in hopes of maintaining the maximum number of homes possible.
Thus, the wetland covers or abuts dozens of tiny lots and even some roads. If each lot is
allowed to reduce or eliminate the buffer, the entire wetland will eventually be developed
and degraded to some extent.
Furthermore, this particular section of the wetland has already been compromised. The
houses built on its east side (on Belfair) were permitted based on an inaccurate map (this
is in the city record) and therefore there was no consideration of the setback or buffers.
Thus, those lots were developed with no regard to the wetland and with no protection of
the wetland.
Owners of home bordering the wetland on the east side, as well as those whose homes
were built in other wetland areas in Fort Ward, have had to go to extensive and expensive
measures to protect their property. They continue to rely on sump pumps and other
measures to protect their homes from nature.
Other wetlands in the area, notably the on Kitsap, Soundview, and Fort Ward Hill, have
already been compromised or eliminated. The soil in Fort Ward area is clay and thus the
water either stays on the surface or runs off. One goal of the EPA’s wetland management
is to have no net loss of water in a watershed. With the degradation or loss of these
wetlands, the water in this area has no place to go but down the surrounding slopes.
The road on south Soundview is in the wrong place. The center of the road should be 15
feet to the east, 15 feet into the already small lots on the east side of Soundview. The
setback due to the road already gives a deceptive idea of the size of the building
envelope. In addition, the current road will not support the trucks and construction
vehicles needed to develop these lots, let alone the increased traffic of more homes. Will
the developer bear the cost of rebuilding the road?
These lots on Soundview have changed ownership several times since they were first sold
in the sixties. Previous owners have not been able to develop these lots and have
eventually resold them. With each change of ownership, the price has escalated, yet these
lots are still relatively inexpensive. They are inexpensive and basically unbuildable
because of all the problems they have. The current owners were fully aware that they
were buying substandard lots that were encumbered by wetlands when they bought them.
Other substandard lots on Soundview have been developed in line with setbacks and
buffers. Property owners have built smaller structures, chose not to develop, or even in
one case moved an existing building in order to maintain setbacks and buffers.
We all know the importance of wetlands and why they must be protected. Why even have
wetland buffers if variances are allowed? Please do not allow any more degradation of
wetlands, particularly the one between Soundview and Belfair.
Most sincerely,
Eileen Hurley Safford
2224 Soundview Drive NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
842-8181
ehsafford@icloud.com
Exhibit 14
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
FOR FORT WARD LOTS 5 & 6
Fort Ward Lots 5 & 6 RUE
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Prepared for
Inhabit LLC
330 Mdaison Avenue South,
Suite 108
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
(206) 550-9004
January 17, 2018
Prepared by
Ecological Land Services
1157 3rd Avenue South, Suite 220A •Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371 •Project Number 2405.01
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5& 6 RUE Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report i January 8, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................1
SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................................1
VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................2
SOILS ................................................................................................................................................3
HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................................4
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY .................................................................................................4
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREAS ...........................................................................................4
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................4
WETLAND CATEGORIZATION .....................................................................................................4
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS ..................................................................................................4
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ...................................................................................................5
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL .....................................................................................................5
MITIGATION SEQUENCING ..............................................................................................................6
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................................7
MAINTENANCE ..............................................................................................................................12
MONITORING PLAN .......................................................................................................................13
CONTINGENCY PLAN .....................................................................................................................14
SITE PROTECTION .........................................................................................................................14
LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................14
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................15
FIGURES & PHOTOPLATES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Buffer Impact Map
Figure 4 Soil Survey Map
Figure 5 National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 6 Bainbridge Island Critical Areas Map
Figure 7 WRF -150’Offset
Figure 8 WRF –1 KM Offset
Figure 9 Wetland Comparison Map
Figure 10 Mitigation Plan Overview
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5& 6 RUE Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report ii January 8, 2018
Figure 11 Wetland Rating Figure –303(d)/TMDL
Photoplates Site Photos
APPENDIX A
Wetland Determination Data Forms
APPENDIX B
Western Washington Wetland Rating Form
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5& 6 RUE Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report iii January 8, 2018
SIGNATURE PAGE
The information and data in this report were compiled and prepared under the supervision and
direction of the undersigned.
___________________________
Joanne Bartlett, PWS
Senior Biologist
Laura Westervelt
Biologist
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 1 August 23, 2017
INTRODUCTION
Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS)was contracted by Julian Prosser to conduct a wetland
boundary delineation and report for Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 and 6,which is comprised of parcel
numbers 4146-004-005-0004 and 4146-004-006-0003,within a portion of Section 11,Township
24 North, Range 2 East of the Willamette Meridian,in Bainbridge Island, Washington (Figure 1).
This report summarizes findings of the wetland delineation according to the City of Bainbridge
Island Municipal Code (BIMC), Chapter 16.20.160 (2007)for delineation methodology, wetland
categorization, and required buffer widths.
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 (Ecology), and locally by Bainbridge Island.
To determine the current presence or absence of wetlands on this property, ELS biologists
collected data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils.The delineation site visit was conducted on
June 10, 2016 during which,one wetland was delineated east of Lot 6 and along the east property
line of Lot 5.There was also a delineation site visit conducted on lots 2, 3, and 4 to the south on
September 9, 2016, which continued the wetland boundary to the southern extent.The boundary
of the wetland was delineated using consecutively numbered fluorescent flagging labeled
“WETLAND DELINEATION.” Wetland boundaries were determined through breaks in
topography, changes in vegetation, and evidence of surface hydrology. Vegetation, hydrol ogy, and
soil data was collected at four test plots to verify the wetland boundary delineations (Appendix A).
The wetland boundary was mapped using a Trimble handheld Global Positioning System (GPS)
unit to show the extent of the wetland on the site map (Figure 2).
SITE DESCRIPTION
Lots 5 and 6 are located on the east side of Soundview Drive NE (Photoplate 1)in the Fort Ward
Estates area of Bainbridge Island (Figure 1).They are rectangular-shaped parcels with Lot 6
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 2 August 23, 2017
oriented north to south and Lot 5 oriented west to east (Figure 2).The properties are level on the
west side and slope down gradually into a shallow depression on the east half (Photoplates 2 and
3).The properties are undeveloped,but the level areas in the Soundview Drive right-of-way are
being mowed and utilized by neighboring residents for storage of vehicles. The two lots are
composed mainly of disturbed upland forest (Photoplates 1, 2, 4, and 5)with a deciduous tree
canopy.The shrub layer is extremely dense below the sparse trees and creates an impenetrable
barrier.The adjacent properties are undeveloped, with the exception of the properties across
Soundview Drive which are developed residentially.The right-of-way of Belfair Avenue lies north
of Lot 6 but is unimproved and used as a pedestrian path.
The wetland was identified and delineated east of Lot 6 extending south along the east edge of Lot
5 (Figure 2). Wetland A is situated in a depressional trough bordered by residential development
on the southeast and south sides. It is a depressional system dominated by a combination of
forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent vegetation communities (Photoplates 3,4, and 5).The
wetland has a seasonally flooded hydroperiod with northerly water flow into a culvert at the north
end that conveys water into wetlands north of Belfair Avenue (Photoplate 4).
The project will propose one single family residences on each lot.Because the required wetland
buffers (mainly the water quality buffer) encompasses the entire buildable portion of each lot, the
homes will require permitting through the Reasonable Use Exception (RUE).A mitigation plan
has been prepared to address the impacts associated with constructing the homes within the water
quality buffer.Mitigation is proposed as a combination of onsite enhancement and replacement of
the culvert beneath Belfair Avenue.The culvert was not installed at the proper grade and is angled
up to the north so water only leaves the wetland during periods of high precipitation events (Figure
9).The improperly installed culvert has caused the wetland on these lots to expand over time and
has at least in part created the buffer issues on these lots. The connection to wetland areas north of
Belfair Avenue will improve the function of the onsite wetland as well as the wetlands to the north.
VEGETATION
Wetland Vegetation
Wetland A is comprised of forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent communities.There were no trees
at Test Plot 1 in Wetland A but the adjacent tree canopy is dominated by western red cedar (Thuja
plicata,FAC)and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata, FACU). The shrub layer was dominated by
dense rose spirea (Spiraea douglasii, FACW)and Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC)with
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC)occurring in Test Plot 4. Lower percentages of
pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp.lasiandra, FACW), English hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna,
FAC), and English holly (Ilex aquifolium, FACU)occur in wetland test plots.Lady fern (Athyrium
cyclosorum, FAC), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW), and large-leaf avens (Geum
macrophyllum, FACU) dominate the herbaceous layer with lower percentages of sword fern
(Polystichum munitum, FACU),horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC),velvet grass (Holcus lanatus,
FAC),soft rush (Juncus effusus, FACW),and American vetch (Vicia americana, FAC)also
present.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 3 August 23, 2017
Upland Vegetation
The upland areas onsite are composed of forested and shrub communities. The upland test plots
did not include trees,however the adjacent forest was dominated by western red cedar, red alder
(Alnus rubra, FAC), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU).Shrub vegetation in upland
test plots is dominated by Nootka rose,English hawthorn, and Himalayan blackberry with lower
occurrences of evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus, FACU). The herbaceous layer is
dominated by sword fern,velvet grass, and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata, FACU) with lower
percentages of trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus, FACU), veronica (Veronica americana, OBL),
horsetail, fringe cup (Tellima grandiflora, FACU), bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus, FAC),
soft rush, and large-leaf avens also present.
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 2015) website,
Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (7)is mapped across both lots (Figure 4).Cathcart soils
are not classified as hydric (NRCS 2014)and do not have inclusions of hydric soil map units.
Areas mapped as 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.
Wetland Soils
The evaluated wetland soils at Test Plots 1 and 4 were composed of silt loam to clay loam with
black to dark grayish brown (10YR 2/1 to 10YR 4/2) soil matrix colors.Redoximorphic features
were observed in 5 to 15 percent of the matrix and having dark yellowish-brown to yellowish-
brown (10YR 3/4 to 10YR 5/8) colors.The soil profiles meet the criteria for hydric soil indicators
F3 because of the depleted matrix chromas and presence of redoximorphic features.
Upland Soils
The evaluated upland soils at Test Plots 2 and 3 consisted of gravelly silt loam to silt loam with
brown to dark grayish-brown (10YR 3/2 to 10YR 4/2) soil matrix colors.The upland soil profiles
appear to meet the criteria for hydric soil indicator F3 because depleted matrix chromas were
recorded.However, the soil profiles were determined to be non-hydric because the profiles lacked
redoximorphic features and closely match the description for Cathcart silt loam, which is not
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 4 August 23, 2017
classified as hydric.These areas are determined to be upland due to the lack of hydrophytic
vegetation and/or wetland hydrology.
HYDROLOGY
Hydrology was not observed in Wetland A during the June 2016 site visit but there were indicators
of surface water at the north end during the growing season. Although surface water was not
present in the wetland, the soil sample was glistening at Test Plot 4 indicating that the soil remains
damp. The source of hydrology to Wetland A is mainly direct precipitation and surface water
runoff from adjacent developed properties.It appears that Wetland A fills with rain water and
runoff during the winter and spring to a depth that allows flow of water north through the culvert at
the north end (under Belfair Avenue). The culvert appears to be angled slightly with the higher end
at the north, which prevents water flow until the wetland is flooded beyond its boundaries (Figure
9).This is evident when previous delineation maps are compared over time (Figure 9).The
culvert conveys water into the wetland north of Belfair Avenue. The wetland north of Belfair
Avenue is part of a series of wetlands that extend northerly to the north end of Fort Ward Estates.
The wetlands discharge into a stream that flows northerly to Blakely Harbor.Water was not
present in the upland areas and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)does not map wetlands on or within 250 feet of the
property (Figure 5).The findings of the ELS delineation do not agree with the NWI mapping
because wetland is present along the east edges of the two lots.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.
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREAS
The Bainbridge Island Critical Areas map (BI 2015)maps wetland outside the east boundary of Lot
6 and extending onto the east boundary of Lot 5 (Figure 6), which represents Wetland A.The ELS
biologists agree with the general mapping of wetland (Figure 2).
CONCLUSIONS
WETLAND CATEGORIZATION
The wetland is situated in a depression having emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested vegetation
classes and a seasonally flooded hydroperiod.The wetland was rated according to Washington
State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington-2014 Update (Rating System)(Hruby
2014).Wetland A received 17 points on the rating form and is considered a Category III,
Depressional system rated based on functions (Appendix B).
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS
The BIMC Chapter 16.20.160 specifies buffers based on wetland category, scores for habitat
functions on the rating form, and the intensity of the proposed land use in accordance with the
2014 wetland rating system.The BIMC has not been revised to meet the 2014 rating system scores
so does not reflect the new point totals for determining the buffer widths based on habitat scores.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 5 August 23, 2017
However, Ecology has developed guidance for converting 2004 wetland rating system habitat
scores to the 2014 wetland rating system habitat scores.Water quality buffers are required for all
wetlands and habitat buffer widths are required for wetlands scoring moderate to high habitat
functions on the rating form.Wetland A is a Category III wetland that received a moderate score
for habitat function. Because these lots are less than 1 acre in size, development on both are
considered high intensity land use, which increases the width of the water quality and habitat
buffers.The BIMC requires an 80-foot water quality buffer and a 70-foot habitat buffer because of
the moderate habitat score and the high intensity land use proposal.The 150-foot buffer extends
beyond the west property boundaries and across Soundview Drive.However,buffers do not extend
beyond improved roads that serve more than one home;the buffer width for Wetland A extends
only to Soundview Drive. Therefore, the total buffer width provided to Wetland A is 110 feet.A
15-foot building and impervious surface setback is also specified from the edge of critical area
buffers.
Buffer reductions are permitted by the BIMC Section 16.20.050 through the buffer averaging
process.The buffer is reduced in one location and increased in another by the same square footage
to create a buffer that averages the required buffer width. The BIMC also permits reductions of the
habitat buffers for wetlands if it can be documented that the reduction will provide a buffer that
result in adequate protection for the wetland. A habitat management plan and buffer mitigation are
required as part of this reduction process. Buffer reductions for water quality buffers are permitted
only through the formal variance or Reasonable Economic Use Exception processes.
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
The project proposes building one single family home on each lot.The two lots are entirely
encompassed by the current wetland buffers, right-of-ways, and front yard setbacks. The required
water quality and habitat buffers extend beyond the west lot boundaries so no habitat buffer occurs
on these lots. Administrative options for buffer reduction do not apply to water quality buffer
widths.Even if administrative reductions were permitted, it would not allow enough buildable
area to accommodate the proposed homes. Therefore, in order to accommodate homes on each lot,
the water quality buffer will need to be reduced by the Reasonable Use Exception process. Buffer
mitigation is required to compensate for the buffer reduction per the BIMC 16.20.050.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The project proposes construction of a single family home on each lot as close to Soundview
Drive as possible (Figure 3).The entirety of each lot is encompassed by wetland buffers, the
right-of-way of Soundview Drive, and front/side yard setbacks.Any construction on the lots will
impact the water quality buffer.The wetland was rated as a Category III with a moderate habitat
score (5 points)and so requires a total buffer of 150 feet.The homes will be situated within the
150-foot wetland buffer where the vegetation is dominated by grasses and non-native invasives,
which primarily include Himalayan blackberry (Photoplate 1).Combined, the homes represent
6,114 square feet of impact to the wetland buffer.The driveway, walkways, and hardscaping
associated with both houses represent 2,400 square feet of pervious pavement.The use of
pervious pavement reduces the amount of runoff that can pick up pollutants during wet
conditions.The stormwater will infiltrate directly into the soil beneath the pavement and filter
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 6 August 23, 2017
through the soil before reaching the wetland.While the typical requirement for buffer mitigation
is a ratio of 1:1, the project on these lots cannot meet this requirement because the reduced buffer
only totals 4,578, for a ratio of 0.75:1, impact to enhancement. There is also little opportunity on
the lots to improve buffer conditions because it is densely vegetated with Nootka rose and
hawthorn trees. Therefore, the mitigation will include a combination of onsite buffer
enhancement around the proposed homes and replacement of the culvert under Belfair Avenue.
Replacing the culvert will restore the hydrologic continuity of this wetland to the wetland north of
Belfair Avenue (Figure 9).Buffer enhancement will include planting of native vegetation (small
trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation) around the house with a line of lower growing conifer
trees (shore pine) and a split-rail fence along the buffer edge.The houses on these lots,
encompassed by wetland buffer, will result in permanent impacts to the buffer function but will
have minimal impact on the wetland. The proposed home sites will result in removal of non-
native shrubs and grass from 10,692 square feet of the wetland buffer, 4,578 square feet of which
will be replanted upon completion.The minimum buffer width occurs on Lot 5 because the lot is
oriented west to east whereas; Lot 6 is oriented north to south. The homes will be situated 23 feet
from the wetland boundary on Lot 5 and 32 feet on Lot 6.
MITIGATION SEQUENCING
The 150-foot wetland buffer covers the two lots and extends beyond Soundview Drive.The
proposed homes with driveways will occupy 6,114 square feet (the two lots combined)of the
buffer. The houses are also constrained by the setbacks required from the property lines, which
include a 15-foot side yard setback to the north and south. Additionally, there is a 25-foot front
yard setback from the Soundview Drive right-of-way, which significantly reduces the area
available for home construction on these lots.As part of the mitigation process, projects proposed
within a wetland buffer are required to address the mitigation sequencing process to assess whether
the project can avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce impacts before identifying compensation or
mitigation measures.
Avoiding Impacts:The undeveloped lots are vegetated by somewhat disturbed upland plant
communities along the west halves.The east halves are encompassed by dense upland and wetland
shrub communities. The proposed house locations are composed of grasses and non-native shrubs
with several vehicles from the adjacent residences with the road right-of-way. The project
proposes no work in the wetland itself and so avoids impacts to the wetland environment. The
project cannot avoid impacts to the buffer because the properties are completely composed of
buffers and setbacks.
Minimizing Impacts:The project is minimizing the impacts by proposing the houses as close to
Soundview Drive as allowed by the setbacks in a portion of the buffer that has low function.In
addition, reduction of the front yard setback is proposed to minimize the impacts to the wetland
and buffer.Both houses have been positioned so that they are as far from the wetland as possible
and the footprints have been minimized to the extent possible.The use of pervious pavement for
the driveways and walkways will minimize the amount of runoff as well as the opportunity for
runoff to pick up pollutants.The location and orientation of the house is in keeping with the Fort
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 7 August 23, 2017
Ward Design Guidelines.The homes use the same design and orientation to provide small
affordable housing units and to keep construction costs low.
Rectifying the Impacts:The project represents a permanent impact to the buffer so cannot rectify
the impacts to the affected habitats.
Reducing or Eliminating the Impacts:The project cannot reduce or eliminate the impacts by
preservation and maintenance.
Compensating for the Impacts:The project cannot avoid, rectify, or reduce the impact to the
wetland buffer but has minimized the impact to the extent possible by proposing the houses as far
from the wetland boundary as possible. Because the proposal cannot avoid all impacts to the
wetland buffer, mitigation in the form of buffer enhancement is proposed.The enhancement plan
will involve installation of native plants around the houses after they are constructed to represent as
natural a buffer setting as possible. In addition, a line of conifer trees will be installed along the
buffer edge to improve the noise and light screening function of the buffer. The mitigation also
includes replacement of the culvert under Belfair Avenue currently used as a pedestrian path.
Replacement will reconnect historically connected wetland systems on both sides of the road.
Other options for mitigation were explored as part of the project proposed immediately south on
Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Soundview Drive. These options included contacting the Bainbridge Island
Land Trust to determine whether there were opportunities available for mitigation on properties
controlled by the land trust. The land trust determined that they had no avenue for accepting funds
or assistance with restoration or enhancement on local properties. The city owned lands adjacent
to the lots are also not available for mitigation opportunities. Therefore, the combination
mitigation plan was selected for a comparable ratio based on the functional lift achieved by
reconnecting the wetlands on both sides of Belfair Avenue hydrologically in addition to onsite
buffer enhancement.
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
The inner 80 feet of wetland buffer is densely vegetated with Nootka rose and English hawthorn
trees that provide a very protective buffer for the depressional wetland. The mitigation plan
proposes to focus on increasing species diversity by planting around the future homes and
minimizing the cover by the houses.Invasive plant removal will be conducted where feasible and
necessary in the dense shrub buffer during implementation of the plan.The native trees, shrubs,
and herbaceous plants will be installed around the proposed homes once construction is completed
(Figure 10). The split rail fence will be installed at the edge of the reduced buffer following
completion of the homes (Figure 10).The existing buffer vegetation is very dense and
impenetrable from the future building sites on each lot. The installation of shore pines at the edge
of the buffer is intended to provide another level of protection for the wetland from the future
homes as well as increase coniferous diversity. The placement of the fence is intended to provide a
clear demarcation of the critical area and buffer to prevent continual access by future residents.
The mitigation plan also includes specifications for replacement of the culvert under Belfair
Avenue to provide a better hydrologic connection between the wetlands that lie within Fort Ward
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 8 August 23, 2017
Estates.Because of the size and orientation of the lots as well as the condition of the existing
buffer vegetation, mitigation options are limited to the areas immediately adjacent to the proposed
homes. The limited mitigation options make it difficult to provide a 1:1 ratio that will ad equately
compensate for the buffer impact. Therefore, a portion of the proposed mitigation will involve
replacement of the culvert under Belfair.
Wetland Functional Lift
The wetlands in Fort Ward Estates were historically part of one larger system that upon
development of the area were divided into somewhat individual wetlands by roads (Belfair Avenue
to the north of these lots and Richardson Street to the northeast). During construction, culverts
were placed beneath the roads but the one at Belfair was placed too high in elevation so did not
allow the continued flow of water into the northern wetland areas. Due to the lack of hydrological
continuity caused by the improperly installed culvert,the original area of wetland south of Belfair
Avenue has expanded considerably (Figure 9). It appears that a larger culvert was installed several
years ago but it remains slightly higher in elevation than the bottom of the wetland south of Belfair
so has not restored hydrologic continuity. The wetland does not a ppear to have expanded as a
result of the new culvert but it has not allowed the wetland to restore to its original limits.
B-twelve Associates, Inc. conducted a delineation of the wetlands within Fort Ward Estates in
1992.The boundary identified in 1992 is significantly smaller than the boundary identified by
Wiltermood Associates, Inc. (Wiltermood)in 2006.The boundary identified during the 2006
delineation is located east of the 2017 boundary indicating that the wetland had expanded between
1992,2006,and 2017 site visits. These early delineation maps show the wetland south of Belfair
was smaller than it is currently further indicating that the culvert did not permit the wetland to
remain in its historic configuration and that this area of wetland was physically and hydrologically
disconnected from the other wetlands.
By improving the connection between the onsite wetland and the wetlands to the north, there will
be improvements in hydrologic connectivity, wildlife passage, and increased diversity within the
northern wetlands.When water is allowed to spread across both wetlands there will be an increase
in the ability of each wetland to function as one system for water quality improvement and water
quantity storage.It is recommended that the culvert be at least 24 inches across and is either
partially buried or bottomless. This will improve wildlife connectivity between the wetlands and
allow small animals such as frogs to move across the historic range.The wetland north of Belfair
Avenue is dominated by a dense community of soft rush.The increase in plant species diversity as
a result of seed sources reaching more areas will improve the water quality of the runoff that enters
the wetlands. The onsite wetland has greater plant species diversity and once the culvert is
replaced, the seeds from these plants will spread into the northern wetlands and thereby increase
the vegetation diversity.
Replacing the culvert will involve construction activities to occur very near and partially in the
wetlands.However, one construction is complete;the area will return to pre-construction
conditions and begin improving as discussed above.Vegetation along Belfair Avenue is
dominated by Himalayan blackberry and the soils are composed of densely compact ed gravel. The
work will only impact the soils on Belfair Avenue and will avoid disturbance of wetland soils to
the extent possible.The result of culvert replacement may shrink the boundary of the wetland over
time, however it will not shrink beyond its original boundary as delineated in 1992 (Figure 9).
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 9 August 23, 2017
Despite the potential for shrinking, the water quality and habitat functional lifts associated with
culvert replacement outweigh the potential loss of area.
Buffer Functional Lift
The existing buffer is densely vegetated by native trees and shrubs that are for the most part
deciduous. There are few if any conifer tree species in the buffer because of the dense nature of the
deciduous shrubs. The buffer has high functions because of the dense shrubs but lacks diversity
because there are only a few plant species including Nootka rose, hardhack, and hawthorn.
Planting of native vegetation around the future homes will increase the vegetation diversity as well
as provide additional screening function to the existing buffer vegetation.Shore pines will be
planted along the edge of the buffer to further improve the function of the buffer vegetation.The
trees will be especially beneficial in the winter months after the deciduous shrubs and small trees
lose their leaves. Therefore, the installation of conifer trees will increase the function of the buffer
as well as the diversity of the plants within the buffer.
Stormwater Assessment
The stormwater generated on the developed lots will be somewhat mitigated by planting native
trees and shrubs around each proposed home as well as through the use of LID methods that will
minimize the impact to water quality and quantity issues in the wetlands.Pervious pavement will
be used to allow stormwater to infiltrate, rather than runoff and pick up pollutants.Most of the
water generated on the developed lots will be on rooftops and because it is considered clean water,
it can be discharged toward the wetland buffer via splash blocks. The water will receive additio nal
filtration through the densely vegetated buffer area as well as the native plantings around each
home. Therefore, the proposed homes will not impose any new or additional water quality impacts
to the wetlands. Although it appears because of the development, that there will be an increase in
the water generated onsite and discharged into the wetland. Because the lots are composed of
dense silt loam and silty clay loam that have become compacted over a long period of time, they
basically represent impervious surfaces. For this reason, the homes will represent a replacement of
impervious surfaces and will not result in a significant increase the quantity of water generated on
these lots. In addition, the replacement of impervious surfaces will ensure t hat the wetland
receives the same amount of water that it does currently and will not result in a significant
reduction in the source of water. Replacement of the culvert at an appropriate elevation will
establish a connection with the northern wetlands, which will result in each wetland providing
adequate storage and release of water.
Specifications for Site Preparation
The tasks listed below will achieve the wetland buffer mitigation goals and objectives.These tasks
are listed in the order they are anticipated to occur;however,some tasks may occur concurrently
or may precede other tasks due to site and procedural constraints.
Buffer Enhancement Area
1.Stake or flag the proposed planting areas to precisely identify where invasives will be removed
and native plants installed.
2.Remove existing invasive vegetation from the wetland buffer prior to installation of the
native plants.
3.Install plantings according to the schedule and specifications proposed herein.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 10 August 23, 2017
Goals,Objectives,and Performance Standards
Project Goal:Improve wetland buffer functions to compensate for buffer reduction.
Objective 1:Control invasive species.
Performance Standard 1(a):During Years 1 through 7,invasive species will be removed and
suppressed in all onsite portions of the buffer as often as necessary to meet a performance
standard of no greater than 10 percent cover by invasive species.Percent cover will be recorded
annually and included in monitoring reports.
Objective 2:Improve native plant cover within the native shrub buffer community.
Performance Standard 2(a):The project will maintain 100 percent survival of installed plants
during the entire 7-year monitoring period.Plant species number will be recorded annually and
compared with as-built conditions for inclusion in yearly monitoring reports.
Objective 3: Increase native plant cover within the buffer and around the existing homes.
Performance Standard 3(a):There will be increasing cover by native plant species in the
enhanced wetland buffer over the 7-year monitoring period.
The yearly percent cover in the areas around the house shall be:
Year 1 -15 to 20 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 2 -20 to 25 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 3 -25 to 30 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 5 –40 to 50 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 7 -50 to 60 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Plant species percentages will be recorded annually and compared with as-built conditions to
determine overall success of the plantings.
Performance Standard 3(b):Shore pines grow relatively slowly so the cover is expected to
increase slowly over the seven year monitoring period. The trees shall be monitored for
increasing heights over the monitoring period as follows:
Year 1-up to 1.5 feet tall
Year 2-up to 2.5 feet tall
Year 3-up to 3.5 feet tall
Year 5-up to 5 feet tall
Year 7-up to 6 feet tall
Tree height will be recorded annually and compared with as-built conditions to determine overall
success of the plantings.
Objective 4: Improve connectivity of wetland habitat in Fort Ward Estates.
Performance Standard 4(a):Plant species from either side of Belfair Avenue will mingle
between the two portions of Wetland A and the larger culvert will encourage the passage of
wildlife.Observations on the north and south side,as well as within,the new culvert will be
made during each monitoring site visit and any actual or evident use by wildlife will be recorded.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 11 August 23, 2017
Specifications for Planting
The plants specified for installation are intended to diversify the existing plant community and
improve wetland buffer function.The plants proposed around the future homes will allow the
homes to be situated within a vegetated buffer dominated by native species, which improve the
function of the buffer as well as minimizing the impacts to the overall buffer area. T he shore
pines grow relatively slowly,and if maintained,will form a natural hedge of conifers that will
provide additional noise and light screening from the future homes.Their installation is intended
to improve upon the ground-level buffer function by increasing the density of conifer trees
alongside the existing native shrub community. The proposed location of the plants is presented
in the mitigation planting plan (Figure 10).
Plant Materials
Potted Stock
1.1 and 2-gallon potted plants will be purchased from a native plant nursery.
2.Potted stock will have a minimum size of 1.5 to 3 feet tall.
3.Potted stock will be kept in a shaded area prior to being planted.
4.The potted stock will have well-developed roots and sturdy stems with an
appropriate root-to-shoot ratio.
5.No damaged or desiccated roots or diseased plants will be accepted.
6.Unplanted stock will be properly s tored at the end of each planting day to prevent
desiccation.
7.The project biologist will be responsible for inspecting potted stock prior to and during
planting and culling unacceptable plant materials.
Planting Specifications
Removal of invasive plants can begin at any time following issuance of the permits by the city
and planting will take place during the winter months when the plants are dormant.Plants will
be installed as roughly indicated on the attached planting plan (Figure 10 ) or in small
groupings to mimic the natural environment and to enhance species survival.Table 1 provides
a list of plants proposed for installation within the buffer based on the square footage of the
planting areas.Plantings will be spaced to allow for removal of invasive plants and each
planting may be protected by weed mat or similar product to prevent the re-growth of invasive
plants.
Table 1. Plant specifications for buffer mitigation area.
Species Name Spacing (feet from
center)
Minimum Size Quantity
Shore pine
(Pinus contorta contorta)
10 2-gallon, potted 15
Vine maple
(Acer circinatum)
10-15 Bareroot 10
Mock orange
(Philadelphus lewisii)
8 Bareroot 10
Pacific rhododendron
(Rhododendron
6 1-gallon, potted 12
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 12 August 23, 2017
macrophyllum)
Tall Oregon grape
(Mahonia aquifolium)
8 Bareroot 16
Salal
(Gaultheria shallon)
5 Bareroot 20
Evergreen huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum)
6 Bareroot 12
Sword fern
(Polystichum munitum)
3 Bareroot 26
Low Oregon grape
(Mahonia nervosa)
3 Bareroot 28
False Solomon’s seal
(Smilacina racemosa)
3 Bareroot 20
American dog violet
(Viola labridorica)
1 4” pot 20
Beach strawberry
(Fragaria chiloensis)
1 4” pot 15
Wood sorrel
(Oxalis oregana)
1 4” pot 20
Total Plantings 224
Planting Methods
1.Plant the specified trees in the winter 2018-2019 (or subsequent winter) or after construction
activities are completed,as listed in Table 1.Planting after construction is completed is
recommended to avoid impacting the plants during construction.Space the trees roughly 10
feet apart along the edge of the buffer and just inside the split-rail fence.Plant the trees with a
tree shovel or comparable tool.
2.Place the trees in the planting holes so that their roots are able to extend down entirely
and do not bend upward or circle inside the hole.
3.Position the root crowns so that they are at,or slightly above,the level of the surrounding soil.
4.Firmly compact the soil around the planted species to eliminate air spaces.
5.Install anti-herbivory devices,such as seedling protection tubes or mesh protection netting,
around the stems of planted species when appropriate,and secure them with stakes.
6.Irrigate all newly installed plants as site and weather conditions warrant.
MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of the planting areas will occur for seven years and will involve removing invasive
plant species,irrigating planted species,and reinstalling failed plantings,as necessary. The
maintenance may include the following activities:
1.Remove and control non-native and/or invasive vegetation from within the wetland buffer a
minimum of two times during the growing season for the first five years.
2.Irrigate planted species as necessary during the dry season,approximately July 1 through
October 15.ELS biologists recommend that watering occur at least every two weeks
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 13 August 23, 2017
during the dry season for the first three years.The most successful method of watering
plants is using a temporary above-ground irrigation system set to a timer to ensure the
plants are regularly watered.
3.Replace dead or failed plants as described for the original installation to meet the
minimum annual survival rate and percent cover performance standards.
MONITORING PLAN
The buffer mitigation areas will be monitored annually for a 7 -year period following plant
installation.Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Bainbridge Island by December
31 of each monitored year. The goal of monitoring is to determine if the previously stated
performance standards are being met.The buffer mitigation area will be monitored once during
the growing season,preferably during the same two-week period each year to better compare
the data.During the first annual monitoring and maintenance event,representative monitoring
photo stations will be selected to provide yearly photos of the planted area.The entirety of the
planted area will be monitored each year and no individual monitoring units will be
established.
Vegetation
Vegetative monitoring will document the development of the natural evergreen hedge
along the edge of the buffer as well ass plantings between the homes .The following
information will be collected in the planted area:
Height and survival of installed trees.
Species composition of herbs,shrubs,and trees,including non-native,invasive species.
Photo documentation of vegetative changes over time.
Fauna
General observations will be recorded and photographs will be taken of wildlife during site visits
to the site for monitoring. Observations of insects and other invertebrates,amphibians, reptiles,
fish,birds,and mammals will be recorded and documented in the annual monitoring reports.Use
of the on-site buffer areas by any priority species also will be noted.
Monitoring Report Contents
The annual monitoring reports will contain at least the following:
Location map and representational drawing.
Historic description of project,including dates of plant installation,current year of
monitoring,and restatement of goals,objectives,and performance standards.
Description of monitoring methods.
Documentation of plant cover and overall development of plant communities.
Assessment of non-native,invasive plant species and recommendations for management .
Observations of wildlife,including,amphibians,invertebrates,reptiles,birds,and mammals
Photographs from permanent photo points.
Summary of maintenance and contingency measures proposed for the next season and
completed for the past season.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 14 August 23, 2017
CONTINGENCY PLAN
If the performance standards are not met by the seventh year following project completion,or at
an earlier time if specified above,a contingency plan will be developed and implemented.All
contingency actions will be undertaken only after consulting and gaining approval from the City
of Bainbridge Island. The applicant will be required to complete a contingency plan that
describes (1)the causes of failure,(2)proposed corrective actions,(3)a schedule for completing
corrective actions,and (4)whether additional maintenance and monitoring are necessary.Yearly
plant replacement will be conducted if the survival rate falls below 100 percent during the
monitoring year.
SITE PROTECTION
The enhanced buffer area will be owned,maintained,and managed by the landowner s ,unless
such responsibilities are assigned to another entity.The owners will be responsible for
maintenance and monitoring of the planting areas for the prescribed 7-year period.
LIMITATIONS
The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted
professional consulting principles and practices.There are no other warranties, express or implied.
The services preformed were consistent with our agreement with our client.This report is prepared
solely for the use of our client and may not be used or relied upon b y a third party for any purpose.
Any such use or reliance will be at such party’s risk.
The opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when
services were performed.ELS is not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental
standards, practices, or regulations after the date of this report.ELS does not warrant the accuracy
of supplemental information incorporated in this report that was supplied by others.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 15 August 23, 2017
REFERENCES
City of Bainbridge Island. 2007.Bainbridge Island Municipal Code,Title 16.20 Critical Areas,
2007 Bainbridge Island, Washington.
City of Bainbridge Island. 2012. Bainbridge Island Geographical Information System. Online
document http://apps.bainbridgewa.gov:8080/PublicGIS/.Website accessed June 2016.
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. August 2014.Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington ,2014
Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-029. Olympia,
Washington.Effective January 1, 2015.
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
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html .Website accessed June 2016.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015.WA635 Kitsap County Area.
Online document http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm .Website
accessed June 2016.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014.Washington Hydric Soils List.
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/>.
Bainbridge Island Land Trust (BILT).2007.http://www.bi-landtrust.org/default.asp. Website
accessed March 2017.
FIGURES AND PHOTOPLATES
NOTE:
USGS topographic quadrangle map reproduced using
MAPTECH Inc., Terrain Navigator Pro software.
LOCATION MAP
WASHINGTON
47.5834° Latitude
-122.5215° Longitude
SITE
SITE
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
SCALE IN MILES
30150
CAMAS
QUILCENE
QUEETS
NEAH BAY
CLALLAM BAY
5 542
542
209
LOPEZ
FRIDAY HARBOR
ORCAS
ANACORTES
LAKE
ROSS
ROCKPORT
BELLINGHAM
FERNDALE
LYNDENBLAINE
SEDRO WOOLLEY
MOUNT VERNON
OAK HARBOR
STANWOOD
DARRINGTON
ARLINGTON
EVERETT
MUKILTEO 9
MONROE
PORT
TOWNSEND
113 112
SEQUIM
ANGELES
PORT
101
FORKS
MORTON
KELSOLONGVIEW
HOQUIAM
ABERDEEN
MONTESANOOCEAN
SHORES
WESTPORT
RAYMOND
CENTRALIA
CHEHALIS
WINLOCK
CASTLE
ROCK
CATHLAMET
WOODLAND
5
12
12
6
5044
12
101
PACIFIC
BEACH
GRAYS
HARBOR
PACIFIC
LEWIS
COWLITZ
WAHKIAKUM
KALAMA
ELMA
5
BATTLE
GROUND
VANCOUVER NORTH BONNEVILLE
STEVENSON CARSON
MT. ST.
HELENS
MOSSYROCK RANDLE
PACKWOOD
EATONVILLE MT.
RAINIER
ROY
ORTING
BUCKLEY
ENUMCLAWPUYALLUP
DUPONT
TENINO
YELM
OLYMPIA
SHELTON
HOODSPORT
GIG
TACOMA
AUBURN
KENT NORTH BEND
SEATTLE
DUVALL
BOTHELL
SKYKOMISH
14
LA
CENTER
503
5
SKAMANIA
CLARK
MASON
KING
THURSTON
PIERCE
KITSAP
505
127
123
410161
101 3
3
18 90
2
WAY
101
101
ILWACO
OCEAN
PARK
LONG
BEACH
COPALIS
BEACH
JEFFERSON
CLALLAM
SNOHOMISH
SKAGIT
WHATCOM
ISLAND
SAN JUAN
AMANDA
PARK
SOUTH
BEND
KIRKLAND
REDMOND
BELLEVUE
HARBOR
FEDERAL
PORT
ORCHARD
BREMERTON
POULSBO
STEILACOOM
RIDGEFIELD
WASHOUGAL
SITE
1/
1
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
:
2
6
A
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
1/
1
7
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
20
0
0
40
0
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
S
o
u
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
N
E
Belfair Ave NE
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
Lo
t
6
Lo
t
5
80
'
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Bu
f
f
e
r
70
'
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Bu
f
f
e
r
TP
-
3
TP
-
4
TP
-
2
TP
-
1
09 10
05
We
t
l
a
n
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
I
I
De
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
e
d
Sc
r
u
b
/
S
h
r
u
b
Em
e
r
g
e
n
t
Se
a
s
o
n
a
l
l
y
F
l
o
o
d
e
d
08
07
1/
1
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
:
2
6
A
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N S
W
E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
SI
T
E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Figure 2 SITE MAP
1/
1
7
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24N , Range 2E , W.M.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Kitsap County, WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
40
80
LEGEND:Site Boundary Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Wetland Buffer Test Plot Location Wetland Flag
NO
T
E
(
S
)
:
1.
Ae
r
i
a
l
f
r
o
m
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
™
2.
We
t
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
t
e
s
t
p
l
o
t
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
h
a
n
d
h
e
l
d
G
P
S
w
i
t
h
s
u
b
m
e
t
e
r
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
.
TP
-
1
1
Culvert
(18" Plastic)
15'
15'
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
80'
15'
15'
Lot 6
Lot 5
House
953 sq.ft.
House
930 sq.ft.
Deck
Garage
266 sq.ft.
Deck
Belfair Ave
(Pedestrian Path)
Garage
245 sq.ft.
1/
3
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
4
1
P
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
_
S
P
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
BU
F
F
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
M
A
P
1/
3
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Impact Areas-Lot 6 (3,460 sq.ft.)
Impact Areas-Lot 5 (2,654 sq.ft.)
Buffer Mitigation Area-Lot 6 (2,504 sq.ft.)
Buffer Mitigation Area-Lot 5 (2,074 sq.ft.)
Existing Native Vegetation-Lot 6 (3,601 sq.ft.)
Existing Native Vegetation-Lot 5 (2,343 sq.ft.)
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by NRCS at web address:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
LEGEND:
7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. Not hydric.
1/
1
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
:
2
6
A
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
SO
I
L
S
U
R
V
E
Y
M
A
P
1/
1
7
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
10
0
20
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by US Fish & Wildlife Service at web address:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/index.html
No mapped wetlands indicated onsite by US Fish & Wildlife Service.
SITE
1/
1
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
:
2
6
A
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
NA
T
I
O
N
A
L
W
E
T
L
A
N
S
D
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
M
A
P
1/
1
7
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
15
0
30
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by the City of Bainbridge Island at web address:
http://apps.bainbridgewa.gov:8080/PublicGIS/
LEGEND:
Wetlands
1/
1
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
:
2
6
A
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
BA
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
I
S
L
A
N
D
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
A
R
E
A
S
M
A
P
1/
1
7
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
10
0
20
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
FO
EM
FO
S/S
Intermittently
Flowing outlet
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
1/
1
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
:
2
6
A
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
WE
T
L
A
N
D
R
A
T
I
N
G
F
O
R
M
-
1
5
0
'
O
F
F
S
E
T
1/
1
7
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
15
0
30
0
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial photo from Google Earth™.
LEGEND:
Wetland Unit Boundary
Vegetation Class Division
Contributing Basin
150' Wetland Offset
Scrub/shrub
Forested
Emergent
S/S
FO
EM
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
Rating
Question
Description Answers specific to Wetland being rated
D 1.1, D 4.1 Location of Outlet Wetland has an intermittently flowing outlet
D 1.3 Distribution of persistent plants Persistent, ungrazed plants > ½ of the area
D. 1.4 Area of seasonally flooded Area seasonally ponded > ½ of the wetland
D 2.2 Boundary of area w/in 150’ of the
wetland in land uses that generate
pollutants
>10% of the area within 150' in land uses that generate pollutants
D 5.2 Boundary of area w/in 150’ of the
wetland in land uses that generate
excess runoff
> 10% of the area within 150 feet in land uses that generate excess
runoff
D 4.3 Contributing Basin-
Contribution of wetland to storage in the
watershed
Area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the wetland
D 5.3 Contributing Basin covered in intensive
land uses
>25% of the basin is covered in intensive human land uses
H 1.1 Cowardin Plant Classes Emergent, Scrub/Shrub, Forested
H 1.2 Hydroperiods Seasonally flooded
H 1.4 Interspersion of habitats Moderate Interspersion of habitat
U
U
M/L
M/L
M/L
H
H
H
M/L
M/L
H
H
A
U
U
U
1/
1
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
:
2
6
A
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
8
WE
T
L
A
N
D
R
A
T
I
N
G
F
O
R
M
-
1
K
M
O
F
F
S
E
T
1/
1
7
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
12
0
0
24
0
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial photo from Google Earth™.
LEGEND:
Wetland Unit Boundary
Contributing Basin
Accessible Habitat (0.1%)
Undisturbed Habitat (12.0% *Includes Accessible Habitat)
High Intensity Land Use (33.9%)
Moderate/Low Intensity Land Use (54.1%)
H
M/L
H 2.1 - Accessible habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon (0.1%).
H 2.2 - Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches (39.1%).
H 2.3 - ≤ 50% of polygon is high land use intensity.
U
A
So
u
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
N
E
Culvert
Lot 6
Lot 5
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial from Google Earth™
2.Wetland and test plots located using handheld GPS with submeter accuracy.
9/
1
3
/
2
0
1
7
9
:
1
5
A
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
9
WE
T
L
A
N
D
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
M
A
P
9/
1
3
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
50
10
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary (2016)
Wetland Boundary (2006)
Wetland Boundary (1992)
Approximate Wetland Boundary (2016)
Culvert
(18" Plastic)
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
Lot 6
Lot 5
1/
3
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
4
1
P
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
_
S
P
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
10
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
1/
3
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3 3
4 4
4
4
5 5
5 5
5
5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5 5
66
6
6 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
66
7
7
7 7
77
7
7
8 8
8
8 8 8
8
88
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9 9 99
9 9
9
999
9
9
9
9 9
8 888999
8
8
9 999
9
9 9
9
9
999
10 10
1010
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11 1111
11
1313
13
13
13
13 13
13
13
13
13
13 13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Fence To Be
Installed
Along Buffer
Figure 11a-303(d) Map:There are no 303(d) waters mapped within the basin of the rated wetland.
Figure 11b:TMDL List for Kitsap County.There are no TMDLs for the drainage basin of the rated wetland.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
Phone: (360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/14/16
DWN:JB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Figure 11-Wetland Rating
Figure-303(d)/TMDL
Project Name:Fort Ward
Lots 5 and 6
Client:Prosser
Kitsap County, Washington
←Project site
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 1
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 1 was taken from the
northwest corner of Lot 5 facing
east. It looks down Belfair
Avenue,which is an unimproved
right-of-way that is currently
used as a pedestrian path. This
path borders the north property
boundary of Lot 5.
Photo 3 was taken from the
same location as Photos 1 and
2 facing south. It shows some
of the boats that had been
parked on the Soundview
Drive right of way, which is
currently unimproved. This
Soundview Drive NE lies to
the right of the frame.
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.
Photo 2 was taken from the
same location as Photo 1 and
looks southeast at the upland
vegetation that occurred near
the mowed, level area of Lot 5.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 2
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 4 was taken near the
middle of the mown area on the
west side of Lot 5 facing north.
It looks at the same boats
pictured in Photo 3 (Photoplate
1).
Photo 6 was taken from the
same location as Photos 4 and
5 facing south.It looks at the
thick shrub layer that began at
the boundary of Lots 5 and 6
and continued to the southern
boundary of Lot 6.
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.
Photo 5 was taken from the
same location as Photo 4 and
looks east at the upland
vegetation and another
example of the neighbors using
the vacant lots.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 3
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 7 was taken from the
northern extent of Wetland A
facing southeast. It demonstrates
the vegetation that was growing
in this area of wetland.
Photo 9 was taken from the
same location as Photos 7 and
8 facing west.It looks toward
the forested portion of Wetland
A, which was dominated by
pacific willows.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.
Photo 8 was taken from the
same location as Photo 7 and
looks south at the wetland
vegetation. This portion of
Wetland A was emergent only.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 4
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 10 was taken of the culvert
that outlets Wetland A to the
north. It was positioned at the
very north end of the wetland and
conveys water under the
pedestrian path picture in Photo 1
(Photoplate 1).
Photo 12 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 2 was
conducted.It was located
upslope of Test Plot 1 in the
forested upland.
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.
Photo 11 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 1 was
conducted.It was located
inside the northern wetland
boundary where the vegetation
was thick with tall shrubs.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 5
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 13 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 3 was conducted.
It was located in an open area of
upland west of the boundary.
Photo 15 was taken from the
middle of the wetland facing
north. Test Plot 4 is visible in
the foreground and the forested
portion from Photo 11
(Photoplate 4) is visible in the
background.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.
Photo 14 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 4 was
conducted.It was located
inside the western wetland
boundary where the vegetation
was dominated by emergent
species.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 6
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 16 was taken from the
same location as Photo 15
(Photoplate 5)facing east. It
shows the emergent portion of the
wetland in the foreground and the
forested portion in the
background.
Photo 18 was taken from the
same location as Photos 15, 16,
and 17 facing west. It looks
towards the thick shrub area of
Wetland A.
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.
Photo 17 was taken from the
same location as Photos 15 and
16 facing southeast. The
center of the depression had no
woody vegetation present.
APPENDIX A
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:5 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:5 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Spiraea douglasii 35 yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Rosa nutkana 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra 15 no FACW OBL species x1 =
4.Crataegus monogyna 15 no FAC FACW species x2 =
5.Ilex aquifolium 10 no FACU FAC species x3 =
50% =47.5, 20% =19 95 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Athryium filix-femina 20 yes FACW Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Ranunculus repens 10 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Geum macrophyllum 10 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Polystichum munitum 5 no FACU 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Equisetum arvense 5 no FAC 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =25, 20% =10 50 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC and FACW species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 1
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification:
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
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:Wetland A is a depressional system composed of a thick shrub layer having some forested and emergent areas. Test Plot 1 was located at the northwest
corner of the wetland boundary where the vegetation was forested with three layers.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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
0-8 10YR 2/1 100 silty cl loam no redoximorphic features
8-10 10 YR 2/1 95 10YR 3/6 5 C M silty cl loam
10-16 10YR 4/2 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M clay loam
cl clay
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix,RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer beginning within 10 inches and is at least 6 inches thick, therefore the soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3,
Depleted Matrix.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit but there was evidence to indicate wetland hydrology present as a sparsely vegetated concave surface and
the occurance of oxidized rhizospheres along living roots.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:3 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:67 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Rosa nutkana 50 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Crataegus monogyna 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.OBL species x1 =
4.FACW species x2 =
5.FAC species x3 =
50% =35, 20% =14 70 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Polystichum munitum 35 yes FACU Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Rubus ursinus 15 no FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Veronica americana 15 no OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Equisetum arvense 10 no FAC 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Tellima grandiflora 5 no FACU 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =40, 20% =16 80 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 2
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent 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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:The upland surrounding Wetland A was composed of a very thick shrub layer having some forested areas. Test Plot 2 was located in the forested area
outside of the northwest boundary of Wetland A in conjunction with wetland Test Plot 1.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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
0-10 10YR 3/2 100 silt loam No redoximorphic features
10-16 10 YR 4/2 100 silt loam No redoximorphic features
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer, however, Cathcart silt loam is mapped on the entire site, which is described as having a parent material made of
volcanic ash and is therefore naturally grey in color.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit and there was no evidence to indicate wetland hydrology.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:4 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:5 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:80 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Rosa nutkana 20 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Crataegus monogyna 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.Rubus armeniacus 15 yes FAC OBL species x1 =
4.Rubus laciniatus 5 no FACU FACW species x2 =
5.FAC species x3 =
50% =30, 20% =12 60 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Holcus lanatus 35 yes FAC Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Dactylis glomerata 25 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Rubus ursinus 20 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Lotus corniculatus 20 no FAC 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Juncus effusus 15 no FACW 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.Polystichum munitum 10 no FACU 3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.Equisetum arvense 5 no FAC 4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.Ranunculus repens 5 no FACW
9.Geum macrophyllum 5 no FACU 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =70, 20% =28 140 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% ==Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 3
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent 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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:The upland surrounding Wetland A was composed of a very thick shrub layer having some forested areas. Test Plot 3 was located in the forested area
outside of the west boundary of Wetland A in conjunction with wetland Test Plot 4.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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
0-10 10YR 3/2 100 gr si loam No redoximorphic features
10-16 10 YR 4/2 100 gr si loam No redoximorphic features
gr gravelly
si silt
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer, however, Cathcart silt loam is mapped on the entire site, which is described as having a parent material made of
volcanic ash and is therefore naturally grey in color.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit and there was no evidence to indicate wetland hydrology.
Project Site:Fort W ard Estates Lots 5 & 6
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:2 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Rubus armeniacus 10 yes FAC 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:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Ranunculus repens 75 yes FACW Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Equisetum arvense 25 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Vicia americana 20 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Holcus lanatus 15 no FAC 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Juncus effusus 15 no FACW 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.Athryium filix-femina 10 no FACW 3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =80, 20% =32 160 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC and FACW species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 4
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification:PFOC
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
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:Wetland A was a depressional system composed of a thick shrub layer having some forested and emergent areas. Test Plot 4 was located in the emergent
portion of Wetland A near the west wetland boundary line.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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 10YR 2/1 100 silt loam no redoximorphic features
6-11 10 YR 2/1 95 10YR 3/6 5 C PL silty cl loam
11-16+10YR 4/2 85 10YR 5/8 15 C M clay loam
cl clay
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer at least 6 inches thick, therefore the soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3, Depleted Matrix.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit but there was evidence to indicate wetland hydrology present as glistening in the soil.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6
APPENDIX B
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 1
RATING SUMMARY –Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #):Wetland A Date of site visit:9-13-16
Rated by J. Bartlett Trained by Ecology?X Yes No Date of training 11/14
HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N
NOTE:Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth/COBI Critical Areas Map
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions X or special characteristics _)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I –Total score =23 –27
Category II –Total score = 20 –22
X Category III –Total score = 16 –19
Category IV –Total score =9 –15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings 5 7 5 17
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
Score for eachfunctionbasedonthreeratings(order of ratingsisnotimportant)
9 =H,H,H
8 =H,H,M
7 =H,H,L
7 =H,M,M
6 =H,M,L
6 =M,M,M
5 =H,L,L
5 =M,M,L
4 =M,L,L
3 =L,L,L
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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 2
Maps and figures required to answ er 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 2, 6
Hydroperiods D 1.4,H 1.2 2, 6
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)D 1.1,D 4.1 2, 6
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)D 2.2,D 5.2 6
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3,D 5.3 6
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 7
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)D 3.1,D 3.2 8
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)D 3.3 8
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1,H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)R 2.4
Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2,R 4.2
Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure)R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2,R 2.3,R 5.2
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)R 3.2,R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
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
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)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
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure)S 2.1,S 5.1
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 3
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated,youprobablyhave a unit with multiple HGM classes.In this case,identify which hydrologic criteria inquestions 1-7 apply,and go to Question 8.1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO –go to 2 YES –the wetland class is Tidal Fringe –go to 1.11.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO –Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES –Freshwater Tidal Fringe
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.Groundwaterandsurfacewaterrunoffare NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO –go to 3 YES –The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland,use the form for Depressional wetlands.3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without anyplants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO –go to 4 YES –The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional)and usually comes fromseeps.It may flow subsurface,as sheetflow,or in a swale without distinct banks,The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO –go to 5 YES –The wetland class is Slope
NOTE:Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small andshallowdepressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The unit is in a valley, or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from thatstream or river,The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 4
NO –go to 6 YES –The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE:The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is notflooding6.Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to thesurface,at some time during the year?This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.NO –go to 7 YES –The wetland class is Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding?The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches.The unit seems to bemaintainedbyhighgroundwater in the area.The wetland may be ditched,but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO –go to 8 YES –The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses.For example,seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain,or a smallstreamwithin a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides.GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICHOFTHEHYDROLOGICREGIMESDESCRIBEDINQUESTIONS1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREASINTHEUNIT(make a rough sketch to help you decide).Use the following table to identify theappropriateclass to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored.
NOTE:Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated.If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope +Riverine Riverine
Slope +Depressional Depressional
Slope +Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional +Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional +Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine +Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 5
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions -Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0.Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch,OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points =2
Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch.points = 1
2
D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer)is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes =4 No =0 0
D 1.3.Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants >95%of area points =5
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants >½of area points =3
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants >1/of area points =110
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants <1/of area points =010
3
D 1.4.Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months.See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is >½total area of wetland points =4
Area seasonally ponded is >¼total area of wetland points =2
Area seasonally ponded is <¼total area of wetland points =0
4
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9
Rating of Site Potential If score is:12-16 =H X 6-11 =M 0-5 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1.Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 2.2.Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 -D 2.3?
Source Yes =1 No =0
0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:3 or 4 =H X 1 or 2 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1.Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e.,within 1 mi) to a stream,river,lake,or marine water that is on the
303(d)list?Yes =1 No =0
0
D 3.2.Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d)list?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 3.3.Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)?Yes =2 No =0
0
Total for D 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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 6
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions -Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0.Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet)points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch,OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints =2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
2
D 4.2.Depth of storage during wet periods:Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet.For wetlands
with no outlet,measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry,the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points =7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to <3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points =5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to <2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points =3
The wetland is a “headwater”wetland points =3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points =0
3
D 4.3.Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed:Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points =5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points =3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points =0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points =5
5
Total for D 4 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
D 5.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1.Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 5.2.Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 5.3.Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac,urban,commercial,agriculture,etc.)?Yes =1 No =0
1
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:X 3 =H 1 or 2 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1.The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems.Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated.Do not add points.Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g.,houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit.points =2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient.points =1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin.points =1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood.Explain why points =0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland.points =0
1
D 6.2.Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes =2 No =0
0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Value If score is:2-4 =H X 1 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 13
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
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland.Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ac 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
X 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:
The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy,sub-canopy,shrubs,herbaceous,moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon
2
H 1.2.Hydroperiods
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
Saturated only 1 type present:points =0
Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
0
H 1.3.Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
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
1
H 1.4.Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1),or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)is high,moderate,low,or none.If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water,the rating is always high.
None =0 points Low =1 point Moderate =2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH =3points
2
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 14
H 1.5.Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland.The number of checks is the number of points.
Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
Standing snags (dbh >4 in)within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m)and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch)in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree
slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
X At least ¼ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
X Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
2
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7
Rating of Site Potential If score is:15-18 =H X 7-14 = M 0-6 =L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1.Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:%undisturbed habitat 0.1 +[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]0 =0.1 %
If total accessible habitat is:
>1/(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points =33
20-33%of 1 km Polygon points =2
10-19%of 1 km Polygon points =1
<10%of 1 km Polygon points =0
0
H 2.2.Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:%undisturbed habitat 12 +[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]27 =39.1 %
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
1
H 2.3.Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon:If
>50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points =(-2)
≤50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points =0
0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1
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 1 =M X 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 15
WDFW Priority HabitatsPriorityhabitatslistedbyWDFW(see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats,and the counties in which they canbefound,in:Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008.Priority Habitat and Species List.Olympia,Washington.177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m)of the wetland unit:NOTE:This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands:Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors:Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish andwildlife(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests:Old-growth west of Cascade crest –Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha )>32 in (81 cm)dbh or > 200yearsofage.Mature forests –Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm)dbh;crown cover may be lessthan100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than thatfoundinold-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak:Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponentisimportant(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158 –see web link above).
Riparian:The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic andterrestrialecosystemswhichmutuallyinfluenceeachother.
Westside Prairies:Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wetprairie(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 –see web link above).
Instream:The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to providefunctionallifehistoryrequirementsforinstreamfishandwildliferesources.
Nearshore:Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats.These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,andPugetSoundNearshore.(full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves:A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock,ice,or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs:Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 -6.5 ft (0.15 -2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite,and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics toenablecavityexcavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of >20 in (51 cm)in westernWashingtonandare> 6.5 ft (2 m)in height.Priority logs are >12 in (30 cm)in diameter at the largest end,and >20 ft(6 m)long.
Note:All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressedelsewhere.
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 16
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland.Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0.Estuarine 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?
Yes =Category I No -Go to SC 1.2 Cat.I
SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing,and has less
than 10%cover of non-native plant species.(If non-native species are Spartina,see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or
contiguous freshwater wetlands.Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.II
SC 2.0.Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1.Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value?Yes –Go to SC 2.2 No –Go to SC 2.3
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
Cat.I
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.
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
Cat.I
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 17
SC 4.0.Forested Wetlands
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)
Yes –Go to SC 5.1 No =Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1.Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less
than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p.100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/ac (4350 ft2)10 Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.II
SC 6.0.Interdunal 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
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
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
SC 6.3.Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes =Category III No =Category IV
Cat I
Cat.II
Cat.III
Cat.IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types,enter “Not Applicable”on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 18
Wetland name or number A
This page left blank intentionally
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Email 1 (Dombrowski)
16 May 2018! ! ! ! ! !VIA EMAIL
Annie Hillier
City of Bainbridge Island
Depart of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Ave North
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Re: SoundView Drive Lot 5 RUE Notice of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance:
To Whom It May Concern;
I would like to address Paragraph 12 in the MDNS
! 12. Disturbance to the 60-foot wide right-of-way (ROW) from construction
! activities shall be restored . . . & etc.
Currently, the roadbed in this block of SoundView Drive is pushed to the extreme west of the
ROW. This would be an excellent opportunity to correct this placement. Situating the road bed
in the center of the ROW would rectify this improper placement and serve as mitigation to
neighbors on the west side of SoundView.
In the mid 1990s, the northern block of SoundView underwent this exact treatment: With the
construction of the new sewer for Kitsap County Sewer District #7, the roadbed was moved from
the extreme west of the ROW and rebuilt in the center of the ROW.
The impact of the development of Lot 5 will have a strong impact on neighbors in the southern
block of SoundView, especially since the building envelope does not conform to a standard
setback. I suggest that the City alleviate the impact on neighbors on the west side of
SoundView by relocating the roadbed in the center of the ROW. Paragraph 12 acknowledges
the disturbance of the ROW at the location of Lot 5.
It would be a true gift from the city to Fort Ward neighbors to rectify the unequal impact of the
road bed location.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly,
Mary Victoria Dombrowski
2412 SoundView Drive NE
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
206 842 8728/maryvdombrowski@gmail.com
Email 2 (Siscoe)
1
Ann Hillier
From:globe@zipcon.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 3:40 PM
To:Ann Hillier
Cc:globe@zipcon.net
Subject:Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use Exception
& variance"
Dear Ann Hillier,
First I don't envy your job. I think it is very difficult to be fair in contested land use cases because you think you need to
be reasonable and say yes. When it may not be always necessary to say yes, building always goes on its way.
I don't understand the use of "Reasonable Use Exception & Variance" It seems to be a term which would be used in
dealing with smaller mundane things not something as big as this. Also to whom is it reasonable? Both lots can be be
built on with a very livable houses in each case as they are.
The owner Inhabit Limited Liability Com just wants more.
Everyone knows those two lots are considered Wet and everyone knows that since the creation of Fort Ward Estates
there were setbacks which were followed by everyone who has built out there. It has created a privacy and harmony.
You may not realize it unless you have taken the trouble to view the area that Soundview Dr NE is a very narrow street.
Allowing someone to circumvent the est. practice to build to the narrow street a huge hulking multi story house will
create discomfiture with the folks across the street.
It will also create traffic problems. And it will look funny. We have already seen what happens when builders do not
respect the environment, we have those 3 large houses just south of Kitsap on Fort Ward Hill which were built on
wetlands which were a natural drain. It took over 2 years and tons of straw and other fill to dry them up. The houses
took years to sell and have changed hands several times. I would think they will always have damp prob lems. No one can
understand why the City gave the go ahead on that project.
Who will foot the bill for making Belfair from Soundview DR NE to Douglas into a real street.? Is the City, meaning us,
going to pay these extras?
Your okaying this building project runs in the face of the strong trends of living small, respecting the environment and
conserving the Island is heading. As you may know recently elected members to the City Council all favored these
trends. Fort Ward is represent in the City Council by one of these newly elected councilmen. What you are allowing is
the old way of doing things, environment be dammed.
thank you for your attention,
Carolyn Siscoe
Exhibit 17
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
HEARING EXAMINER
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner will conduct a PUBLIC
HEARING at 1:00 PM, on Thursday, June 28, 2018 in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 280 Madison Avenue N,
Bainbridge Island, Washington, pursuant to BIMC Section 2.16.100 and Section 16.20.080.
Applicant: Inhabit Limited Liability Company
Project Name & Number: Soundview Drive Lot 5 RUE & Variance (PLN50850A
RUE & PLN50850A VAR)
Soundview Drive Lot 6 RUE & Variance (PLN50850B
RUE & PLN50850B VAR)
Project Type: Reasonable Use Exception and Zoning Variance
Project Site and Tax Parcel: Lot 5: 2171 Soundview Dr. NE, TA# 41460040050004
Lot 6: *no situs address*, TA# 41460040060003
YOU ARE INVITED to attend the hearing and make oral and written comments. The Hearing Examiner has
discretion to limit testimony to relevant, non-repetitive comments and to set time limits. If you are unable to attend,
written comments, photographs or other exhibits on the application may be submitted prior to the hearing date. All
such submissions should state the specific case and be directed to Annie Hillier, Planner at City Hall or by email to
ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov.
The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), filed under the State Environmental Policies Act
(SEPA), was issued on May 15, 2018. The appeal period ended on May 29, 2018.
QUESTIONS may be directed to and the file acce ssed from Annie Hillier, Planner, Department of Planning and
Community Development at 206-780-3773 or pcd@bainbridgewa.gov.
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
SOUND LAW CENTER
HEARING EXAMINER
Date of Publication: Friday, June 1, 2018
Owner Mailing Address Mailing City Mailing State Mailing Zip
AHLSTROM HEATHER PATRICK 2003 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
ANSTIS FLORENCE GWENELLE TRUSTEE 2405 55TH ST SW EVERETT WA 98203
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND METROPOLITAN PARKS & REC DIST 7666 NE HIGH SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2621
BIELMAN MATTHEW & BEKA 2033 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
BITTMAN TRISH KIM 2101 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
BLACKER ROAN & LETICIA 2017 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
BURRIS LARRY V & SUSAN M 4650 CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2042
CARROLL MARY ELIZABETH 2175 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
CHENEY JAMES & JILL UNIT 7600 DPO AE 9710
CHENEY JAMES C & JILL N 2213 NE VICTORIAN LN UNIT A BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
CHENEY JAMES C & JILL N 2405 55TH ST SW EVERETT WA 98203
CHENEY ROGER ALLEN & BARBARA FAYE ANSTIS 2213 NE VICTORIAN LN UNIT A BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
CIBULA TIMOTHY SCOTT & SHARON MARIE TRUSTEES 2385 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
COLE THOMAS A II & GAIL L PO BOX 11489 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-5489
COOK GREGORY & WADE ARLENE 9620 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
COWAN MARK S & CAROL S 9625 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
DENNISON JAMES B & ALISON J 2025 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
DIETSCH MICHAEL 4035 85TH AVE SE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040
DOHERTY SEAN T & CHRISTINA 9684 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
ERICKSON STEPHEN D & SALLY A 2363 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
FARLEY PATRICK M & JOHNSON VANESSA 2130 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
FULLER BARBARA LYNN 2285 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
FULWELL ROBERT & AIMEE 9647 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3077
GATZKE ALAN & FERRIN 2123 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
GOODWIN RUSSELL B & BARBARA J TTEES 8511 NAPLES DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
HEMPHILL TIMOTHY & LAURA 2333 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2352
HENRY RHONDA L 2100 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
INHABIT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 330 MADISON AVE S STE 108 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2544
JANUSZ DIANE 2148 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
KLINEFELTER JAMES H & LYNN S 2030 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
KRAMER JOSH & WEAVER KATHIE 2215 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
KRAMER JOSH & WEAVER KATHIE 2215 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
LEE SARAH MARGARET 1948 PARK VIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Owner Mailing Address Mailing City Mailing State Mailing Zip
MACFARLANE MARY J 2213 NE VICTORIAN LN APT C BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
MAES ADRIAN ANTHONY 2132 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2301
MARX FLORENCE MARY TRUSTEE 7104 265TH ST NW APT 410 STANWOOD WA 98292-6250
MILLER JACQUELINE M & TIMOTHY D 2135 FORT WARD HILL RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2314
MONTA JOAN L TRUST 1736 164TH NE BELLEVUE WA 98008
OLSEN CROSBY J & BUTLER AMY M 2426 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
OLSEN JAMES M & DOMBROWSKI MARY V 2412 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
PARKER JOHN E & CHRISTINE L 1249 OXFORD PL MORGANTOWN WV 26505
PICKLE SCOTT A & MICHELE L 9771 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3083
POEHNER CAPULET WOODSTONE & QUAINTON S 2267 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-`
PROPERTY BIZNESS 4 LLC 2112 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
PUGLIA CHRISTEN & BARRETT CHRISTOPHER T 2154 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
REPYAK DAVID C 14723 1ST LN NE UNIT 103 DUVALL WA 98019-6450
Resident 2011 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2044 Belfair Ave NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2074 Soundview Dr NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2075 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2105 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2106 FORT WARD HILL RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2137 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2145 Belfair Ave NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2156 BELFAIR AVE NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2171 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2178 Soundview Dr NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2193 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2222 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2232 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2250 SOUNDVIEW AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2274 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2300 Soundview Dr NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2324 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
ROAKE DONALD C & NOSSAMAN CHERYL 2123 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-4810
ROUS CHAD J & SARAH M 9642 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Owner Mailing Address Mailing City Mailing State Mailing Zip
RURAL AMERICAN PROPERTIES INC 21241 VENTURA BLVD STE 276 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364
SAFFORD DUANE & EILEEN 2224 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
SISCOE JOHN P & CAROLYN G 2300A SOUNDVIEW DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
SOSONKIN MIKHAIL A &1933 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
STEWART JEFFREY B & HULET CHRISTINA M 2225 FORT WARD HILL DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2329
THOMPSON BERNARD F 19050 ANGELINE AVE NE SUQUAMISH WA 98392
THORNTON MAXWELL & VALERIE 2179 FORT WARD HIL RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
VICTORIAN LANE OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 11274 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
WHITSON RICHARD & ERIN 6565 ISLAND CENTER RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
WIERZBICKI CHRISTOPHER & MALONE MAUREEN 2077 DOUGLAS DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
WURZER LYNNE D TRUSTEE 2772 MONTECITO DR FALLBROOK CA 92028
1
Jane Rasely
From:Jane Rasely
Sent:Tuesday, June 5, 2018 8:16 AM
To:'David@soundlawcenter.com'
Cc:Ann Hillier; Heather Wright; Carla Lundgren
Subject:HEX Notice and Mailing List
Attachments:50850 Mailing List.xlsx; 50850 Notice of Hearing.pdf
David,
Please let me know if you need any further information.
Thank you,
Jane Rasely
Administrative Specialist
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3758 (office) 206.780.5104
Exhibit 18
Email 1 (Berdan)
1
Jane Rasely
From:BRIAN BERDAN <bberdan@mac.com>
Sent:Friday, June 8, 2018 5:26 PM
To:PCD
Subject:Soundview Drive Lot 5 & 6 RUE & Variance ((PLN50850A RUE & PLN50850A VAR) (PLN50850B RUE
& PLN50850B VAR)
Dear Ms. Hillier,
Please accept my comments on the above projects. There is a reason we have wetland buffers and I don’t believe we
should allow variances to infringe upon them.
Thank you.
Brian Berdan
6450 NE Eagle Harbor Dr.
Email 2 (Siscoe)
1
Ann Hillier
From:Globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.net>
Sent:Friday, June 1, 2018 3:43 PM
To:Ann Hillier; globe@zipcon.com
Subject:Re: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use
Exception & variance"
I wanted to give you a clearer picture of our neighborhood on Soundview Dr NE. We are a pedestrian neighborhood; kids
ride their bikes and skateboard up and down our sheet. People walk their dogs, they jog, mothers walk their kids in
strollers, other people amble around for exercise, bird watch. We join Belfair and are the main gateway to the very busy
and beautiful Fort Ward Park. A lot of the housing alone Soundview DR is newish a lot of it is older dating back from the
time it was a naval base and before. One house right on the SE corner of Belfair and Soundview across from the two
properties in question is a much older home and has been painstakingly restored and kept up by the longtime owners.
They have created beautiful gardens and have made by hand hand gingerbread decorations in period for their home.
They will be impacted by the decision to ignore our established setbacks and let multistoried home be built on top of
them, actually two multi storied hulking homes of over 2,000 Sq ft apiece on small lots built to SoundvIew Dr Ne. Some
of these homes are orginal naval buildings while small they are cared for and lovingly lived by their owners. Ours is not a
throwaway community just because it is older and smaller. We have value also. We also must not let way of life out here
be damaged.
I hope I will be able to come and speak with you in person about this issue.
Thank you
Carolyn Siscoe
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Original Message
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:53 AM
To: globe@zipcon.com
Subject: RE: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use Exception & variance"
Thank you for your comment. I've added it to the record.
Regards,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 3:40 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: globe@zipcon.net
2
Subject: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use Exception & variance"
Dear Ann Hillier,
First I don't envy your job. I think it is very difficult to be fair in contested land use cases because you think you need to
be reasonable and say yes. When it may not be always necessary to say yes, building always goes on its way.
I don't understand the use of "Reasonable Use Exception & Variance" It seems to be a term which would be used in
dealing with smaller mundane things not something as big as this. Also to whom is it reasonable? Both lots can be be
built on with a very livable houses in each case as they are.
The owner Inhabit Limited Liability Com just wants more.
Everyone knows those two lots are considered Wet and everyone knows that since the creation of Fort Ward Estates
there were setbacks which were followed by everyone who has built out there. It has created a privacy and harmony.
You may not realize it unless you have taken the trouble to view the area that Soundview Dr NE is a very narrow street.
Allowing someone to circumvent the est. practice to build to the narrow street a huge hulking multi story house will
create discomfiture with the folks across the street.
It will also create traffic problems. And it will look funny. We have already seen what happens when builders do not
respect the environment, we have those 3 large houses just south of Kitsap on Fort Ward Hill which were built on
wetlands which were a natural drain. It took over 2 years and tons of straw and other fill to dry them up. The houses
took years to sell and have changed hands several times. I would think they will always have damp problems. No one can
understand why the City gave the go ahead on that project.
Who will foot the bill for making Belfair from Soundview DR NE to Douglas into a real street.? Is the City, meaning us,
going to pay these extras?
Your okaying this building project runs in the face of the strong trends of living small, respecting the environment and
conserving the Island is heading. As you may know recently elected members to the City Council all favored these
trends. Fort Ward is represent in the City Council by one of these newly elected councilmen. What you are allowing is
the old way of doing things, environment be dammed.
thank you for your attention,
Carolyn Siscoe
Email 3 (Siscoe)
1
Ann Hillier
From:Globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.net>
Sent:Friday, June 1, 2018 4:36 PM
To:Ann Hillier; globe@zipcon.com
Subject:Re: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use
Exception & variance"
I suppose what I am trying to convey to you about granting this variance is that why should we the existing community
be a the ones diversely impacted? Don't we have a right to "reasonable enjoyment of our property as well?" why is one
community going to be excluded while the other is granted exceptions from the stated rules and guidance? It should be
we all work together to form a decision which is inclusive of the whole community. And that the City realizes there is
value to having a stable existing community be part of the process. These pleases for exception to the written building
rules are going to come up again and again. The exceptions will not be without consequence to the different lots in
question.
I apologize to sending these remarks in several emails but it took time to get ideals together.
Thanks for your attention,
Carolyn Siscoe
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Original Message
From: Globe@zipcon.com
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 3:45 PM
To: Ann Hillier; globe@zipcon.com
Subject: Re: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use Exception & variance"
I wanted to give you a clearer picture of our neighborhood on Soundview Dr NE. We are a pedestrian neighborhood ; kids
ride their bikes and skateboard up and down our sheet. People walk their dogs, they jog, mothers walk their kids in
strollers, other people amble around for exercise, bird watch. We join Belfair and are the main gateway to the very busy
and beautiful Fort Ward Park. A lot of the housing alone Soundview DR is newish a lot of it is older dating back from the
time it was a naval base and before. One house right on the SE corner of Belfair and Soundview across from the two
properties in question is a much older home and has been painstakingly restored and kept up by the longtime owners.
They have created beautiful gardens and have made by hand hand gingerbread decorations in period for their home.
They will be impacted by the decision to ignore our established setbacks and let multistoried home be built on top of
them, actually two multi storied hulking homes of over 2,000 Sq ft apiece on small lots built to SoundvIew Dr Ne. Some
of these homes are orginal naval buildings while small they are cared for and lovingly lived by their owners. Ours is not a
throwaway community just because it is older and smaller. We have value also. We also must not let way of life out here
be damaged.
I hope I will be able to come and speak with you in person about this issue.
Thank you
Carolyn Siscoe
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Original Message
From: Ann Hillier
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:53 AM
To: globe@zipcon.com
Subject: RE: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use Exception & variance"
2
Thank you for your comment. I've added it to the record.
Regards,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 3:40 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: globe@zipcon.net
Subject: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use Exception & variance"
Dear Ann Hillier,
First I don't envy your job. I think it is very difficult to be fair in contested land use cases because you think you need to
be reasonable and say yes. When it may not be always necessary to say yes, building always goes on its way.
I don't understand the use of "Reasonable Use Exception & Variance" It seems to be a term which would be used in
dealing with smaller mundane things not something as big as this. Also to whom is it reasonable? Both lots can be be
built on with a very livable houses in each case as they are.
The owner Inhabit Limited Liability Com just wants more.
Everyone knows those two lots are considered Wet and everyone knows that since the creation of Fort Ward Estates
there were setbacks which were followed by everyone who has built out there. It has created a privacy and harmony.
You may not realize it unless you have taken the trouble to view the area that Soundview Dr NE is a very narrow street.
Allowing someone to circumvent the est. practice to build to the narrow street a huge hulking multi story house will
create discomfiture with the folks across the street.
It will also create traffic problems. And it will look funny. We have already seen what happens when builders do not
respect the environment, we have those 3 large houses just south of Kitsap on Fort Ward Hill which were built on
wetlands which were a natural drain. It took over 2 years and tons of straw and other fill to dry them up. The houses
took years to sell and have changed hands several times. I would think they will always have damp problems. No one can
understand why the City gave the go ahead on that project.
Who will foot the bill for making Belfair from Soundview DR NE to Douglas into a real street.? Is the City, meaning us,
going to pay these extras?
Your okaying this building project runs in the face of the strong trends of living small, respecting the environment and
conserving the Island is heading. As you may know recently elected members to the City Council all favored these
trends. Fort Ward is represent in the City Council by one of these newly elected councilmen. What you are allowing is
the old way of doing things, environment be dammed.
thank you for your attention,
Carolyn Siscoe
Email 4 (with Staff Response) (Siscoe)
1
Ann Hillier
From:globe@zipcon.com
Sent:Wednesday, June 6, 2018 1:19 PM
To:Ann Hillier
Cc:Globe@zipcon.com
Subject:RE: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use
Exception & variance"
Dear, Ms Hillier
Thanks so much for your reply. I have two questions; Why isn't a Wildlife Corridor mentioned in the plans for these
two lots. We live across from the Park where the deer live they have ancient trails through all of Fort Ward since the
beginning of time.As well as owls, crows and a multitude of other birds I noticed that one of the requirements is to est a
wildlife corridor around new properties. These large birds of prey need open space to hunt their prey.The smaller ones
need adequate vegetation, trees etc to forge for food. We depend on the large birds to help keep the rodent population
down. How has that been factored in this builder's plans to build two 2400 sq feet homes with decks and garages on two
smaller restricted properties. I believe this is an issue. I am glad the City is taking notice and making it a requirement for
building.
Also how is the Third Independent person chosen to oversee and make a decision for the hearing on t he 28th of June?
What qualifications do you look for in such a person to balance community needs, the financial needs of a builder with
the City's regulations? What criteria do they start with to base their opinion.
Many thanks for your time,
Carolyn Siscoe
Quoting Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>:
> Thank you for your comments. To help clarify, a reasonable use
> exception
> (RUE) is a permit that allows someone to develop their property when
> it is encumbered to such an extent by critical areas and/ or critical
> area buffers that application of the municipal code would deny all
> reasonable use of the property. The subject properties are encumbered
> by wetland buffers and are undevelopable without an RUE. However, an
> RUE places restrictions on the scale of the development: including the
> homes cannot exceed 1,200 square feet in lot coverage, and the impact
> on the critical area must be the minimum necessary to achieve
> reasonable use of the property. (Please see BIMC 16.20.080 for
> additional information regarding RUEs.) The City does not make decisions on RUE applications.
> The applicant will go in front of the Hearing Examiner, an independent
> third party, who will make the decision to either approve, approve
> with conditions, or deny the application. The variance is being
> requested to reduce the front setback to 5 ft, in order to move the
> development area away from the wetland -- as the protection of
> critical areas is a stated priority under the Island's Comprehensive Plan.
> Again, thank you for your comments.
> Best,
>
>
> Annie Hillier
2
> City Planner
> www.bainbridgewa.gov
> facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
> 206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.net>
> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 4:36 PM
> To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; globe@zipcon.com
> Subject: Re: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of
> "Reasonable use Exception & variance"
>
> I suppose what I am trying to convey to you about granting this
> variance is that why should we the existing community be a the ones
> diversely impacted? Don't we have a right to "reasonable enjoyment of
> our property as well?" why is one community going to be excluded while
> the other is granted exceptions from the stated rules and guidance? Â
> It should be we all work together to form a decision which is
> inclusive of the whole community. And that the City realizes there is
> value to having a stable existing community be part of the process.
> These pleases for exception to the written building rules are going to
> come up again and again. The exceptions will not be without
> consequence to the different lots in question.  I apologize to
> sending these remarks in several emails but it took time to get ideals
> together.
> Thanks for your attention,
> Carolyn Siscoe
>
>
> Sent from my
Staff Response Email
1
Ann Hillier
From:Ann Hillier
Sent:Thursday, June 7, 2018 4:09 PM
To:'globe@zipcon.com'
Cc:Globe@zipcon.com
Subject:RE: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use
Exception & variance"
Good Afternoon,
In response to your questions, 1. Wildlife corridors may be included in the SEPA checklist that applicants submit, but
they are not regulated critical areas and therefore not required to be included on plans (see BIMC 16.20 for the island's
critical areas). 2. Regarding the process of hiring a Hearing Examiner, I cannot speak to that - it was a long RFP process
that the current planners were not involved in. You may direct your question to PCD@bainbridgewa.gov, and it will be
forwarded to the appropriate contact.
If you are interested more generally in the island's planning process, I suggest checking the calendar online and
attending the next public meeting, and perhaps even getting involved in a citizen advisory group
(https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/222/Citizen-Advisory-Groups).
Thank you for your email.
Best,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 1:19 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.net>
Subject: RE: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of "Reasonable use Exception & variance"
Dear, Ms Hillier
Thanks so much for your reply. I have two questions; Why isn't a Wildlife Corridor mentioned in the plans for these
two lots. We live across from the Park where the deer live they have ancient trails through all of Fort Ward since the
beginning of time.As well as owls, crows and a multitude of other birds I noticed that one of the requirements is to est a
wildlife corridor around new properties. These large birds of prey need open space to hunt their prey.The smaller ones
need adequate vegetation, trees etc to forge for food. We depend on the large birds to help keep the rodent population
down. How has that been factored in this builder's plans to build two 2400 sq feet homes with decks and garages on two
smaller restricted properties. I believe this is an issue. I am glad the City is taking notice and making it a requirement for
building.
2
Also how is the Third Independent person chosen to oversee and make a decision for the hearing on the 28th of June?
What qualifications do you look for in such a person to balance community needs, the financial needs of a builder with
the City's regulations? What criteria do they start with to base their opinion.
Many thanks for your time,
Carolyn Siscoe
Quoting Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>:
> Thank you for your comments. To help clarify, a reasonable use
> exception
> (RUE) is a permit that allows someone to develop their property when
> it is encumbered to such an extent by critical areas and/ or critical
> area buffers that application of the municipal code would deny all
> reasonable use of the property. The subject properties are encumbered
> by wetland buffers and are undevelopable without an RUE. However, an
> RUE places restrictions on the scale of the development: including the
> homes cannot exceed 1,200 square feet in lot coverage, and the impact
> on the critical area must be the minimum necessary to achieve
> reasonable use of the property. (Please see BIMC 16.20.080 for
> additional information regarding RUEs.) The City does not make decisions on RUE applications.
> The applicant will go in front of the Hearing Examiner, an independent
> third party, who will make the decision to either approve, approve
> with conditions, or deny the application. The variance is being
> requested to reduce the front setback to 5 ft, in order to move the
> development area away from the wetland -- as the protection of
> critical areas is a stated priority under the Island's Comprehensive Plan.
> Again, thank you for your comments.
> Best,
>
>
> Annie Hillier
> City Planner
> www.bainbridgewa.gov
> facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
> 206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.net>
> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 4:36 PM
> To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; globe@zipcon.com
> Subject: Re: Comments re Lot 5 & 6 Soundview Dr NE properties use of
> "Reasonable use Exception & variance"
>
> I suppose what I am trying to convey to you about granting this
> variance is that why should we the existing community be a the ones
> diversely impacted? Don't we have a right to "reasonable enjoyment of
> our property as well?" why is one community going to be excluded while
3
> the other is granted exceptions from the stated rules and guidance? Â
> It should be we all work together to form a decision which is
> inclusive of the whole community. And that the City realizes there is
> value to having a stable existing community be part of the process.
> These pleases for exception to the written building rules are going to
> come up again and again. The exceptions will not be without
> consequence to the different lots in question.  I apologize to
> sending these remarks in several emails but it took time to get ideals
> together.
> Thanks for your attention,
> Carolyn Siscoe
>
>
> Sent from my
Exhibit 19
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
FOR FORT WARD LOTS 5 & 6
Fort Ward Lots 5 & 6 RUE
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Prepared for
Inhabit LLC
330 Madison Avenue South,
Suite 108
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
(206) 550-9004
Revised-June 14, 2018
Prepared by
Ecological Land Services
1157 3rd Avenue South, Suite 220A •Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371 •Project Number 2405.01
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5& 6 RUE Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report i June 14, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................1
SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................................1
VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................2
SOILS ................................................................................................................................................3
HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................................4
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY .................................................................................................4
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREAS ...........................................................................................4
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................4
WETLAND CATEGORIZATION .....................................................................................................4
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS ..................................................................................................4
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ...................................................................................................5
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL .....................................................................................................5
MITIGATION SEQUENCING ..............................................................................................................6
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................................7
MAINTENANCE ..............................................................................................................................12
MONITORING PLAN .......................................................................................................................13
CONTINGENCY PLAN .....................................................................................................................13
SITE PROTECTION .........................................................................................................................14
LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................14
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................15
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5& 6 RUE Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report ii June 14, 2018
FIGURES & PHOTOPLATES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Buffer Impact Map
Figure 4 Soil Survey Map
Figure 5 National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 6 Bainbridge Island Critical Areas Map
Figure 7 WRF -150’Offset
Figure 8 WRF –1 KM Offset
Figure 9 Wetland Comparison Map
Figure 10 Mitigation Plan Overview
Figure 11 Wetland Rating Figure –303(d)/TMDL
Photoplates Site Photos
APPENDIX A
Wetland Determination Data Forms
APPENDIX B
Western Washington Wetland Rating Form
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5& 6 RUE Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report iii June 14, 2018
SIGNATURE PAGE
The information and data in this report were compiled and prepared under the supervision and
direction of the undersigned.
___________________________
Joanne Bartlett, PWS
Senior Biologist
Laura Westervelt
Biologist
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 1 June 14, 2018
INTRODUCTION
Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS)was contracted by Julian Prosser to conduct a wetland
boundary delineation and report for Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 and 6,which is comprised of parcel
numbers 4146-004-005-0004 and 4146-004-006-0003,within a portion of Section 11,Township
24 North, Range 2 East of the Willamette Meridian,in Bainbridge Island, Washington (Figure 1).
This report summarizes findings of the wetland delineation according to the City of Bainbridge
Island Municipal Code (BIMC), Chapter 16.20.160 (2007)for delineation methodology, wetland
categorization, and required buffer widths.
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 (Ecology), and locally by Bainbridge Island.
To determine the current presence or absence of wetlands on this property, ELS biologists
collected data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils.The delineation site visit was conducted on
June 10, 2016 during which,one wetland was delineated east of Lot 6 and along the east property
line of Lot 5.There was also a delineation site visit conducted on lots 2, 3, and 4 to the south on
September 9, 2016, which continued the wetland boundary to the southern extent.The boundary
of the wetland was delineated using consecutively numbered fluorescent flagging labeled
“WETLAND DELINEATION.” Wetland boundaries were determined through breaks in
topography, changes in vegetation, and evidence of surface hydrology. Vegetation, hydrology, and
soil data was collected at four test plots to verify the wetland boundary delineations (Appendix A).
The wetland boundary was mapped using a Trimble handheld Global Positioning System (GPS)
unit to show the extent of the wetland on the site map (Figure 2).
SITE DESCRIPTION
Lots 5 and 6 are located on the east side of Soundview Drive NE (Photoplate 1)in the Fort Ward
Estates area of Bainbridge Island (Figure 1).They are rectangular-shaped parcels with Lot 6
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 2 June 14, 2018
oriented north to south and Lot 5 oriented west to east (Figure 2).The properties are level on the
west side and slope down gradually into a shallow depression on the east half (Photoplates 2 and
3).The properties are undeveloped,but the level areas in the Soundview Drive right-of-way are
being mowed and utilized by neighboring residents for storage of vehicles. The two lots are
composed mainly of disturbed upland forest (Photoplates 1, 2, 4, and 5)with a deciduous tree
canopy.The shrub layer is extremely dense below the sparse trees and creates an impenetrable
barrier.The adjacent properties are undeveloped, with the exception of the properties across
Soundview Drive which are developed residentially.The right-of-way of Belfair Avenue lies north
of Lot 6 but is unimproved and used as a pedestrian path.
The wetland was identified and delineated east of Lot 6 extending south along the east edge of Lot
5 (Figure 2). Wetland A is situated in a depressional trough bordered by residential development
on the southeast and south sides.It is a depressional system dominated by a combination of
forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent vegetation communities (Photoplates 3,4, and 5).The
wetland has a seasonally flooded hydroperiod with northerly water flow into a culvert at the north
end that conveys water into wetlands north of Belfair Avenue (Photoplate 4).
The project will propose one single family residences on each lot.Because the required wetland
buffers (mainly the water quality buffer) encompasses the entire buildable portion of each lot, the
homes will require permitting through the Reasonable Use Exception (RUE).A mitigation plan
has been prepared to address the impacts associated with constructing the homes within the water
quality buffer.Mitigation is proposed as a combination of onsite enhancement and replacement of
the culvert beneath Belfair Avenue.The culvert was not installed at the proper grade and is angled
up to the north so water only leaves the wetland during periods of high precipitation events (Figure
9).The improperly installed culvert has caused the wetland on these lots to expand over time and
has at least in part created the buffer issues on these lots. The connection to wetland areas north of
Belfair Avenue will improve the function of the onsite wetland as well as the wetlands to the north.
VEGETATION
Wetland Vegetation
Wetland A is comprised of forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent communities.There were no trees
at Test Plot 1 in Wetland A but the adjacent tree canopy is dominated by western red cedar (Thuja
plicata,FAC)and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata, FACU). The shrub layer was dominated by
dense rose spirea (Spiraea douglasii, FACW)and Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC)with
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC)occurring in Test Plot 4. Lower percentages of
pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp.lasiandra, FACW), English hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna,
FAC), and English holly (Ilex aquifolium, FACU)occur in wetland test plots.Lady fern (Athyrium
cyclosorum, FAC), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW), and large-leaf avens (Geum
macrophyllum, FACU) dominate the herbaceous layer with lower percentages of sword fern
(Polystichum munitum, FACU),horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC),velvet grass (Holcus lanatus,
FAC),soft rush (Juncus effusus, FACW),and American vetch (Vicia americana, FAC)also
present.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 3 June 14, 2018
Upland Vegetation
The upland areas onsite are composed of forested and shrub communities. The upland test plots
did not include trees,however the adjacent forest was dominated by western red cedar, red alder
(Alnus rubra, FAC), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU).Shrub vegetation in upland
test plots is dominated by Nootka rose,English hawthorn, and Himalayan blackberry with lower
occurrences of evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus, FACU). The herbaceous layer is
dominated by sword fern,velvet grass, and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata, FACU) with lower
percentages of trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus, FACU), veronica (Veronica americana, OBL),
horsetail, fringe cup (Tellima grandiflora, FACU), bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus, FAC),
soft rush, and large-leaf avens also present.
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 2015) website,
Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (7)is mapped across both lots (Figure 4).Cathcart soils
are not classified as hydric (NRCS 2014)and do not have inclusions of hydric soil map units.
Areas mapped as 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.
Wetland Soils
The evaluated wetland soils at Test Plots 1 and 4 were composed of silt loam to clay loam with
black to dark grayish brown (10YR 2/1 to 10YR 4/2) soil matrix colors.Redoximorphic features
were observed in 5 to 15 percent of the matrix and having dark yellowish-brown to yellowish-
brown (10YR 3/4 to 10YR 5/8) colors.The soil profiles meet the criteria for hydric soil indicators
F3 because of the depleted matrix chromas and presence of redoximorphic features.
Upland Soils
The evaluated upland soils at Test Plots 2 and 3 consisted of gravelly silt loam to silt loam with
brown to dark grayish-brown (10YR 3/2 to 10YR 4/2) soil matrix colors.The upland soil profiles
appear to meet the criteria for hydric soil indicator F3 because depleted matrix chromas were
recorded.However, the soil profiles were determined to be non-hydric because the profiles lacked
redoximorphic features and closely match the description for Cathcart silt loam, which is not
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 4 June 14, 2018
classified as hydric.These areas are determined to be upland due to the lack of hydrophytic
vegetation and/or wetland hydrology.
HYDROLOGY
Hydrology was not observed in Wetland A during the June 2016 site visit but there were indicators
of surface water at the north end during the growing season. Although surface water was not
present in the wetland, the soil sample was glistening at Test Plot 4 indicating that the soil remains
damp. The source of hydrology to Wetland A is mainly direct precipitation and surface water
runoff from adjacent developed properties.It appears that Wetland A fills with rain water and
runoff during the winter and spring to a depth that allows flow of water north through the culvert at
the north end (under Belfair Avenue). The culvert appears to be angled slightly with the higher end
at the north, which prevents water flow until the wetland is flooded beyond its boundaries (Figure
9).This is evident when previous delineation maps are compared over time (Figure 9).The
culvert conveys water into the wetland north of Belfair Avenue. The wetland north of Belfair
Avenue is part of a series of wetlands that extend northerly to the north end of Fort Ward Estates.
The wetlands discharge into a stream that flows northerly to Blakely Harbor.Water was not
present in the upland areas and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)does not map wetlands on or within 250 feet of the
property (Figure 5).The findings of the ELS delineation do not agree with the NWI mapping
because wetland is present along the east edges of the two lots.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.
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREAS
The Bainbridge Island Critical Areas map (BI 2015)maps wetland outside the east boundary of Lot
6 and extending onto the east boundary of Lot 5 (Figure 6), which represents Wetland A.The ELS
biologists agree with the general mapping of wetland (Figure 2).
CONCLUSIONS
WETLAND CATEGORIZATION
The wetland is situated in a depression having emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested vegetation
classes and a seasonally flooded hydroperiod.The wetland was rated according to Washington
State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington-2014 Update (Rating System)(Hruby
2014).Wetland A received 17 points on the rating form and is considered a Category III,
Depressional system rated based on functions (Appendix B).
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS
The BIMC Chapter 16.20.160 specifies buffers based on wetland category, scores for habitat
functions on the rating form, and the intensity of the proposed land use in accordance with the
2014 wetland rating system.Wetland A is a Category III wetland that received a moderate score
for habitat function and receives a 110 foot buffer because these lots are considered moderate
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 5 June 14, 2018
intensity land use.The 110-foot buffer extends beyond the west property boundaries and across
Soundview Drive.A 15-foot building and impervious surface setback is also specified from the
edge of critical area buffers.
Administrative buffer reductions are permitted by the BIMC Section 16.20.140.I.8 through the
buffer averaging process wherein the buffer is reduced in one location and increased in another by
the same square footage to create a buffer that averages the required buffer width. The BIMC also
permits 25 percent reductions of wetland buffers if it can be documented that the reduction will
provide a buffer that provides adequate protection for the wetland. Buffer reductions beyond what
is allowed administratively are required to proceed through the Reasonable Economic Use
Exception (RUE) process. Buffer reductions allowed administratively will not result in a reduced
buffer that allows construction of a home on the lot so the project will proceed through the RUE
process.
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
The project proposes building one single family home on each lot.The two lots are entirely
encompassed by the current wetland buffers, right-of-ways, and front yard setbacks. The required
water quality and habitat buffers extend beyond the west lot boundaries so no habitat buffer occurs
on these lots. Administrative options for buffer reduction do not apply to water quality buffer
widths.Even if administrative reductions were permitted, it would not allow enough buildable
area to accommodate the proposed homes. Therefore, in order to accommodate homes on each lot,
the water quality buffer will need to be reduced by the Reasonable Use Exception process. Buffer
mitigation is required to compensate for the buffer reduction per the BIMC 16.20.050.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The project proposes construction of a single family home on each lot as close to Soundview
Drive as possible (Figure 3).The entirety of each lot is encompassed by wetland buffers, the
right-of-way of Soundview Drive, and front/side yard setbacks.Any construction on the lots will
impact the water quality buffer.The wetland was rated as a Category III with a moderate habitat
score (5 points)and so requires a total buffer of 110 feet.The homes will be situated within the
110-foot wetland buffer where the vegetation is dominated by grasses and non-native invasives,
which primarily include Himalayan blackberry (Photoplate 1).Combined, the homes represent
5,308 square feet of impact to the wetland buffer.The use of pervious pavement reduces the
amount of runoff that can pick up pollutants during wet conditions.The stormwater will infiltrate
directly into the soil beneath the pavement and filter through the soil before reaching the wetland.
The typical requirement for buffer mitigation is a ratio of 1:1, the project on these lots represents
5,913 of mitigation,for a ratio of 1.1:1, impact to enhancement.There is also little opportunity on
the lots to improve buffer conditions because it is den sely vegetated with Nootka rose and
hawthorn trees. Therefore, the mitigation will include a combination of onsite buffer
enhancement around the proposed homes and replacement of the culvert under Belfair Avenue.
Replacing the culvert will restore the hydrologic continuity of this wetland to the wetland north of
Belfair Avenue (Figure 9).Buffer enhancement will include planting of native vegetation (small
trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation) around the house with a line of lower growing conifer
trees (shore pine) and a split-rail fence along the buffer edge.The houses on these lots,
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 6 June 14, 2018
encompassed by wetland buffer, will result in permanent impacts to the buffer function but will
have minimal impact on the wetland. The proposed home sites will result in removal of non-
native shrubs and grass from 11,221 square feet of the wetland buffer,5,913 square feet of which
will be replanted upon completion.The minimum buffer width occurs on Lot 5 because the lot is
oriented west to east whereas; Lot 6 is oriented north to south.
MITIGATION SEQUENCING
The 110-foot wetland buffer covers the two lots and extends beyond Soundview Drive.The
proposed homes with driveways will occupy 5,308 square feet (the two lots combined)of the
buffer. The houses are also constrained by the setbacks required from the property lines, which
include a 15-foot side yard setback to the north and south. Additionally, there is a 25-foot front
yard setback from the Soundview Drive right-of-way, which significantly reduces the area
available for home construction on these lots.As part of the mitigation process, projects proposed
within a wetland buffer are required to address the mitigation sequencing process to assess whether
the project can avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce impacts before identifying compensation or
mitigation measures.
Avoiding Impacts:The undeveloped lots are vegetated by somewhat disturbed upland plant
communities along the west halves.The east halves are encompassed by dense upland and wetland
shrub communities. The proposed house locations are composed of grasses and non-native shrubs
with several vehicles from the adjacent residences with the road right-of-way. The project
proposes no work in the wetland itself and so avoids impacts to the wetland environment. The
project cannot avoid impacts to the buffer because the properties are completely composed of
buffers and setbacks.
Minimizing Impacts:The project is minimizing the impacts by proposing the houses as close to
Soundview Drive as allowed by the setbacks in a portion of the buffer that has low function.In
addition, reduction of the front yard setback is proposed to minimize the impacts to the wetland
and buffer.Both houses have been positioned so that they are as far from the wetland as possible
and the footprints have been minimized to the extent possible.The use of pervious pavement for
the driveways and walkways will minimize the amount of runoff as well as the opportunity for
runoff to pick up pollutants.The location and orientation of the house is in keeping with the Fort
Ward Design Guidelines.The homes use the same design and orientation to provide small
affordable housing units and to keep construction costs low.
Rectifying the Impacts:The project represents a permanent impact to the buffer so cannot rectify
the impacts to the affected habitats.
Reducing or Eliminating the Impacts:The project cannot reduce or eliminate the impacts by
preservation and maintenance.
Compensating for the Impacts:The project cannot avoid, rectify, or reduce the impact to the
wetland buffer but has minimized the impact to the extent possible by proposing the houses as far
from the wetland boundary as possible. Because the proposal cannot avoid all impacts to the
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 7 June 14, 2018
wetland buffer, mitigation in the form of buffer enhancement is proposed.The enhancement plan
will involve installation of native plants around the houses after they are constructed to represent as
natural a buffer setting as possible. In addition, a line of conifer trees will be installed along the
buffer edge to improve the noise and light screening function of the buffer. The mitigation also
includes replacement of the culvert under Belfair Avenue currently used as a pedestrian path.
Replacement will reconnect historically connected wetland systems on both sides of the road.
Other options for mitigation were explored as part of the project proposed immediately south on
Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Soundview Drive. These options included contacting the Bainbridge Island
Land Trust to determine whether there were opportunities available for mitigation on properties
controlled by the land trust. The land trust determined that they had no avenue for accepting funds
or assistance with restoration or enhancement on local properties. The city owned lands adjacent
to the lots are also not available for mitigation opportunities. Therefore, the combination
mitigation plan was selected for a comparable ratio based on the functional lift achieved by
reconnecting the wetlands on both sides of Belfair Avenue hydrologically in addition to onsite
buffer enhancement.
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
The inner 80 feet of wetland buffer is densely vegetated with Nootka rose and English hawthorn
trees that provide a very protective buffer for the depressional wetland. The mitigation plan
proposes to focus on increasing species diversity by planting around the future homes and
minimizing the cover by the houses.Invasive plant removal will be conducted where feasible and
necessary in the dense shrub buffer during implementation of the plan.The native trees, shrubs,
and herbaceous plants will be installed around the proposed homes once construction is completed
(Figure 10). The split rail fence will be installed at the edge of the reduced buffer following
completion of the homes (Figure 10).The existing buffer vegetation is very dense and
impenetrable from the future building sites on each lot. The installation of shore pines at the edge
of the buffer is intended to provide another level of protection for the wetland from the future
homes as well as increase coniferous diversity. The placement of the fence is intended to provide a
clear demarcation of the critical area and buffer to prevent continual access by future residents.
The mitigation plan also includes specifications for replacement of the culvert under Belfair
Avenue to provide a better hydrologic connection between the wetlands that lie within Fort Ward
Estates.Because of the size and orientation of the lots as well as the condit ion of the existing
buffer vegetation, mitigation options are limited to the areas immediately adjacent to the proposed
homes. The mitigation plan achieves a 1.1:1 ratio that will adequately compensate for the buffer
impact.A portion of the proposed mitigation will involve replacement of the culvert under Belfair.
Wetland Functional Lift
The wetlands in Fort Ward Estates were historically part of one larger system that upon
development of the area were divided into somewhat individual wetlands by roads (Belfair Avenue
to the north of these lots and Richardson Street to the northeast). During construction, culverts
were placed beneath the roads but the one at Belfair was placed too high in elevation so did not
allow the continued flow of water into the northern wetland areas. Due to the lack of hydrological
continuity caused by the improperly installed culvert,the original area of wetland south of Belfair
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 8 June 14, 2018
Avenue has expanded considerably (Figure 9). It appears that a larger culvert was installed several
years ago but it remains slightly higher in elevation than the bottom of the wetland south of Belfair
so has not restored hydrologic continuity. The wetland does not appear to have expanded as a
result of the new culvert but it has not allowed the wetland to restore to its original limits.
B-twelve Associates, Inc. conducted a delineation of the wetlands within Fort Ward Estates in
1992.The boundary identified in 1992 is significantly smaller than the boundary identified by
Wiltermood Associates, Inc. (Wiltermood)in 2006.The boundary identified during the 2006
delineation is located east of the 2017 boundary indicating that the wetland had expanded between
1992,2006,and 2017 site visits. These early delineation maps show the wetland south of Belfair
was smaller than it is currently further indicating that the culvert did not permit the wetland to
remain in its historic configuration and that this area of wetland was physically and hydrologically
disconnected from the other wetlands.
By improving the connection between the onsite wetland and the wetlands to the north, there will
be improvements in hydrologic connectivity, wildlife passage, and increased diversity within the
northern wetlands.When water is allowed to spread across both wetlands there will be an increase
in the ability of each wetland to function as one system for water quality improvement and water
quantity storage.It is recommended that the culvert be at least 24 inches across and is either
partially buried or bottomless. This will improve wildlife connectivity between the wetlands and
allow small animals such as frogs to move across the historic range.The wetland north of Belfair
Avenue is dominated by a dense community of soft rush.The increase in plant species diversity as
a result of seed sources reaching more areas will improve the water quality of the runoff that enters
the wetlands. The onsite wetland has greater plant species diversity and once the culvert is
replaced, the seeds from these plants will spread into the northern wetlands and thereby increase
the vegetation diversity.
Replacing the culvert will involve construction activities to occur very near and partially in the
wetlands.However, one construction is complete;the area will return to pre-construction
conditions and begin improving as discussed above.Vegetation along Belfair Avenue is
dominated by Himalayan blackberry and the soils are composed of densely compacted gravel. The
work will only impact the soils on Belfair Avenue and will avoid disturbance of wetland soils to
the extent possible.The result of culvert replacement may shrink the boundary of the wetland over
time, however it will not shrink beyond its original boundary as delineated in 1992 (Figure 9).
Despite the potential for shrinking, the water quality and habitat functional lifts associated with
culvert replacement outweigh the potential loss of area.
Buffer Functional Lift
The existing buffer is densely vegetated by native trees and shrubs that are for the most part
deciduous. There are few if any conifer tree species in the buffer because of the dense nature of the
deciduous shrubs. The buffer has high functions because of the dense shrubs but lacks diversity
because there are only a few plant species including Nootka rose, hardhack, and hawthorn.
Planting of native vegetation around the future homes will increase the vegetation diversity as well
as provide additional screening function to the existing buffer vegetation.Shore pines will be
planted along the edge of the buffer to further improve the function of the buffer vegetation.The
trees will be especially beneficial in the winter months after the deciduous shrubs and small trees
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 9 June 14, 2018
lose their leaves. Therefore, the installation of conifer trees will increase the function of the buffer
as well as the diversity of the plants within the buffer.
Stormwater Assessment
The stormwater generated on the developed lots will be somewhat mitigated by planting native
trees and shrubs around each proposed home as well as through the use of LID methods that will
minimize the impact to water quality and quantity issues in the wetlands.Pervious pavement will
be used to allow stormwater to infiltrate, rather than runoff and pick up pollutants.Most of the
water generated on the developed lots will be on rooftops and because it is considered clean water,
it can be discharged toward the wetland buffer via splash blocks. The water will receive additional
filtration through the densely vegetated buffer area as well as the native plant ings around each
home. Therefore, the proposed homes will not impose any new or additional water quality impacts
to the wetlands. Although it appears because of the development, that there will be an increase in
the water generated onsite and discharged into the wetland. Because the lots are composed of
dense silt loam and silty clay loam that have become compacted over a long period of time, they
basically represent impervious surfaces. For this reason, the homes will represent a replacement of
impervious surfaces and will not result in a significant increase the quantity of water generated on
these lots. In addition, the replacement of impervious surfaces will ensure that the wetland
receives the same amount of water that it does currently and will not result in a significant
reduction in the source of water. Replacement of the culvert at an appropriate elevation will
establish a connection with the northern wetlands, which will result in each wetland providing
adequate storage and release of water.
Specifications for Site Preparation
The tasks listed below will achieve the wetland buffer mitigation goals and objectives.These tasks
are listed in the order they are anticipated to occur;however,some tasks may occur concurrently
or may precede other tasks due to site and procedural constraints.
Buffer Enhancement Area
1.Stake or flag the proposed planting areas to precisely identify where invasives will be removed
and native plants installed.
2.Remove existing invasive vegetation from the wetland buffer prior to installation of the
native plants.
3.Install plantings according to the schedule and specifications proposed herein.
Goals,Objectives,and Performance Standards
Project Goal:Improve wetland buffer functions to compensate for buffer reduction.
Objective 1:Control invasive species.
Performance Standard 1(a):During Years 1 through 7,invasive species will be removed and
suppressed in all onsite portions of the buffer as often as necessary to meet a performance
standard of no greater than 10 percent cover by invasive species.Percent cover will be recorded
annually and included in monitoring reports.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 10 June 14, 2018
Objective 2:Improve native plant cover within the native shrub buffer community.
Performance Standard 2(a):The project will maintain 100 percent survival of installed plants
during the entire 7-year monitoring period.Plant species number will be recorded annually and
compared with as-built conditions for inclusion in yearly monitoring reports.
Objective 3: Increase native plant cover within the buffer and around the existing homes.
Performance Standard 3(a):There will be increasing cover by native plant species in the
enhanced wetland buffer over the 7-year monitoring period.
The yearly percent cover in the areas around the house shall be:
Year 1 -15 to 20 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 2 -20 to 25 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 3 -25 to 30 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 5 –40 to 50 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Year 7 -50 to 60 percent by native volunteer and installed plants
Plant species percentages will be recorded annually and compared with as-built conditions to
determine overall success of the plantings.
Performance Standard 3(b):Shore pines grow relatively slowly so the cover is expected to
increase slowly over the seven year monitoring period. The trees shall be monitored for
increasing heights over the monitoring period as follows:
Year 1-up to 1.5 feet tall
Year 2-up to 2.5 feet tall
Year 3-up to 3.5 feet tall
Year 5-up to 5 feet tall
Year 7-up to 6 feet tall
Tree height will be recorded annually and compared with as-built conditions to determine overall
success of the plantings.
Objective 4: Improve connectivity of wetland habitat in Fort Ward Estates.
Performance Standard 4(a):Plant species from either side of Belfair Avenue will mingle
between the two portions of Wetland A and the larger culvert will encourage the passage of
wildlife.Observations on the north and south side,as well as within,the new culvert will be
made during each monitoring site visit and any actual or evident use by wildlife will be recorded.
Specifications for Planting
The plants specified for installation are intended to diversify the existing plant community and
improve wetland buffer function.The plants proposed around the future homes will allow the
homes to be situated within a vegetated buffer dominated by native species, which improve the
function of the buffer as well as minimizing the impacts to the overall buffer area. The shore
pines grow relatively slowly,and if maintained,will form a natural hedge of conifers that will
provide additional noise and light screening from the future homes .Their installation is intended
to improve upon the ground-level buffer function by increasing the density of conifer trees
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 11 June 14, 2018
alongside the existing native shrub community. The proposed location of the plants is presented
in the mitigation planting plan (Figure 10).
Plant Materials
Potted Stock
1.1 and 2-gallon potted plants will be purchased from a native plant nursery.
2.Potted stock will have a minimum size of 1.5 to 3 feet tall.
3.Potted stock will be kept in a shaded area prior to being planted.
4.The potted stock will have well-developed roots and sturdy stems with an
appropriate root-to-shoot ratio.
5.No damaged or desiccated roots or diseased plants will be accepted.
6.Unplanted stock will be properly s tored at the end of each planting day to prevent
desiccation.
7.The project biologist will be responsible for inspecting potted stock prior to and during
planting and culling unacceptable plant materials.
Planting Specifications
Removal of invasive plants can begin at any time following issuance of the permits by the city
and planting will take place during the winter months when the plants are dormant.Plants will
be installed as roughly indicated on the attached planting plan (Figure 10 ) or in small
groupings to mimic the natural environment and to enhance species survival.Table 1 provides
a list of plants proposed for installation within the buffer based on the square footage of the
planting areas.Plantings will be spaced to allow for removal of invasive plants and each
planting may be protected by weed mat or similar product to prevent the re-growth of invasive
plants.
Table 1. Plant specifications for buffer mitigation area.
Species Name Spacing (feet from
center)
Minimum Size Quantity
Shore pine
(Pinus contorta contorta)
10 2-gallon, potted 15
Vine maple
(Acer circinatum)
10-15 Bareroot 10
Mock orange
(Philadelphus lewisii)
8 Bareroot 10
Pacific rhododendron
(Rhododendron
macrophyllum)
6 1-gallon, potted 12
Tall Oregon grape
(Mahonia aquifolium)
8 Bareroot 16
Salal
(Gaultheria shallon)
5 Bareroot 20
Evergreen huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum)
6 Bareroot 12
Sword fern
(Polystichum munitum)
3 Bareroot 26
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 12 June 14, 2018
Species Name Spacing (feet from
center)
Minimum Size Quantity
Low Oregon grape
(Mahonia nervosa)
3 Bareroot 28
False Solomon’s seal
(Smilacina racemosa)
3 Bareroot 20
American dog violet
(Viola labridorica)
1 4” pot 20
Beach strawberry
(Fragaria chiloensis)
1 4” pot 15
Wood sorrel
(Oxalis oregana)
1 4” pot 20
Total Plantings 224
Planting Methods
1.Plant the specified trees in the winter 2018-2019 (or subsequent winter) or after construction
activities are completed,as listed in Table 1.Planting after construction is completed is
recommended to avoid impacting the plants during construction.Space the trees roughly 10
feet apart along the edge of the buffer and just inside the split-rail fence.Plant the trees with a
tree shovel or comparable tool.
2.Place the trees in the planting holes so that their roots are able to extend down entirely
and do not bend upward or circle inside the hole.
3.Position the root crowns so that they are at,or slightly above,the level of the surrounding soil.
4.Firmly compact the soil around the planted species to eliminate air spaces.
5.Install anti-herbivory devices,such as seedling protection tubes or mesh protection netting,
around the stems of planted species when appropriate,and secure them with stakes.
6.Irrigate all newly installed plants as site and weather conditions warrant.
MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of the planting areas will occur for seven years and will involve removing invasive
plant species,irrigating planted species,and reinstalling failed plantings,as necessary. The
maintenance may include the following activities:
1.Remove and control non-native and/or invasive vegetation from within the wetland buffer a
minimum of two times during the growing season for the first five years.
2.Irrigate planted species as necessary during the dry season,approximately July 1 through
October 15.ELS biologists recommend that watering occur at least every two weeks
during the dry season for the first three years.The most successful method of watering
plants is using a temporary above-ground irrigation system set to a timer to ensure the
plants are regularly watered.
3.Replace dead or failed plants as described for the original installation to meet the
minimum annual survival rate and percent cover performance standards.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 13 June 14, 2018
MONITORING PLAN
The buffer mitigation areas will be monitored annually for a 7 -year period following plant
installation.Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Bainbridge Island by December
31 of each monitored year. The goal of monitoring is to determine if the previously stated
performance standards are being met.The buffer mitigation area will be monitored once during
the growing season,preferably during the same two-week period each year to better compare
the data.During the first annual monitoring and maintenance event,representative monitoring
photo stations will be selected to provide yearly photos of the planted area.The entirety of the
planted area will be monitored each year and no i ndividual monitoring units will be
established.
Vegetation
Vegetative monitoring will document the development of the natural evergreen hedge
along the edge of the buffer as well ass plantings between the homes .The following
information will be collected in the planted area:
Height and survival of installed trees.
Species composition of herbs,shrubs,and trees,including non-native,invasive species.
Photo documentation of vegetative changes over time.
Fauna
General observations will be recorded and photographs will be taken of wildlife during site visits
to the site for monitoring. Observations of insects and other invertebrates,amphibians, reptiles,
fish,birds,and mammals will be recorded and documented in the annual monitoring reports.Use
of the on-site buffer areas by any priority species also will be noted.
Monitoring Report Contents
The annual monitoring reports will contain at least the following:
Location map and representational drawing.
Historic description of project,including dates of plant installation,current year of
monitoring,and restatement of goals,objectives,and performance standards.
Description of monitoring methods.
Documentation of plant cover and overall development of plant communities.
Assessment of non-native,invasive plant species and recommendations for management .
Observations of wildlife,including,amphibians,invertebrates,reptiles,birds,and mammals
Photographs from permanent photo points.
Summary of maintenance and contingency measures proposed for the next season and
completed for the past season.
CONTINGENCY PLAN
If the performance standards are not being met during the 5-year monitoring period, contingency
measures will be implemented to achieve the standard by the next monitoring season. The
contingency measures utilized will depend on the failure of the plants or maintenance activities
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 14 June 14, 2018
and will include but are not limited to replacement of dead plants (with the same or a similar
species) when the survival rate standard is not met, addition of plants when the yearly percent
cover standard is not met, and more intensive maintenance if the invasive plant cover exceeds 10
percent.All contingency actions will be undertaken only after consulting and gaining approval
from the BIDCD. The applicant will be required to complete a contingency plan that describes (1)
the causes of failure, (2) proposed corrective actions, (3) a schedule for completing corrective
actions, and (4) whether additional maintenance and monitoring are necessary.
SITE PROTECTION
The enhanced buffer area will be owned,maintained,and managed by the landowner s ,unless
such responsibilities are assigned to another entity.The owners will be responsible for
maintenance and monitoring of the planting areas for the prescribed 7-year period.
LIMITATIONS
The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted
professional consulting principles and practices.There are no other warranties, express or implied.
The services preformed were consistent with our agreement with our client.This report is prepared
solely for the use of our client and may not be used or relied upon b y a third party for any purpose.
Any such use or reliance will be at such party’s risk.
The opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when
services were performed.ELS is not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental
standards, practices, or regulations after the date of this report.ELS does not warrant the accuracy
of supplemental information incorporated in this report that was supplied by others.
Julian Prosser-Fort Ward Lots 5 and 6 RUE Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report 15 June 14, 2018
REFERENCES
City of Bainbridge Island. 2007.Bainbridge Island Municipal Code,Title 16.20 Critical Areas,
2007 Bainbridge Island, Washington.
City of Bainbridge Island. 2012. Bainbridge Island Geographical Information System. Online
document http://apps.bainbridgewa.gov:8080/PublicGIS/.Website accessed June 2016.
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. August 2014.Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington ,2014
Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-029. Olympia,
Washington.Effective January 1, 2015.
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
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html .Website accessed June 2016.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015.WA635 Kitsap County Area.
Online document http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm .Website
accessed June 2016.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014.Washington Hydric Soils List.
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/>.
Bainbridge Island Land Trust (BILT).2007.http://www.bi-landtrust.org/default.asp. Website
accessed March 2017.
FIGURES AND PHOTOPLATES
NOTE:
USGS topographic quadrangle map reproduced using
MAPTECH Inc., Terrain Navigator Pro software.
LOCATION MAP
WASHINGTON
47.5834° Latitude
-122.5215° Longitude
SITE
SITE
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
SCALE IN MILES
30150
CAMAS
QUILCENE
QUEETS
NEAH BAY
CLALLAM BAY
5 542
542
209
LOPEZ
FRIDAY HARBOR
ORCAS
ANACORTES
LAKE
ROSS
ROCKPORT
BELLINGHAM
FERNDALE
LYNDENBLAINE
SEDRO WOOLLEY
MOUNT VERNON
OAK HARBOR
STANWOOD
DARRINGTON
ARLINGTON
EVERETT
MUKILTEO 9
MONROE
PORT
TOWNSEND
113 112
SEQUIM
ANGELES
PORT
101
FORKS
MORTON
KELSOLONGVIEW
HOQUIAM
ABERDEEN
MONTESANOOCEAN
SHORES
WESTPORT
RAYMOND
CENTRALIA
CHEHALIS
WINLOCK
CASTLE
ROCK
CATHLAMET
WOODLAND
5
12
12
6
5044
12
101
PACIFIC
BEACH
GRAYS
HARBOR
PACIFIC
LEWIS
COWLITZ
WAHKIAKUM
KALAMA
ELMA
5
BATTLE
GROUND
VANCOUVER NORTH BONNEVILLE
STEVENSON CARSON
MT. ST.
HELENS
MOSSYROCK RANDLE
PACKWOOD
EATONVILLE MT.
RAINIER
ROY
ORTING
BUCKLEY
ENUMCLAWPUYALLUP
DUPONT
TENINO
YELM
OLYMPIA
SHELTON
HOODSPORT
GIG
TACOMA
AUBURN
KENT NORTH BEND
SEATTLE
DUVALL
BOTHELL
SKYKOMISH
14
LA
CENTER
503
5
SKAMANIA
CLARK
MASON
KING
THURSTON
PIERCE
KITSAP
505
127
123
410161
101 3
3
18 90
2
WAY
101
101
ILWACO
OCEAN
PARK
LONG
BEACH
COPALIS
BEACH
JEFFERSON
CLALLAM
SNOHOMISH
SKAGIT
WHATCOM
ISLAND
SAN JUAN
AMANDA
PARK
SOUTH
BEND
KIRKLAND
REDMOND
BELLEVUE
HARBOR
FEDERAL
PORT
ORCHARD
BREMERTON
POULSBO
STEILACOOM
RIDGEFIELD
WASHOUGAL
SITE
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
2
A
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
20
0
0
40
0
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
S
o
u
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
N
E
Belfair Ave NE
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
Lo
t
6
Lo
t
5
11
0
'
TP
-
3
TP
-
4
TP
-
2
TP
-
1
09 10
05
We
t
l
a
n
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
I
I
De
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
e
d
Sc
r
u
b
/
S
h
r
u
b
Em
e
r
g
e
n
t
Se
a
s
o
n
a
l
l
y
F
l
o
o
d
e
d
08
07
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
2
A
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Jack
N 6
:
(
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
SI
T
E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Figure 2 SITE MAP
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24N , Range 2E , W.M.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Kitsap County, WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
40
80
LEGEND:Site Boundary Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Wetland Buffer Test Plot Location Wetland Flag
NO
T
E
(
S
)
:
1.
Ae
r
i
a
l
f
r
o
m
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
™
2.
We
t
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
t
e
s
t
p
l
o
t
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
h
a
n
d
h
e
l
d
G
P
S
w
i
t
h
s
u
b
m
e
t
e
r
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
.
TP
-
1
1
Culvert
(18" Plastic)
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
110'
House 6
House 5
Belfair Ave
(Pedestrian Path)
15
'
1
5
'
15
'
1
5
'
Lot 6
Lot 5
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
1
6
P
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
_
S
P
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
BU
F
F
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Impact Areas-Lot 6 (2,654 sq.ft.)
Impact Areas-Lot 5 (2,654 sq.ft.)
Buffer Mitigation Area-Lot 6 (3,697 sq.ft.)
Buffer Mitigation Area-Lot 5 (2,216 sq.ft.)
Existing Native Vegetation-Lot 6 (800 sq.ft.)
Existing Native Vegetation-Lot 5 (2,203 sq.ft.)
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by NRCS at web address:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
LEGEND:
7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. Not hydric.
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
2
A
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
SO
I
L
S
U
R
V
E
Y
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
10
0
20
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by US Fish & Wildlife Service at web address:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/index.html
No mapped wetlands indicated onsite by US Fish & Wildlife Service.
SITE
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
2
A
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
NA
T
I
O
N
A
L
W
E
T
L
A
N
S
D
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
15
0
30
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by the City of Bainbridge Island at web address:
http://apps.bainbridgewa.gov:8080/PublicGIS/
LEGEND:
Wetlands
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
2
A
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
BA
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
I
S
L
A
N
D
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
A
R
E
A
S
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
10
0
20
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
FO
EM
FO
S/S
Intermittently
Flowing outlet
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
2
A
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
WE
T
L
A
N
D
R
A
T
I
N
G
F
O
R
M
-
1
5
0
'
O
F
F
S
E
T
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
15
0
30
0
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial photo from Google Earth™.
LEGEND:
Wetland Unit Boundary
Vegetation Class Division
Contributing Basin
150' Wetland Offset
Scrub/shrub
Forested
Emergent
S/S
FO
EM
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
Rating
Question
Description Answers specific to Wetland being rated
D 1.1, D 4.1 Location of Outlet Wetland has an intermittently flowing outlet
D 1.3 Distribution of persistent plants Persistent, ungrazed plants > ½ of the area
D. 1.4 Area of seasonally flooded Area seasonally ponded > ½ of the wetland
D 2.2 Boundary of area w/in 150’ of the
wetland in land uses that generate
pollutants
>10% of the area within 150' in land uses that generate pollutants
D 5.2 Boundary of area w/in 150’ of the
wetland in land uses that generate
excess runoff
> 10% of the area within 150 feet in land uses that generate excess
runoff
D 4.3 Contributing Basin-
Contribution of wetland to storage in the
watershed
Area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the wetland
D 5.3 Contributing Basin covered in intensive
land uses
>25% of the basin is covered in intensive human land uses
H 1.1 Cowardin Plant Classes Emergent, Scrub/Shrub, Forested
H 1.2 Hydroperiods Seasonally flooded
H 1.4 Interspersion of habitats Moderate Interspersion of habitat
U
U
M/L
M/L
M/L
H
H
H
M/L
M/L
H
H
A
U
U
U
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
9
:
0
2
A
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
8
WE
T
L
A
N
D
R
A
T
I
N
G
F
O
R
M
-
1
K
M
O
F
F
S
E
T
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
12
0
0
24
0
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial photo from Google Earth™.
LEGEND:
Wetland Unit Boundary
Contributing Basin
Accessible Habitat (0.1%)
Undisturbed Habitat (12.0% *Includes Accessible Habitat)
High Intensity Land Use (33.9%)
Moderate/Low Intensity Land Use (54.1%)
H
M/L
H 2.1 - Accessible habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon (0.1%).
H 2.2 - Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches (39.1%).
H 2.3 - ≤ 50% of polygon is high land use intensity.
U
A
So
u
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
N
E
Culvert
Lot 6
Lot 5
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial from Google Earth™
2.Wetland and test plots located using handheld GPS with submeter accuracy.
9/
1
3
/
2
0
1
7
9
:
1
5
A
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
9
WE
T
L
A
N
D
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
M
A
P
9/
1
3
/
1
7
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
50
10
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary (2016)
Wetland Boundary (2006)
Wetland Boundary (1992)
Approximate Wetland Boundary (2016)
Culvert
(18" Plastic)
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
Lot 6
Lot 5
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
1
6
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
_
S
P
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
10
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
11
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3 3
4
4
4
4
5 5
5 5
5
5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5 5
66
6
6 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
66
7
7
7 7
77
7
7
8 8
8
8 8 8
88
9 9 99
9 9
9
999
9
9
9
9 9
8 8 8 8
9
9 9
9
9
9
9
9
9 9
9
9
999
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1010
10
10
11 11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11 1111
11
1313
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12 12
12
12
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Fence To Be
Installed
Along Buffer
8 8 8
8 8
9 9
8 8
8
Figure 8a-303(d) Map:There are no 303(d) waters mapped within the basin of the rated wetland.
Figure 8b:TMDL List for Kitsap County.There are no TMDLs for the drainage basin of the rated wetland.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
Phone: (360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/14/16
DWN:JB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Figure 8-Wetland Rating
Figure-303(d)/TMDL
Project Name:Fort Ward
Lots 5 and 6
Client:Prosser
Kitsap County, Washington
←Project site
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 1
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 1 was taken from the
northwest corner of Lot 5 facing
east. It looks down Belfair
Avenue,which is an unimproved
right-of-way that is currently
used as a pedestrian path. This
path borders the north property
boundary of Lot 5.
Photo 3 was taken from the
same location as Photos 1 and
2 facing south. It shows some
of the boats that had been
parked on the Soundview
Drive right of way, which is
currently unimproved. This
Soundview Drive NE lies to
the right of the frame.
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.
Photo 2 was taken from the
same location as Photo 1 and
looks southeast at the upland
vegetation that occurred near
the mowed, level area of Lot 5.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 2
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 4 was taken near the
middle of the mown area on the
west side of Lot 5 facing north.
It looks at the same boats
pictured in Photo 3 (Photoplate
1).
Photo 6 was taken from the
same location as Photos 4 and
5 facing south.It looks at the
thick shrub layer that began at
the boundary of Lots 5 and 6
and continued to the southern
boundary of Lot 6.
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.
Photo 5 was taken from the
same location as Photo 4 and
looks east at the upland
vegetation and another
example of the neighbors using
the vacant lots.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 3
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 7 was taken from the
northern extent of Wetland A
facing southeast. It demonstrates
the vegetation that was growing
in this area of wetland.
Photo 9 was taken from the
same location as Photos 7 and
8 facing west.It looks toward
the forested portion of Wetland
A, which was dominated by
pacific willows.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.
Photo 8 was taken from the
same location as Photo 7 and
looks south at the wetland
vegetation. This portion of
Wetland A was emergent only.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 4
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 10 was taken of the culvert
that outlets Wetland A to the
north. It was positioned at the
very north end of the wetland and
conveys water under the
pedestrian path picture in Photo 1
(Photoplate 1).
Photo 12 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 2 was
conducted.It was located
upslope of Test Plot 1 in the
forested upland.
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.
Photo 11 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 1 was
conducted.It was located
inside the northern wetland
boundary where the vegetation
was thick with tall shrubs.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 5
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 13 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 3 was conducted.
It was located in an open area of
upland west of the boundary.
Photo 15 was taken from the
middle of the wetland facing
north. Test Plot 4 is visible in
the foreground and the forested
portion from Photo 11
(Photoplate 4) is visible in the
background.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.
Photo 14 was taken of the area
where Test Plot 4 was
conducted.It was located
inside the western wetland
boundary where the vegetation
was dominated by emergent
species.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/20/16
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2405.01
Photoplate 6
Project Name:Fort Ward Lots
5 & 6
Client:Julian Prosser
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 16 was taken from the
same location as Photo 15
(Photoplate 5)facing east. It
shows the emergent portion of the
wetland in the foreground and the
forested portion in the
background.
Photo 18 was taken from the
same location as Photos 15, 16,
and 17 facing west. It looks
towards the thick shrub area of
Wetland A.
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.
Photo 17 was taken from the
same location as Photos 15 and
16 facing southeast. The
center of the depression had no
woody vegetation present.
APPENDIX A
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:5 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:5 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Spiraea douglasii 35 yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Rosa nutkana 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra 15 no FACW OBL species x1 =
4.Crataegus monogyna 15 no FAC FACW species x2 =
5.Ilex aquifolium 10 no FACU FAC species x3 =
50% =47.5, 20% =19 95 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Athryium filix-femina 20 yes FACW Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Ranunculus repens 10 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Geum macrophyllum 10 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Polystichum munitum 5 no FACU 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Equisetum arvense 5 no FAC 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =25, 20% =10 50 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC and FACW species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 1
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification:
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
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:Wetland A is a depressional system composed of a thick shrub layer having some forested and emergent areas. Test Plot 1 was located at the northwest
corner of the wetland boundary where the vegetation was forested with three layers.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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
0-8 10YR 2/1 100 silty cl loam no redoximorphic features
8-10 10 YR 2/1 95 10YR 3/6 5 C M silty cl loam
10-16 10YR 4/2 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M clay loam
cl clay
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix,RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer beginning within 10 inches and is at least 6 inches thick, therefore the soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3,
Depleted Matrix.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit but there was evidence to indicate wetland hydrology present as a sparsely vegetated concave surface and
the occurance of oxidized rhizospheres along living roots.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:3 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:67 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Rosa nutkana 50 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Crataegus monogyna 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.OBL species x1 =
4.FACW species x2 =
5.FAC species x3 =
50% =35, 20% =14 70 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Polystichum munitum 35 yes FACU Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Rubus ursinus 15 no FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Veronica americana 15 no OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Equisetum arvense 10 no FAC 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Tellima grandiflora 5 no FACU 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =40, 20% =16 80 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 2
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent 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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:The upland surrounding Wetland A was composed of a very thick shrub layer having some forested areas. Test Plot 2 was located in the forested area
outside of the northwest boundary of Wetland A in conjunction with wetland Test Plot 1.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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
0-10 10YR 3/2 100 silt loam No redoximorphic features
10-16 10 YR 4/2 100 silt loam No redoximorphic features
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer, however, Cathcart silt loam is mapped on the entire site, which is described as having a parent material made of
volcanic ash and is therefore naturally grey in color.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit and there was no evidence to indicate wetland hydrology.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:4 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:5 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:80 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Rosa nutkana 20 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Crataegus monogyna 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.Rubus armeniacus 15 yes FAC OBL species x1 =
4.Rubus laciniatus 5 no FACU FACW species x2 =
5.FAC species x3 =
50% =30, 20% =12 60 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Holcus lanatus 35 yes FAC Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Dactylis glomerata 25 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Rubus ursinus 20 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Lotus corniculatus 20 no FAC 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Juncus effusus 15 no FACW 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.Polystichum munitum 10 no FACU 3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.Equisetum arvense 5 no FAC 4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.Ranunculus repens 5 no FACW
9.Geum macrophyllum 5 no FACU 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =70, 20% =28 140 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% ==Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 3
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent 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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:The upland surrounding Wetland A was composed of a very thick shrub layer having some forested areas. Test Plot 3 was located in the forested area
outside of the west boundary of Wetland A in conjunction with wetland Test Plot 4.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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
0-10 10YR 3/2 100 gr si loam No redoximorphic features
10-16 10 YR 4/2 100 gr si loam No redoximorphic features
gr gravelly
si silt
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer, however, Cathcart silt loam is mapped on the entire site, which is described as having a parent material made of
volcanic ash and is therefore naturally grey in color.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit and there was no evidence to indicate wetland hydrology.
Project Site:Fort W ard Estates Lots 5 & 6
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:2 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:20' diameter)
1.Rubus armeniacus 10 yes FAC 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:5' diameter)UPL species x5 =
1.Ranunculus repens 75 yes FACW Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Equisetum arvense 25 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Vicia americana 20 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Holcus lanatus 15 no FAC 1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.Juncus effusus 15 no FACW 2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.Athryium filix-femina 10 no FACW 3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =80, 20% =32 160 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC and FACW species.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6 City/County:Bainbridge/Kitsap Sampling Date:6-10-16
Applicant/Owner:Julian Prosser State:WA Sampling Point:TP 4
Investigator(s):J. Bartlett, L. Westervelt Section, Township, Range:S 11 T 24N R 2EWM
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3%
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:Long:Datum:Trimble
Soil Map Unit Name:7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification:PFOC
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
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:Wetland A was a depressional system composed of a thick shrub layer having some forested and emergent areas. Test Plot 4 was located in the emergent
portion of Wetland A near the west wetland boundary line.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
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 10YR 2/1 100 silt loam no redoximorphic features
6-11 10 YR 2/1 95 10YR 3/6 5 C PL silty cl loam
11-16+10YR 4/2 85 10YR 5/8 15 C M clay loam
cl clay
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:This soil profile contains a depleted layer at least 6 inches thick, therefore the soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3, Depleted Matrix.
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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the site visit but there was evidence to indicate wetland hydrology present as glistening in the soil.
Project Site:Fort Ward Estates Lots 5 & 6
APPENDIX B
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 1
RATING SUMMARY –Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #):Wetland A Date of site visit:9-13-16
Rated by J. Bartlett Trained by Ecology?X Yes No Date of training 11/14
HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N
NOTE:Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth/COBI Critical Areas Map
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions X or special characteristics _)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I –Total score =23 –27
Category II –Total score = 20 –22
X Category III –Total score = 16 –19
Category IV –Total score =9 –15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings 5 7 5 17
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
Score for eachfunctionbasedonthreeratings(order of ratingsisnotimportant)
9 =H,H,H
8 =H,H,M
7 =H,H,L
7 =H,M,M
6 =H,M,L
6 =M,M,M
5 =H,L,L
5 =M,M,L
4 =M,L,L
3 =L,L,L
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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 2
Maps and figures required to answ er 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 2, 6
Hydroperiods D 1.4,H 1.2 2, 6
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)D 1.1,D 4.1 2, 6
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)D 2.2,D 5.2 6
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3,D 5.3 6
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 7
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)D 3.1,D 3.2 8
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)D 3.3 8
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1,H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)R 2.4
Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2,R 4.2
Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure)R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2,R 2.3,R 5.2
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)R 3.2,R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
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
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)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
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure)S 2.1,S 5.1
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 3
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated,youprobablyhave a unit with multiple HGM classes.In this case,identify which hydrologic criteria inquestions 1-7 apply,and go to Question 8.1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO –go to 2 YES –the wetland class is Tidal Fringe –go to 1.11.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO –Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES –Freshwater Tidal Fringe
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.Groundwaterandsurfacewaterrunoffare NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO –go to 3 YES –The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland,use the form for Depressional wetlands.3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without anyplants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO –go to 4 YES –The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional)and usually comes fromseeps.It may flow subsurface,as sheetflow,or in a swale without distinct banks,The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO –go to 5 YES –The wetland class is Slope
NOTE:Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small andshallowdepressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The unit is in a valley, or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from thatstream or river,The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 4
NO –go to 6 YES –The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE:The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is notflooding6.Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to thesurface,at some time during the year?This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.NO –go to 7 YES –The wetland class is Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding?The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches.The unit seems to bemaintainedbyhighgroundwater in the area.The wetland may be ditched,but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO –go to 8 YES –The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses.For example,seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain,or a smallstreamwithin a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides.GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICHOFTHEHYDROLOGICREGIMESDESCRIBEDINQUESTIONS1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREASINTHEUNIT(make a rough sketch to help you decide).Use the following table to identify theappropriateclass to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored.
NOTE:Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated.If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope +Riverine Riverine
Slope +Depressional Depressional
Slope +Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional +Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional +Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine +Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 5
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions -Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0.Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch,OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points =2
Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch.points = 1
2
D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer)is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes =4 No =0 0
D 1.3.Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants >95%of area points =5
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants >½of area points =3
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants >1/of area points =110
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants <1/of area points =010
3
D 1.4.Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months.See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is >½total area of wetland points =4
Area seasonally ponded is >¼total area of wetland points =2
Area seasonally ponded is <¼total area of wetland points =0
4
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9
Rating of Site Potential If score is:12-16 =H X 6-11 =M 0-5 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1.Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 2.2.Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 -D 2.3?
Source Yes =1 No =0
0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:3 or 4 =H X 1 or 2 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1.Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e.,within 1 mi) to a stream,river,lake,or marine water that is on the
303(d)list?Yes =1 No =0
0
D 3.2.Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d)list?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 3.3.Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)?Yes =2 No =0
0
Total for D 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 name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 6
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions -Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0.Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet)points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch,OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints =2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
2
D 4.2.Depth of storage during wet periods:Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet.For wetlands
with no outlet,measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry,the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points =7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to <3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points =5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to <2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points =3
The wetland is a “headwater”wetland points =3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points =0
3
D 4.3.Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed:Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points =5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points =3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points =0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points =5
5
Total for D 4 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
D 5.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1.Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 5.2.Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 5.3.Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac,urban,commercial,agriculture,etc.)?Yes =1 No =0
1
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:X 3 =H 1 or 2 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1.The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems.Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated.Do not add points.Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g.,houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit.points =2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient.points =1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin.points =1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood.Explain why points =0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland.points =0
1
D 6.2.Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes =2 No =0
0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Value If score is:2-4 =H X 1 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 13
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
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland.Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ac 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
X 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:
The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy,sub-canopy,shrubs,herbaceous,moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon
2
H 1.2.Hydroperiods
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
Saturated only 1 type present:points =0
Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
0
H 1.3.Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
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
1
H 1.4.Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1),or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)is high,moderate,low,or none.If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water,the rating is always high.
None =0 points Low =1 point Moderate =2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH =3points
2
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 14
H 1.5.Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland.The number of checks is the number of points.
Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
Standing snags (dbh >4 in)within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m)and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch)in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree
slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
X At least ¼ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
X Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
2
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7
Rating of Site Potential If score is:15-18 =H X 7-14 = M 0-6 =L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1.Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:%undisturbed habitat 0.1 +[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]0 =0.1 %
If total accessible habitat is:
>1/(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points =33
20-33%of 1 km Polygon points =2
10-19%of 1 km Polygon points =1
<10%of 1 km Polygon points =0
0
H 2.2.Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:%undisturbed habitat 12 +[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]27 =39.1 %
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
1
H 2.3.Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon:If
>50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points =(-2)
≤50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points =0
0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1
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 1 =M X 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 15
WDFW Priority HabitatsPriorityhabitatslistedbyWDFW(see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats,and the counties in which they canbefound,in:Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008.Priority Habitat and Species List.Olympia,Washington.177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m)of the wetland unit:NOTE:This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands:Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors:Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish andwildlife(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests:Old-growth west of Cascade crest –Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha )>32 in (81 cm)dbh or > 200yearsofage.Mature forests –Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm)dbh;crown cover may be lessthan100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than thatfoundinold-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak:Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponentisimportant(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158 –see web link above).
Riparian:The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic andterrestrialecosystemswhichmutuallyinfluenceeachother.
Westside Prairies:Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wetprairie(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 –see web link above).
Instream:The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to providefunctionallifehistoryrequirementsforinstreamfishandwildliferesources.
Nearshore:Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats.These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,andPugetSoundNearshore.(full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves:A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock,ice,or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs:Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 -6.5 ft (0.15 -2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite,and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics toenablecavityexcavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of >20 in (51 cm)in westernWashingtonandare> 6.5 ft (2 m)in height.Priority logs are >12 in (30 cm)in diameter at the largest end,and >20 ft(6 m)long.
Note:All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressedelsewhere.
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 16
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland.Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0.Estuarine 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?
Yes =Category I No -Go to SC 1.2 Cat.I
SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing,and has less
than 10%cover of non-native plant species.(If non-native species are Spartina,see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or
contiguous freshwater wetlands.Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.II
SC 2.0.Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1.Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value?Yes –Go to SC 2.2 No –Go to SC 2.3
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
Cat.I
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.
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
Cat.I
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland name or number A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 17
SC 4.0.Forested Wetlands
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)
Yes –Go to SC 5.1 No =Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1.Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less
than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p.100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/ac (4350 ft2)10 Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.II
SC 6.0.Interdunal 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
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
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
SC 6.3.Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes =Category III No =Category IV
Cat I
Cat.II
Cat.III
Cat.IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types,enter “Not Applicable”on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 18
Wetland name or number A
This page left blank intentionally
Exhibit 20
Culvert
(18" Plastic)
Wetland
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Scrub/Shrub
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
110'
House 6
House 5
Belfair Ave
(Pedestrian Path)
15
'
1
5
'
15
'
1
5
'
Lot 6
Lot 5
6/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
1
6
P
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
4
0
5
-
p
r
o
s
s
e
r
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
o
r
t
w
a
r
d
l
o
t
s
5
&
6
r
u
e
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
4
0
5
.
0
1
_
D
L
_
S
P
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
BU
F
F
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
M
A
P
6/
1
5
/
1
8
24
0
5
.
0
1
Fo
r
t
W
a
r
d
L
o
t
s
5
&
6
R
U
E
Ju
l
i
a
n
P
r
o
s
s
o
r
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Impact Areas-Lot 6 (2,654 sq.ft.)
Impact Areas-Lot 5 (2,654 sq.ft.)
Buffer Mitigation Area-Lot 6 (3,697 sq.ft.)
Buffer Mitigation Area-Lot 5 (2,216 sq.ft.)
Existing Native Vegetation-Lot 6 (800 sq.ft.)
Existing Native Vegetation-Lot 5 (2,203 sq.ft.)
1
Ann Hillier
From:Julian Prossor <jp@inhabithomes.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 3:08 PM
To:Ann Hillier
Subject:RE: Hearing update
Hi Annie,
Yes, let’s stick with the 28th.
An August hearing date would make it hard, if not impossible to start construction this year.
If my CAD tech can update the site plan this week, I’ll forward you a copy. That said, please use the site plan in the
mitigation report as the default.
Our plans show the house footprints at 1179 Sq. Ft.
Thanks for all your help.
JP
From: Ann Hillier [mailto:ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:53 AM
To: Julian Prossor <jp@inhabithomes.com>
Subject: Hearing update
Hi Julian,
I think we should stick with our hearing on the 28th, because otherwise the next available date won’t be until August. Is
that okay with you? I can pull a site plan out of the wetland report to use during the hearing, although if your CAD
drawer is able to complete the new site plan this week, please send a copy. I’d prefer to use that, as your drawings
provide a different level of detail.
Lastly, can you please provide the final lot coverage for each SFR?
Thank you,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
Exhibit 21
1
Department of Planning and Community Development
Staff Report
Project Soundview Drive Lot 5 RUE & VAR
Soundview Drive Lot 6 RUE & VAR
File No. PLN50850A RUE & VAR / PLN50850B RUE & VAR
Date June 28, 2018
To Andrew Reeves, Hearing Examiner
Project Manager Annie Hillier, Planner
I. INTRODUCTION
Request The proposal is for two reasonable use exceptions (RUE) and two major
zoning variances on adjoining vacant lots encumbered by a category III
wetland and associated 110 ft. buffer. The proposed zoning variances would
reduce the front yard setbacks from 25 ft. to 5 ft. along Soundview Dr. NE.
Location Lot 5: 2171 Soundview Dr. NE
Lot 6: no situs address
Zoning Designation R-2, two residential units per acre
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
OSR-2, open space residential, two residential units per acre
Environmental Review A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) WAC 197-11-355, was published on May 15,
2018 with the appeal period ending May 29, 2018. No appeal was filed.
Recommendation Approval of the RUE and VAR for each lot, subject to conditions.
Hearing Examiner Review
The hearing examiner shall review the reasonable use exception (RUE) and major variance applications
and conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of BIMC 2.16.100. The hearing examiner shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the proposal’s compliance with all of
the RUE and major variance review criteria in subjection E of this section.
2
Recommendation
Approval of the RUE and major variance applications for each lot with the following conditions:
SEPA Conditions:
1. In order to protect the ground water and the wetland flora and fauna from the proposed
development, the roofing shall be of a non-leaching material that is not harmful to the environment.
Examples of non-leaching materials are, but not limited to, metal and tile roofs. Any alternative
method proposed requires approval by the City prior to final building permit issuance, and must
address BIMC water quality standards, Chapter 13.24, to assure that wetland flora and fauna
functions and values are maintained/enhanced.
2. Prior to commencing any construction activity, the applicant shall have the wetland buffer
temporarily fenced between the areas of construction activity, a maximum of 15 feet from the
proposed residence. The fence shall be made of durable material and shall be highly visible. The
fence shall be inspected as part of the building permit. The temporary fencing shall be removed
once the construction activity is complete and replaced with permanent fencing (see condition #3,
below).
3. A split-rail type fence shall be installed along the edge of the native vegetation buffer area. The rails
shall be high enough to allow small mammals and wildlife to pass through. The fence shall be
indicated on the building permit application and in place prior to final inspection on the building
permit.
4. A minimum of two signs per lot indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer shall be
placed on the fence, prior to final inspection on the building permit. Signs shall be made of metal or
a similar durable material and shall be between 64 and 144 square inches in size.
5. The wetland mitigation plan, including mitigation goals and objectives, performance standards,
maintenance and monitoring measures, and contingency actions, shall be submitted with the
building permit application and approved prior to final building inspection. All plantings shall be
installed prior to final building permit inspection, or an assurance device shall be provided in
accordance BIMC 16.20.180.
6. Any modification to the culvert must be supported with a hydraulic and hydrologic analysis
consistent with the Department of Ecology’s 2014 Stormwater Management Minimum Requirement
#8 (MR #8), Wetlands Protection and must include a quantitative downstream analysis of the
downstream system. The quantitative downstream analysis shall demonstrate that the storage of
stormwater and attenuation of peak flows will not be altered to the detriment of the downstream
property owners, wetlands, and drainage channels and conveyances. The Wetlands Protection
analysis must demonstrate compliance with Guide Sheet 3B to maintain the existing hydroperiod of
the wetlands; the analysis shall demonstrate that daily and monthly inputs to the adjacent wetland
and downstream wetlands do not vary by more than 20% and 15% respectively, compared to
existing conditions. Any anticipated impacts to landowners or downstream flow increases must be
mitigated up to the 100-year storm discharge. These analyses shall be submitted with the Critical
Areas permit applicant (Condition #7).
7. All required permits and approvals shall be obtained prior to culvert replacement, including a Right-
of-Way (ROW) Permit from the Department of Public Works, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Critical Areas Permit from the Department of
Planning and Community Development. A copy of the HPA shall be included in the materials
submitted with the Critical Areas Permit application and ROW Permit application.
3
8. The replacement culvert shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection for the first SFR,
or an assurance device shall be provided in accordance with BIMC 16.20.180.
9. If the required analyses (Condition #6) proves the culvert replacement infeasible or the applicant
decides to retract the culvert replacement proposal, an amendment to the RUE with an alternative
mitigation proposal shall be approved prior to building permit issuance, and conditions 6-8 do not
apply.
10. If the performance standards in the mitigation plan are not met, a contingency plan shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development for approval. Any additional
permits or approvals necessary for contingency actions shall be obtained prior implementing the
contingency plan.
11. To reduce impacts to the wetland, the applicant shall limit the amount of lighting on the exterior of
the residence to the minimum necessary, shall install motion sensor lights to the rear of the house
facing the wetland, and record a covenant to limit the use of pesticides on the properties.
12. Disturbance to the 60-foot wide right-or-way (ROW) from construction activities shall be restored in
accordance with the Public Works ROW restoration requirements. Disturbed road shoulders and
vegetation strips shall be replaced with the standard 3-foot wide crushed surfacing top course gravel
ballast shoulder. Disturbed areas beyond the road prism shall be regraded to provide drainage via
grassed swales and/or replanted. The house construction shall allow drainage from the ROW to
continue to the wetlands along the sideyards to match existing drainage patterns, where it occurs.
13. Each lot shall submit a bid comparison/analysis to demonstrate that the applicant has considered
utilizing the minimal excavation foundation systems per the 2012 Low Impact Development
Guidance Manual for Puget Sound as a means of minimizing impacts to the site and adjacent
wetlands. The bid/comparison analysis shall demonstrate that the applicant has engaged with the
appropriate design and construction professionals to explore this foundation system option. The bid
shall be obtained from a designer or installer with previous experience building with this technology.
14. Surface stormwater from driveway and parking spaces shall receive pre-treatment prior to
discharging to the wetlands or leaving the site by directing stormwater to vegetated dispersion
strips, rain gardens where soils allow, or the use of permeable pavement (outside of the ROW only),
or other alternatives consistent with MR #5, On-Site Stormwater Management of the stormwater
manual.
15. Hardscaping shall be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide permeable jointing where
feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface filtration of surface stormwater.
16. Diffuse flow methods (i.e. BMP C206: Level Spreader, or BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion
Systems) shall be used to discharge roof surface stormwater into the wetland where full-infiltration
on-site is not feasible.
Project Conditions:
17. The proposed residence shall meet the setback and height requirements for the R-2 zoning district,
with the exception of the twenty-five ft. front setback. To ensure the 5 ft. front yard setback is met,
the applicant shall have the setback marked and inspected by planning staff prior to commencing
construction.
18. The ARPA shall be documented on a site plan included with the building permit applications.
4
19. The applicant shall record a notice to title of the presence of the wetland, mitigation plan, and ARPA
prior to the issuance of the building permits.
20. The proposed single family residences are subject to the Fort Ward Overlay design guidelines and
shall be reviewed for compliance with the guidelines at building permit submittal.
21. A stormwater management plan is required and must meet minimum requirements 1 through 9 of
the 2014 SWMMWW as adopted by the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code at the time of the first
building permit application.
22. A building clearance for Sewered Properties (Sewered BC) is required prior to the issuance of the
building permits.
23. The proposal and future building permits shall comply with all provisions of the adopted Fire Code.
Future development may require the installation of fire hydrant(s) or residential fire sprinklers to
meet fire flow requirements.
STAFF ANALYSIS
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Site Characteristics
1. Assessor’s Record Information:
a. Tax lot numbers: 41460040050004 (Lot 5) and 41460040060003 (Lot 6)
b. Owner of record: Inhabit Limited Liability Company
c. Lot sizes: 0.21 acres (Lot 5) and 0.16 acres (Lot 6)
2. Terrain:
The properties are relatively flat, with a five foot contour change across Lot 6 and a
ten foot contour change across Lot 5.
3. Site Development:
The sites are undeveloped.
4. Access:
Vehicular access to the site is from Soundview Dr. NE.
5. Public Services:
a. Police: Bainbridge Island Police Department
b. Fire: Bainbridge Island Fire District
c. Septic: Kitsap Sewer District 7
6. Surrounding Uses:
The properties immediately to the west and north contain single family residences.
The three properties immediately to the south each received an RUE and major
zoning variance in 2017 for the development of single family residences, but are
currently undeveloped or in the process of development. The properties immediately
to the east are encumbered by the category III wetland and are undeveloped.
5
7. Existing Zoning:
The site is zoned R-2, two units per acre.
8. Surrounding Zoning:
The surrounding zoning is R-2, two units per acre.
9. Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation:
The City Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site Open Space
Residential two units per acres (OSR-2).
10. Surrounding Comprehensive Plan Designation:
The City Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the surrounding area Open
Space Residential two units per acres (OSR-2).
11. Vicinity Map and Aerial Image:
Lot
6
Lot 5
6
B. History
1. The applicant submitted for a preapplication conference on May 25, 2017.
2. A preapplication conference was held on June 20, 2017. The summary letter and
checklist was sent to the applicant on June 23, 2017 (Exhibit 1).
3. The applicant applied for two Reasonable Use Exceptions and two major zoning
variances on November 14, 2017 (Exhibit 2).
4. The applications were deemed complete on December 12, 2017 (Exhibit 9).
5. City staff requested revisions to the application materials on December 15, 2017
(Exhibit 10).
6. The Notice of Application and SEPA Comment Period was published on December 22,
2017 (Exhibit 12).
7. Four public comments were received during the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 13).
8. A revised wetland report and mitigation plan was submitted on February 9, 2018,
satisfying a portion of the information request (Exhibit 14).
9. The Development Review Committee (DRC) discussed the proposed wetland
mitigation on May 9, 2018, and determined that the impact on Lot 6 needed to be
reduced prior to issuing a SEPA determination.
10. On May 10, 2018, City staff met with the applicant to discuss options for reducing
the impact on Lot 6. The applicant agreed to reflect a similar development pattern to
that proposed on Lot 5, which contained an area of impact 806 sq. ft. less than that
proposed on Lot 6.
11. On May 15, 2018, the City issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
(Exhibit 15).
12. Two public comments were received during the 14-day comment period (Exhibit 16).
13. On June 1, 2018, a Notice of Public Hearing was issued (Exhibit 17).
14. On June 14, 2018, the applicant submitted a final wetland report and mitigation plan,
that includes a final site plan, satisfying the original information request and the
outcomes of the more recent meetings with the DRC and the applicant.
C. Public Comments (Exhibits 13 and 16)
1. Cumulative Impact on Wetland: Comments stated concern about the reduction or
elimination of the wetland and buffer on the property and in the area. One
commenter stated that the wetland has been chipped away at since the current
sewer system made building on surrounding lots possible, and that replacing the
culvert will only reduce the impact on the subject properties. One commenter stated
that development should be limited to the smallest footprint possible.
Staff finds that the proposed development will impact the wetland, but that the
Code allows development to occur through a reasonable use exception with
compensatory mitigation and lot coverage limited to 1,200 square feet. Staff finds
that other permits for development in critical areas have been granted in the area
7
(RUEs: Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Block 4, Fort Estates Division 1 to the south; buffer
averaging: Lot 9 of Block 3, Fort Ward Estates Division 3 to the northeast), and that
the proposal fits the surrounding pattern of development. Staff finds that replacing
the culvert will restore hydrologic connection between the onsite wetland and the
wetland to the north (subject to conditions, 6 - 9), which are part of one wetland
system that has been interrupted by an improperly installed culvert.
2. Neighborhood Character: Comments stated that variances from the front yard
setback should not be granted because it does not fit the neighborhood character.
Staff finds that the granting of a variance allows for greater protection of the
critical area while also allowing for reasonable use of private property – a stated
purpose of the Critical Areas Ordinance (BIMC 16.20.010.A). Three variances to
8
reduce the front yard setback along Soundview Dr. NE were recently approved on
lots directly to the south of the subject properties; all but one of the single family
residences located south of Belfair Ave. and along the east side of Soundview Drive
NE will have 5 ft. front yard setbacks. The right-of-way for Soundview Dr. NE is 60
ft. wide, and the developed portion of the road is approximately 20 ft. wide and
located on the western edge of the 60 ft. right-of-way, giving the illusion of large
front yards along the eastern side of Soundview Dr. NE. Therefore, despite the
reduced front yard setback, the future SFRs will be located approximately 40 ft.
from the developed portion of Soundview Dr. NE. Even with the reduced setback,
the proposal will provide a physical separation between the SFRs and the right-of-
way that exceeds the 25 ft. setback requirement, despite the 20 ft. variance
request.
3. Siting of Soundview Drive NE: One commenter stated that the southern block of
Soundview Dr. NE does not align with the northern block, and that property owners
on both the east and west sides of Soundview Dr. NE deserve equal setbacks from
the center line of the right-of-way.
The City does not have any immediate plans (within the 6 year Capital
Improvement Plan) to widen or realign Soundview Dr. NE. Properties on both the
east and west sides of Soundview Dr. NE have 25 ft. front yard setbacks, measured
from the development to the right-of-way. Many of the SFRs along the west side of
Soundview Dr. NE are considered legally existing nonconforming structures
because they sit within the 25 ft. front yard setback, near the right-of-way. The 25
ft. front yard setback is a minimum, meaning an SFR can be sited farther away from
the right-of-way to achieve a larger front yard.
4. Eminent Domain: One commenter claimed eminent domain of the subject
properties.
Eminent domain is the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private
property for public use, with payment of compensation. The City to date has not
exercised eminent domain on property as an alternative to allowing its
development through an RUE.
D. Comprehensive Plan Analysis
1. Environmental Element
Goal EN-1: Preserve and enhance Bainbridge Island’s natural systems, natural beauty
and environmental quality.
Goal EN-4: Encourage sustainable development that maintains diversity of healthy,
functioning ecosystems that are essential for maintaining our quality of life and
economic viability into the future.
Goal EN-5: Protect and enhance wildlife, fish resources and ecosystems.
In accordance with Guiding Principle #4 of the Comprehensive Plan, the property
owner would be denied private property rights protected by the State and U.S.
Constitutions without an RUE for each property. The granting of RUEs balances
9
private property rights with necessary and reasonable regulation to protect the
island’s finite environmental resources.
The applicant is proposing, and the project is conditioned, to enhance a wetland
buffer and restore the hydrology of a wetland that has been interrupted by an
improperly installed culvert. The project is conditioned to identify the buffers in
the field prior to any construction activities, and the project is conditioned to
provide fencing, utilize non-leaching roofing, and restrict herbicide and pesticide
use to ensure long term protection of the wetlands after the introduction of the
residential use. The project is also conditioned to analyze the feasibility of the
minimal excavation foundation systems per the 2012 Low Impact Development
Guidance Manual for Puget Sound as a means of minimizing impacts to the site and
adjacent wetlands.
E. Land Use Code Analysis
1. BIMC Title 18 Zoning
a. 18.06.020 Purpose
The purpose of the R-2 zone is to provide residential neighborhoods in an
environment with special Island character consistent with other land uses such
as agriculture and forestry, and the preservation of natural systems and open
space, at a somewhat higher density than the R-1 district.
The proposal is for the construction of two modest homes and the
preservation of the wetland and buffer outside of the area impacted by the
development and as conditioned by the project.
b. 18.09.020 Permitted Uses
Single-family dwellings, and accessory uses and buildings to single family
residences, are permitted uses in the R-2 zone.
The request is for the construction of two single-family residences, a
permitted use in this zone.
c. 18.12.010 Dimensional Standards
i. Maximum Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions
The base density is 20,000 square feet, with a minimum lot depth and
width of 80 feet.
Lot 6 (to the north) exceeds the minimum lot width but does not meet
the minimum lot depth. Conversely, Lot 5 (to the south) exceeds the
minimum lot depth but does not meet the minimum lot width. The
two lots do not meet the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the R-
2 zone. However, pursuant to 18.30.050, any nonconforming single lot,
tract or parcel of land that was lawfully created and recorded with the
county auditor’s office may be used for the purposes permitted by this
title notwithstanding the minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth
required.
10
ii. Maximum Lot Coverage
The maximum allowed lot coverage is 20% is R-2 zoning.
The maximum lot coverage allowed for an RUE is 1,200 square feet,
which is less than that allowed by the zoning designation (Lot 6 would
be 1,394 square feet, and Lot 5 would be 1,742.4).
iii. Setbacks
In R-2 zoning, the front yard setback is 25 feet. Side setbacks are 5 feet
minimum, 15 feet total. The rear setback is 15 feet.
The front yard setback is the subject of a variance, proposed to be
reduced to 5 feet. The proposed SFRs meet the side yard and rear yard
setbacks.
d. BIMC 18.15.020 Parking and Loading
Residential dwelling units are required to provide two spaces for each primary
dwelling.
The applicant is proposing a driveway and garage for each residence that
provides space for two vehicles on each lot.
e. BIMC 18.18.030 Fort Ward Overlay District
The lots are located in the Fort Ward Overlay District. The proposed single-
family residences shall be subject to the Fort Ward Design Guidelines
(Condition 20).
2. BIMC Title 16 Environment
The wetland delineation report and buffer mitigation plan submitted with the
application (Exhibit 19) identifies a wetland onsite and immediately adjacent the
subject properties. The wetland was rated according to the Washington State
Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington – 2014 Update (Rating System)
(Hruby 2014). The wetland received 17 points on the rating form and is a Category III,
Depressional system rated based on function.
Buffer widths are based on wetland category, scores for habitat functions on the
rating form, and the intensity of the proposed land use. The wetland was rated 5
points for habitat function. At the time of submittal, high impact land use included
residential development with more than one unit per acre. Accordingly, the wetland
required a 150-foot buffer (80-foot water quality buffer and 70-foot habitat buffer).
However, a new Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) was adopted on April 23, 2018
(Ordinance 2018-09), which classifies all residential development in R-0.4, R-1, and R-
2 zoning designations as moderate impact land use. Under the new CAO, the wetland
requires a 110-foot buffer, with no separate water quality or habitat buffer.
The 110-foot buffer extends across both lots to the unimproved portion of
Soundview Dr. NE. A 15-foot structure or hard surface setback is also required from
the edge of any wetland buffer.
a. BIMC 16.20.080 Reasonable Use Exceptions
i. Applicability and Intent
11
An applicant may request an RUE pursuant to BIMC 16.20.080.A when a
site assessment review pursuant to BIMC 15.20 or a pre-application
conference demonstrates that: 1. The subject property is encumbered
to such an extent by critical areas and/or critical area buffers that
application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the subject
property; 2. Reasonable use of the subject property cannot be achieved
through Buffer Modification (BIMC 16.20.110 and 140) or a Habitat
Management Plan (BIMC 16.20.110); and 3. Alternatives to
development through an RUE are not available or acceptable.
As shown in the wetland delineation report and buffer mitigation plan,
the wetland and its buffer encompass the entirety of both properties.
Buffer modification allows the buffer to be reduced up to 25 percent
of its required width. A 25 percent reduction in buffer width still
results in a buffer that encumbers the entire property and does not
create a buildable area. A Habitat Management Plan is a report that
evaluates measures necessary to maintain, enhance and improve
terrestrial and/or aquatic habitat on a proposed development site,
and is not applicable to the proposed development site or proposal.
The only way for the applicant to develop the sites with SFRs is
through a reasonable use exception.
ii. Reasonable Use Review Criteria
The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the
property;
The properties are constrained due to the following factors:
nonconforming lot size (6,969.6 and 8,712 square feet in a 20,000
square feet zoning district), and a wetland with a 110-foot buffer. The
lots do not have area outside of the wetland and buffer to construct
1,200 square foot homes.
There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to
the critical area or its required buffer;
The wetland and buffer completely encumber the lots, which are in a
residential zoning district. The applicants would not be able to develop
the lots with single family homes without the requested exception.
With lot areas of 6,969.6 and 8,712 square feet, the zoning supports
1,393.9 and 1,742.4 square feet of lot coverage on the two lots.
However, lot coverage of 1,200 square feet is considered reasonable
on lots completely encumbered by critical areas and buffers. The
applicant is proposing 1,179 square feet of lot coverage on each lot.
The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with
mitigation sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
The wetland delineation report and buffer mitigation plan describes
the use of mitigation sequencing. The project avoids impacts to the
wetland by locating the development within the buffer and outside of
the wetland itself, in areas dominated by grasses and non-native
12
shrubs. The project minimizes impacts by locating the development as
far away from the wetland as possible, in a portion of the buffer that
has low function. Additionally, the front setback is proposed to be
reduced to 5 feet, in order to move the development area away from
the wetland. The project also proposes the use of pervious pavement
to reduce stormwater impacts. The proposal does not include efforts
to rectify or reduce the impact, and therefore includes compensatory
mitigation in the form of buffer enhancement. The enhancement plan
includes installation of native plants around the development to
represent as natural a buffer setting as possible. In addition, a line of
conifer trees will be installed along the buffer edge to improve the
noise and light screening function of the buffer. Compensatory
mitigation also includes replacement of the culvert under Belfair
Avenue currently used as a pedestrian path, which will reconnect a
historically connected wetland system on both sides of the right-of-
way, that was disrupted due to improper installation.
The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to
allow reasonable use of the property;
The proposal includes building footprints of 1,179 square feet on each
lot. The area of impact on each lot is 2,654 square feet, or 5,308
square feet total. The areas outside of the proposed fence and in
between the development will be maintained as a buffer
enhancement area. The applicant reduced the area of impact on Lot 6
after meeting with City Staff of May 10, 2018, to reflect a similar
development pattern to Lot 5, which contained a smaller area of
impact at the time of permit submittal. After reviewing these changes
and the proposal overall, staff finds that the proposal is the minimum
necessary to allow reasonable use of the property.
The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is
not the result of actions by the applicant, or of the applicant’s
predecessor, that occurred after February 20, 1992;
The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property
is not the result of actions by the applicant, or of the applicant’s
predecessor, that occurred after February 20, 1992. The land was
approved for division on June 23, 1960 as a part of the Fort Ward
Estates Division 1 Plat.
The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for
residential development;
Pursuant to BIMC 18.12.050, Rules of Measurement, lot coverage
means that portion of the total lot area covered by buildings,
excluding up to 24 inches of eaves on each side of the building, any
building or portion of building located below predevelopment and
finished grade. The proposed total lot coverage for each lot does not
exceed 1,200 square feet.
13
The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare on or off the property;
As conditioned, the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to
the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the property (Conditions
1-23).
Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in
accordance with mitigation requirements applicable to the critical area
altered;
As stated in the wetland delineation report and mitigation plan, the
inner 80 feet of the wetland buffer is densely vegetated with Nootka
rose and English hawthorn trees that provide a protected buffer for
the wetland. The mitigation plan therefore focuses on increasing
species diversity in the outer buffer area by planting around the
proposed SFRs and removing invasive species where feasible and
necessary in the dense inner buffer area. The mitigation plan also
includes the installation of low impact fencing along the edge of the
inner buffer area, lined with shore pines, to provide a level of
protection for the buffer from the SFRs and future residents.
Because of the small lot sizes and the condition of the existing buffer
vegetation, mitigation options on site are limited. In order to
adequately compensate for impacts to the buffer, the applicant
proposes to replace a culvert under Belfair Ave. According the
mitigation plan, the wetlands in Fort Ward Estates were historically
part of one larger system that upon development of the area were
divided into somewhat individual wetlands by roads. During
construction, culverts were placed beneath the roads, but the one
underneath Belfair Ave. was placed too high in elevation, preventing
continued flow of water into the northern wetland areas. Due to the
lack of hydrological continuity caused by the improperly installed
culvert, the original area of wetland south of Belfair Ave. and adjacent
the subject properties, has expanded significantly. It appears that a
larger culvert was installed several years ago but it remains at an
elevation that has not restored hydrologic continuity. The wetland
does not appear to have expanded because of this newer culvert, nor
has the wetland been restored to its original limits.
The wetland delineation report and mitigation plan provides the
wetland boundaries as delineated in 1992, 2006, and 2016:
14
15
The wetland delineation report and mitigation plan states that the
proposed culvert replacement will improve hydrologic connectivity
and wildlife passage, and will increase diversity within the northern
wetlands. By allowing water to spread across both wetlands there will
be an increase in the ability of each wetland to function as one
system, with improved water quality and storage. The culvert should
be installed either partially buried or bottomless, with at least a 24-
inch diameter, to allow small animals to move across the historic
range. The wetland south of Belfair Ave. and adjacent the subject
properties has greater plant species diversity than the wetland to the
north, and once the culvert is replaced the seeds from these plants will
spread into the northern wetlands and thereby increase the
vegetation diversity. The increase in plant species diversity will
improve the water quality of the runoff that enters the wetlands.
Although the culvert replacement may shrink the boundary of the
wetland over time, it will not shrink beyond its original boundary as
delineated in 1992. According to the wetland report, the water quality
and habitat functional lifts outweigh the potential for shrinking.
Staff finds that because of the limited opportunities for onsite
mitigation, the proposed offsite mitigation is adequate. The project is
conditioned to require that the applicant obtain all required permits
and approvals prior to culvert replacement, including a Right-of-Way
(ROW) Permit from the Department of Public Works, a Hydraulic
Project Approval (HPA) from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
a Critical Areas Permit from the Department of Planning and
Community Development (Condition 7). Necessary technical analyses
(Condition 6) for the culvert replacement will be required as a part of
the Critical Areas Permit application. If the required analyses prove
the culvert replacement infeasible or the applicant decides to retract
the culvert replacement proposal, an amendment to the RUE with an
alternative mitigation proposal shall be approved prior to building
permit issuance, and Conditions 6-8 do not apply.
The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent
with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical area
functions and values;
The wetland delineation report and mitigation plan prepared by
Ecological Land Services, Inc. is based on best available science and
adequately compensates for impacts to the critical area, resulting in
no net loss of critical area functions and values. The proposed culvert
replacement may result in a net gain for the critical area, as the
wetland will regain its historic hydrologic connectivity for improved
water quality and habitat function.
The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action; and
The proposal addresses cumulative impacts in that the mitigation plan
addresses impacts from both properties, and proposes mitigation
according to those collective impacts. The City also considers the
16
proposed development of the two lots as one cumulative proposal
from a stormwater perspective, requiring the proposal meet minimum
requirement’s 1-9 in the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington (Condition 21).
The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and
standards.
The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and
standards of the BIMC, with the exception of the variance request to
the front yard setback, which is also recommended for approval. An
analysis of these regulations and standards is provided below.
b. BIMC 16.20.140 Wetlands
i. Wetland Buffers
Buffers shall remain as undisturbed or enhanced vegetation areas for the
purpose of protecting the integrity, function, and value of wetland
resources.
The proposal impacts the buffer with the addition of two single family
homes and associated driveways and walkways. In addition to
minimizing the impact to the buffer by constructing the smallest
footprint necessary to achieve reasonable use of the property, the
proposal includes buffer enhancement by increasing species diversity in
the outer buffer by planting native species around the proposed SFRs,
and by removing invasive species where feasible and necessary in the
dense inner buffer area immediately adjacent the wetland. The
proposal also includes the installation of low impact fencing along the
edge of the inner buffer area, lined with shore pines, to provide a level
of protection for the buffer from the SFRs and future residents.
Buffer widths are based on wetland category, scores for habitat functions
on the rating form, and the intensity of the proposed land use. A 15-foot
structure or hard surface setback is also required from the edge of any
wetland buffer. Any other buffer modification resulting in a reduced
buffer area, other than noncompensatory enhancement or buffer
modification, requires a Reasonable Use Exception pursuant to BIMC
16.20.080.
The wetland is a category III wetland with a moderate level of function
for habitat and a moderate impact of land use. The required buffer is
110 ft. and extends across both lots to the unimproved portion of
Soundview Dr. NE. The applicant is unable to achieve reasonable use of
the property through buffer modification, either buffer width averaging
or buffer width reduction, as buffers may not be reduced by more than
25 percent of the required width; a 25% reduction in buffer width still
results in lots that are completely encumbered. The lots require an RUE
in order to develop within the buffer.
A wetland critical areas report and wetland mitigation plan is required to
address impacts to the wetland and associated buffer. Compensatory
17
mitigation may occur at the site of the allowed impacts or at an off-site
location.
The applicant submitted a wetland critical areas report and mitigation
plan to address impacts to the wetland and associated buffer. The
proposal includes a combination of onsite and offsite mitigation. The
off-site location was chosen because the proposed culvert replacement
will have greater functional benefits to the watershed than can be
achieved onsite.
The city shall require monitoring reports on an annual basis for a
minimum of five years and up to ten years, or until the director
determines the mitigation project has met the performance standards
specified in the wetland mitigation plan. The wetland mitigation plan shall
provide specific performance standards for monitoring the mitigation
project. Performance standards shall be project-specific and use best
available science to aid the director in evaluating whether or not the
project has achieved success.
The monitoring plan proposes a seven-year monitoring period, with
monitoring reports submitted to the City of Bainbridge Island by
December 31 of each monitored year. The five performance standards
are project-specific and are based on four objectives and use best
available science. The four objectives include: control invasive species;
improve native plant cover within the native shrub buffer community;
increase native plant cover within the buffer and around the existing
homes; and improve connectivity of wetland habitat in Fort Ward
Estates. The five performance standards provide metrics by which these
objectives will be measured for success over the seven years.
ii. Fencing and Signs
Wetland buffers shall be temporarily fenced or otherwise suitably marked
between the area where the construction activity occurs and the buffer.
Fences shall be made of a durable protective barrier and shall be highly
visible. Silt fences and plastic construction fences may be used to prevent
encroachment on wetlands or their buffers by construction. Temporary
fencing shall be removed after the site work has been completed and the
site is fully stabilized per city approval.
The project is conditioned to provide temporary fencing prior to
commencing construction and to maintain the fencing until the work is
complete and site is fully stabilized (Condition 2).
The director may require that permanent signs and/or fencing be placed
on the common boundary between a wetland buffer and the adjacent
land. Such signs will identify the wetland buffer. The director may approve
an alternate method of wetland and buffer identification, if it provides
adequate protection to the wetland and buffer.
Permanent fencing and signs are required (Condition 3).
c. BIMC 16.20.100 Aquifer Recharge Protection Area
18
i. ARPA Development Standards
Any development or activity that is not exempt or excluded by subsection
E.1 of BIMC 16.20.100 shall ensure sufficient groundwater recharge,
defined as maintaining 100 percent of the annual average pre-
construction groundwater recharge volume for the site. The primary
means to ensure sufficient groundwater recharge shall be through the
designation of an aquifer recharge protection area (ARPA) in accordance
with subsection E of BIMC 16.20.100.
The ARPA shall be documented on a site plan submitted with the
building permits (Condition 18).
d. BIMC 16.20.160 Performance and Maintenance Surety
The director shall decide when a performance surety is required of an
applicant, and the acceptable form of such surety. The amount and the
conditions of the surety shall be consistent with the purposes of this chapter;
provided, that the minimum amount of the surety, when required, shall be
125% of the estimated cost of performance. A performance surety shall not be
required when the actual cost of performance, as documented in a form
acceptable to the director, is less than $1,000.
All plantings that are a part of the mitigation plan shall be installed prior to
final building permit inspection, or an assurance device shall be provided in
accordance BIMC 16.20.180 (Condition 5). The replacement culvert shall be
installed prior to final building permit inspection for the first SFR, or an
assurance device shall be provided in accordance with BIMC 16.20.180
(Condition 5).
e. BIMC 16.20.070.G Notice on Title
The owner of any property with field-verified presence of critical area or
buffer on which a development proposal is submitted shall file for record with
the Kitsap County auditor a notice approved by the director in a form
substantially as set forth in Subsection 2 of BIMC 16.20.070.G. Such notice
shall provide notice in the public record of the presence of a critical area and
buffer, the application of this chapter to the property, and that limitations on
actions in or affecting such areas may exist. The applicant shall submit proof
that the notice has been filed for record before the city shall approve any
development proposal for such site. The notice shall run with the land and
failure to provide such notice to any purchaser prior to transferring any
interest in the property shall be in violation of this chapter.
The applicant shall submit a recorded notice to title prior to the issuance of
the building permits, documenting the presence of the wetland, mitigation
plan, and ARPA (Condition 19).
3. BIMC Title 2 Land Use Procedures
a. BIMC 2.16.120 Major Variances
19
Variances are the mechanism by which the city may grant relief from the
provisions of the zoning ordinance where practical difficulty renders
compliance with certain provisions of the code an unnecessary hardship,
where the hardship is a result of the physical characteristics of the subject
property and where the purpose of the comprehensive plan is fulfilled.
The hardship is the presence of a wetland and buffer that encumber the
subject properties. A variance from the required 25 ft. front yard setback is
requested, in order to locate the proposed SFRs as far away from the
wetland as possible.
i. Applicability
The major variance process may be used for deviations from zoning
standards in BIMC Title 18 that the director determines exceed the
threshold for minor variances under BIMC 2.16.060. Minor variances
should be limited to: (1) project that are exempt from review under
SEPA, or (2) proposals for less than a 25% encroachment into required
yards, or (3) proposals of less than a 25% increase in lot coverage.
The proposal is not exempt from SEPA and will encroach greater than
25% into the required front yard (25 ft. required, 5 ft. requested).
This procedure is not available to obtain variances from subdivision
standards in BIMC Title 17 or to obtain variances from BIMC
Title 18 zoning standards cross-referenced in BIMC Title 17 as part of a
short subdivision, long subdivision, or large lot subdivision approval or
amendment process.
The setback was not imposed due to a subdivision standard. The
subdivision of these lots occurred prior to the regulation of wetlands.
This procedure is not available to allow the siting for an accessory
dwelling unit where it would not otherwise be permitted.
The request is for the development of a primary single family
residence on each lot, and is unrelated to an accessory dwelling unit.
A variance shall not be granted solely because of the presence of
nonconformities in the vicinity of the subject site.
The request is not due to the presence of nonconformities in the
vicinity of the subject site.
Variances from the city’s noise regulations in Chapter 16.16 BIMC are
available through the noise variance process in Chapter 16.16 BIMC and
are not available through the major variance process in this section.
A noise variance is not included in the proposal.
The provisions of this section supplement those of
BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.100 when the application is for a major
variance. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of
BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.100 and this section, the provisions of this
section shall govern.
20
BIMC 2.16.020 describes general land use provisions; BIMC 2.16.100
describes quasi-judicial decision by the hearing examiner. In the event
of conflict between these provisions and the provisions of the major
variance section (BIMC 16.20.120), the major variance section shall
govern.
ii. Decision Criteria
A major variance may be approved or approved with conditions if:
The variance is consistent with all other provisions of this code, except
those provisions that are subject to the variance, and is in accord with
the comprehensive plan;
The variance is consistent with all other provisions of the BIMC, except
those provisions (front setback) that are subject to the variance, and is
in accord with the comprehensive plan.
The need for a variance has not arisen from previous actions taken or
proposed by the applicant;
The lots were created in 1960, prior to enactment of the critical areas
ordinance. The need for the variance has not arisen from previous
actions taken or proposed by the applicant.
The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, but that is denied to the property in question because
of special circumstances on the property in question, and will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
upon uses of other properties in the vicinity in which the property is
located;
Reasonable use of the property will be denied without an RUE because
of the presence of the wetland. The granting of a variance will allow
less intrusion into the wetland buffers by locating the proposed single
family residences farther away from the wetland edge and within the
front yard setback (25 ft.).
The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and
Denying the variance will increase impacts to the wetland.
Additionally, the right-of-way for Soundview Dr. NE is 60 ft. wide, and
the developed portion of the right-of-way is approximately 20 ft. wide
and located on the western edge of the 60 ft. right-of-way. Despite the
reduced front yard setback, the future single family residences will be
located approximately 40 ft. from the developed portion of Soundview
Dr. NE. Therefor even with the a front yard setback that has been
reduced down to 5 ft., the existing conditions provide a physical
separation that exceeds the 25 ft. setback requirement; the proposed
21
homes will be setback approximately 40 ft. from the developed road
area.
The variance is requested because of special circumstances related to
the size, shape, topography, trees, groundcover, location or
surroundings of the subject property, or factors necessary for the
successful installation of a solar energy system such as a particular
orientation of a building for the purposes of providing solar access.
The variance is requested because of special circumstances related to
the subject property – specifically, the presence of a category III
wetland and 110 ft. buffer that extends onto the subject properties.
If no reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the application
meets the decision criteria of the BIMC, then the application shall be
denied. (Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)
The applications are properly conditioned to ensure that the project
meets the decision criteria.
III. CONCLUSION
A. Site Characteristics
60 ft.
22
The properties are adjacent to a category III wetland with a 110 ft. buffer that encumbers
the entirety of the lots. A portion of the wetland extends onto Lot 5.
B. History
Appropriate notice of the application and SEPA environmental review was published. The
SEPA determination was noticed on May 15, 2018, with the appeal period ending on May
29, 2018. The application is properly before the Hearing Examiner.
C. Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The proposed Reasonable Use Exception request is consistent with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
D. Land Use Code Analysis
With appropriate conditions, the propose Reasonable Use Exception and major variance
requests conform to all applicable regulations in the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code.
IV. APPEAL PROCEDURES
Any decision of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed in accordance with BIMC Chapter
2.16.020.P.2.
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 23
Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
1
Ann Hillier
From:Globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.net>
Sent:Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:36 AM
To:Ann Hillier
Subject:Concerning reasonable use Var for lots #5. #6 Soundview Dr N E Hearing June 28th at
1pm.
Dear Ann Hillier
I am not able to get time off from my job to attend this iportant hearing . My comments are below. I hope the Var. Can
be deferred and or modified.i know we all can work something out agreeable to everyone. I feel the Var as presented is
to extreme and does not follow closely the vision the City of Bainbridge presented in its goals in our Design Guidelines to
Fort Ward.
Please include my comments at the hearing and keep me informed.
Thank you
Carolyn Siscoe
I am requesting that two variances not be grante d. I believe that they should be deferred for more study. It is too serious
a precedent to be lightly given;. building on wetlands, not following the practiced guidelines set forth in the "Design
Guide to Fort Ward " The wetlands are teeming with endangered wildlife. We have deer, owls,eagles, crows, songbirds,
Robins, hummingbirds, sparrows squirrels, chipmunks and coyotes. Plus there is a huge colony of frogs living on the two
lots #5 and # 6. Every spring we hear their croaking way into the night we are probably the last place ever to host such a
coloy of frogs. They are an endangered species.
I was told that wildlife is never considered with critical areas and that doesn't make sense to me hey are part of the
critical area.Bainbridge is changing in its attiudes towards its wildlife. We have identified it as something to protect. It
represents value to Islanders. It is great for the kids in Fort Ward to hear the frogs croaking, see the deer and observe all
the birds ging about their lives.
The planning dept is asking that wildlife corridors be maintained when developments are built that wasn't even
thought about being done here. And it should be.
I looked into the history of these hearings and for the most part the juries consist of lawyers. Lawyers are great when
you want the letter of the law but they do not deal with human side of building communities because they don't conside
how people feel what is comfort zone, how buildings relate to one another to make people feel. The latter is aabout
community building. Building homes to create a community where people feel good living. For that you would include
architects, gardeners,wildlife experts, city planners to weigh in and the city doesn't do that.
Also again why is the city ignoring the Design Guidelines forFort Ward in this varience granting. So much work into that
document. And it was followed with great results. A comfortable lovely community was buit but alone come Somone
who doesn't want to follow that wants two build two large two story house on to small a lots which are so damaged ,
lots in that are wetlands buffer and are teeming with life which will be erased.
Also these two large two houses will loom over the current resident across the street since will not have to be set back
like everyone else is. They are not willing to compromise to be part of a community. I don't understand why new
buidings must come and do not have to fit into what is existing. That is not good communty development.
I would like for variance not be granted. Or deferred and smaller homes, less intrusive with larger setbacks. Afterall
this builder is coming into an established community and should be acknowledging that fact. And reconsider the I'll
effects of establishing a precedent of allowing someone to build on critical wetland /buffer.
Thank you for you attention
Carolyn Siscoe!
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
2