The URL can be used to link to this page

Leshchinsky PLN51036 RUE HEX Official Record 091318 EXHIBIT LIST Leschinsky PLN51036 RUE Staff Contact: Public Hearing: 09/13/2018 David Greetham, Senior Planner City Hall – Council Chambers Hearing Examiner: Sound Law Center NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Staff Report 09/06/2018 2 Certification of Public Notice 08/31/2018 3 Joint Notice of Application & Public Hearing 07/13/2018 4 Application 03/22/2018 5 RUE Summary Statement Received 04/01/2018 6 Wetland Report 09/27/2017 7 Fire Department Memo 03/31/2018 8 Wetland Mitigation Plan 06/14/2018 9 Site Plan 05/29/2018 10 Public Comment 08/22/2018 11 Recommended Revisions to Conditions of Approval 09/13/2018 12 Presentation Material from David Greetham, Senior Planner 09/13/2018 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 Project Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) File No. PLN51036 RUE Date September 6, 2018 To Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner Project Manager David Greetham, Senior City Planner I. INTRODUCTION Request The proposal is for a reasonable use exception (RUE) on a vacant lot encumbered by a category III wetland and associated 110 ft. buffer. The proposed RUE would reduce the wetland buffer to 25 ft. with an additional 15 ft. construction setback, for a total wetland setback of 40 ft. Location Adjacent to and immediately south of 15035 Sunrise Dr. NE, Bainbridge Island Zoning Designation R-1, one residential unit per acre Comprehensive Plan Designation Residential -1 Environmental Review The proposal has been determined to be SEPA exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11- 800(6)(a) and (e). Recommendation Approval, subject to conditions. Hearing Examiner Review The hearing examiner shall review the reasonable use exception (RUE) 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 review criteria in subsection E of this section. 2 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 STAFF ANALYSIS II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Site Characteristics 1. Assessor’s Record Information: a. Tax lot number: 352602-3-026-2007 b. Owner of record: Tatiana Leshchinsky c. Lot sizes: 1.13 acres 2. Terrain: The site is relatively flat, with an eight-foot contour change across the lot. 3. Site Development: The site is undeveloped, with an existing mowed grass area on the northerly portion of the site. Sheds and vehicle parking accessory to the adjacent residence to the north previously existed in that portion of the site but have since been removed (Figure 2). 4. Access: Vehicular access to the site is from Sunrise Dr. NE. 5. Public Services: a. Police: Bainbridge Island Police Department b. Fire: Bainbridge Island Fire District (See Ex. 7 for comments). c. Septic: Approved septic design, including easement to install an offsite septic drainfield on adjacent lot to north. No additional comments from Kitsap Health District regarding RUE request. 6. Surrounding Uses: The adjacent properties in all directions contain single family residences. 7. Existing Zoning: The site is zoned R-1, one unit per acre. 8. Surrounding Zoning: The surrounding zoning on the west side of Sunrise Dr. is R-1, one unit per acre. The zoning immediately across Sunrise Dr. to the east is R-2, two units per acre. 9. Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation: The City Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site one unit per acre (Residential -1). 10. Surrounding Comprehensive Plan Designation: The City Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the surrounding area on the west side of Sunrise Dr. one unit per acre (Residential -1), and the area across Sunrise Dr. to the east two units per acre (Residential -2). 11. Vicinity Map and Aerial Image: 3 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Aerial Image Figure 3: Site Plan Ssee Subject Lot 4 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 B. History 1. The applicant submitted for a preapplication conference on November 21, 2017. 2. The applicant applied for a Reasonable Use Exception on March 22, 2018 (Exhibit 4). 3. City staff requested revisions to the application materials on April 23, 2018. 4. A wetland mitigation plan was submitted on June 27, 2018, satisfying the primary portion of the information request (Exhibit 8). 5. The Notice of Application and Public Hearing was published on July 13, 2018 (Exhibit 3). 6. One public comment was received during the comment period (Exhibit 10). C. Public Comment 1. Impacts to wetland: One comment e-mail was received. The commenter mentioned prior disturbance to the wetland area from 8-10 years ago, and recommended minimization of impacts by accurately determining the wetland boundary and requiring enforceable mitigation. Staff finds that the wetland has been accurately delineated via a prior site meeting with applicant and wetland consultant, and that the proposal will be conditioned to clearly mark the reduced wetland buffer area on site. Mitigation will be required in the form of native vegetation enhancement, enforceable through existing code via financial assurance. 2. Reasonable use of the property: The commenter also offered input regarding reasonable use, indicating that it doesn’t seem reasonable to have all of the property’s development within encumbered areas, and that reasonable use was already occurring as part of the adjacent residence (including livestock at times). Staff finds that the proposed development will impact the wetland via development in the previously cleared native vegetation buffer, but that the Code allows development to occur through a reasonable use exception with compensatory mitigation and lot coverage limited to 1200 square feet. Staff finds that constructing the residence within the previously cleared yard area and enhancing the existing buffer will minimize impacts to the extent feasible in accordance with the reasonable use criteria. Staff finds that while livestock use may have previously occurred on the site, such use is not currently occurring and can be incompatible with wetland protection unless properly fenced outside of the wetland buffer area. Staff finds that the proposal for up to a 1200 square foot residence fits within the allowable reasonable use criteria, and also with the surrounding land use pattern of one and two residential units per acre. D. Comprehensive Plan Analysis 1. Land Use Element Goal LU-14: Develop context-sensitive regulations for residential development in areas designated R-2, R-1 or R-0.4, in order to limit clearing, soil disturbance, promote low impact development and reconcile development and conservation. 5 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 Goal LU-14 establishes that residential development is contemplated for the R-1 zone, and also directs that City regulations balance development activities with conservation. BIMC 16.20 establishes standards for reasonable use of properties constrained by critical areas, subject to conditions that balance proposed development with appropriate measures to minimize impacts on the critical area. The proposal has been analyzed for compliance with the RUE standards as described under BIMC Title 16, Environment, below. 2. 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 Comprehensive Plan Goal LU-17, the City’s planning program recognizes the rights of individuals to use and develop private property in a manner that is consistent with City regulations. The granting of RUEs balances 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 that was previously partially cleared and overtaken by invasive species. The project is conditioned to identify the buffers in the field prior to any construction activities, and 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. E. Land Use Code Analysis 1. BIMC Title 18 Zoning a. 18.06.020 Purpose The purpose of the R-1 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. The low density of housing does not require the full range of urban services. The proposal is for the construction of a modest home 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-1 zone. 6 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 The request is for the construction of one single-family residence, a permitted use in this zone. c. 18.12.010 Dimensional Standards i. Maximum Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions The base density is 40,000 square feet, with a minimum lot depth and width of 80 feet. The 1.13-acre lot conforms to base density requirements. ii. Maximum Lot Coverage The maximum allowed lot coverage is 15% in R-1 zoning. The maximum lot coverage allowed for an RUE is 1,200 square feet, which is less than the 15% lot coverage allowed by the zoning designation. iii. Setbacks In R-1 zoning, the front yard setback is 25 feet. Side setbacks are 10 feet minimum, 25 feet total. The rear setback is 15 feet. The proposed residence will comply with minimum setbacks, constructing to the minimum 10-foot setback on the northerly lot line in order to provide the greatest feasible setback from the wetland. d. BIMC 18.15.020 Parking and Loading Residential dwelling units are required to provide two spaces for each primary dwelling. The future residence will be setback from the front property line an adequate distance to provide a minimum of two parking spaces. 2. BIMC Title 16 Environment The wetland delineation report and buffer mitigation plan identify a wetland on the southerly portion of the site, extending across a private access easement near the south. The wetland was rated under the applicable Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) at the time of delineation according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington – 2014 Update (Rating System) (Hruby 2014). The wetland received 16 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 various functions on the rating form, and the intensity of the proposed land use. It is important to note that a new (CAO) was adopted on April 23, 2018 (Ordinance 2018-09), following project application and preparation of the original wetland report. The new CAO classifies all residential development in R-0.4, R-1, and R-2 zoning designations as moderate impact land use, and the wetland requires a 110-foot buffer, with no separate water quality or habitat buffer. Under the CAO in effect at the time of application and the original delineation, the wetland buffer was determined to be 60 feet. Regardless of which version of the CAO is applied, the site is entirely or almost entirely constrained by the wetland and associated buffer. An RUE is required under either version of the CAO. 7 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 Staff did not require an updated wetland report as it was applied properly at the time of original application, however, staff is presenting the RUE recommendation with the assumption that the current, larger 110’ buffer applies as there has been no formal building permit application as of this recommendation. Under either scenario, the residence is limited to 1200 square feet of lot coverage, and as close as feasible to the northerly lot line to provide the greatest setback from the wetland. a. BIMC 16.20.080 Reasonable Use Exceptions i. Applicability and Intent 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 the property. 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 site with an SFR 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 property is constrained due to a wetland with a 110-foot buffer. The lot does not have area outside of the wetland and buffer to construct a 1,200 square foot home. 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 lot, which is in a residential zoning district. An applicant would not be able to develop the lot with a single-family home without the requested exception. The standard zoning allows lot coverage of up to 15% of the 1.13-acre parcel, however, lot coverage of 1,200 square feet is considered reasonable on lots completely encumbered by critical areas and buffers. The applicant is proposing up to a maximum of 1,200 square feet of lot coverage. 8 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with mitigation sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030); The project avoids direct impacts to the wetland by locating the development within the buffer and outside of the wetland itself. 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 and has previously been mowed as part of a larger offsite yard area and previously utilized for storage, parking and/or livestock use. The proposal includes compensatory mitigation in the form of buffer enhancement. The enhancement plan includes removal of invasive species and installation of native plants to restore a previously impacted portion of the buffer to varied native plant community. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property; The proposal includes a building footprint of up to 1,200 square feet. The overall area of impact will also include construction of a driveway directly to the residence from Sunrise Dr. to the east. The applicant further reduced the area of impact by obtaining Kitsap Health District approval to locate the septic drainfield in an easement on the adjacent lot to the north. Based on the minimization measures described above, 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 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 does not exceed 1,200 square feet. 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. 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 wetland buffer is a mix of native vegetation and previously impacted 9 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 area repopulated with invasive species (Figure 4). The mitigation plan focuses on increasing species diversity in the previously impacted buffer area by removing invasive species and adding a variety of native plants (see red box in second Figure 5 below for focus area). Recommended conditions of approval also include the installation of low impact fencing along the edge of the inner buffer area to provide a level of protection for the buffer from future SFR related activities. Figure 4: Wetland and Buffer Figure 5: Proposed Site Plan with Mitigation Area =Mitigation Area 10 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 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 mitigation plan as proposed by the applicant partially compensates for impacts to the critical area. The above figures illustrate that the proposed home site in the north central portion of the lot is currently the most impacted area of the site and also the area of greatest distance from the wetland. Avoidance of direct wetland impacts in combination with enhancement of the existing degraded buffer with a mix of native species will maintain or increase ecological diversity over time. However, the amount of plants proposed by mitigation needs to be increased to ensure survivability and fully offset the development impacts, including the proposed access drive. The City is requesting that a revised mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency action plan be provided at the time of building permit application. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall approve the revised wetland mitigation plan as part of the building permit review and plantings shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection (Condition 6). The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action; and The future development of the subject site is not anticipated to result in a cumulative effect on surrounding parcels. The lot is one of a very few undeveloped lots in the project vicinity and is surrounded by adjacent single-family residential development in all directions. The actual wetland system extends south across an access easement onto a previously developed residential property. On-site impacts to the wetland will occur via construction within the standard buffer, however Staff finds that the proposed mitigation (as amended) will offset impacts over time as newly installed native vegetation matures and results in increased diversity in the wetland system. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards of the BIMC. 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. 11 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 The proposal impacts the buffer with the addition a single-family home and associated driveway. 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 buffer by planting native species and by removing invasive species. Installation of low impact fencing along the edge of the inner buffer area will provide increased protection from SFR related activities. 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 the entirety of the lot. 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 lot requires a 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 mitigation may occur at the site of the allowed impacts or at an off-site location. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan to address impacts to the wetland and associated buffer. The proposal includes mitigation on-site where there is an existing opportunity to remove invasive species and add increased plant diversity. Compensatory mitigation for buffer encroachment will be increased with an amended mitigation plan. 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 objectives include control of invasive species and improving native plant cover within the native vegetation. These objectives will be measured for success over the seven years via seven sample plots chosen throughout the mitigation area. The 12 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 number of sampling plots may be increased with the amended mitigation plan. 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. 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 4). c. BIMC 16.20.100 Aquifer Recharge Protection Area 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 10). 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. e. BIMC 16.20.070.G Notice on Title 13 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 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 permit, documenting the presence of the wetland, mitigation plan, and ARPA. III. CONCLUSIONS A. Site Characteristics The property contains a category III wetland with a buffer that encumbers the entirety of the lot. B. History Appropriate notice of the application and public hearing was published. 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 conforms to all applicable regulations in the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code. Recommendation Approval subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. A minimum 25-foot non-clearing native vegetation buffer shall be retained between the wetland and the proposed residence, with an additional minimum 15-foot construction setback from the buffer edge. All remaining area with the exception of the proposed access drive shall be designated as wetland buffer on the site plan submitted with the future building permit. Construction activity shall remain outside of the minimum 15-foot construction setback from the buffer edge. 2. Prior to commencing any construction activity, the applicant shall have the wetland buffer temporarily fenced from areas of construction activity. 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 14 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 be removed once the construction activity is complete and replaced with permanent fencing (see condition #4, below). 3. A split-rail type fence shall be installed along the outer edge of the wetland buffer prior to final building inspection. 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 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. Activities within the wetland buffer shall be limited to buffer enhancement as described in the June 14, 2018 Mitigation Plan prepared by Aqua Terra, LLC, and as amended in accordance with condition no. 6, below. 6. The applicant shall mitigate impacts to the on-site wetland and its buffer through native plant installation and invasive species removal. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall submit a revised wetland mitigation plan including mitigation goals and objectives, performance standards, maintenance and monitoring measures and contingency actions. The mitigation plan shall be in substantial compliance with BIMC 16.20.180 – Critical Area Reports – and may incorporate previously completed reports for the subject property and use guidance provided in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 2 - Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1, March 2006, Publication #06-06-011b). The mitigation plan shall provide sufficient information, clarity and detail to demonstrate the proposed mitigation actions and maintenance and monitoring measures are adequate to achieve established mitigation goals and objectives. At a minimum, the June 2018 plan prepared by Aqua Terra LLC shall be amended to depict all areas north of the wetland and outside of a maximum 15-foot construction setback around the residence and access drive as native vegetation buffer. The amended plan shall also include additional native vegetation enhancement at a minimum 1:1 ratio, equivalent to the square footage of buffer encroachment for the future access drive and 15-foot construction setback area. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall approve the revised wetland mitigation plan as part of the building permit review and plantings shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection. 7. Pursuant to BIMC 16.20.160, a maintenance assurance device shall be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a period of seven years. The maintenance surety applicable to a compensation project shall not be released until the director determines that performance standards established for evaluating the effect and success of the project have been met. 8. 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. 9. 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 side of the house facing the wetland, and record a covenant to limit the use of pesticides on the properties. 10. The proposed residence shall meet the setback and height requirements for the R-1 zoning district. 15 Leshchinsky RUE Staff Report PLN 51036 11. The ARPA (Aquifer Recharge Protection Area) shall be documented on a site plan included with the building permit application. 12. 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 permit. 13. The creation or replacement of more than 5,000 square feet of hard surfaces shall require that a Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) be prepared by a licensed civil engineer in the state of Washington and demonstrate compliance with all applicable Minimum Requirements 1 through 9 of the City’s adopted stormwater manual at the time of the building permit application. If dispersion trenches are utilized as an option for stormwater management, they may be installed within the 15-foot construction setback but shall remain outside of the outer edge of the designated wetland buffer. 14. New access to the City of Bainbridge Island right-of-way shall be improved to the standard paved residential driveway approach detail DWG. 8-170. 15. The future building permit shall comply with all provisions of the adopted Fire Code. IV. APPEAL PROCEDURES Any decision of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed in accordance with BIMC Chapter 2.16.020.P.2. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING The City of Bainbridge Island has received the following land use application: Date of Issuance: July 13, 2018 Project Name & Number Leshchinsky PLN51036 RUE Project Type: Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) Applicant: Tatiana Leshchinsky Owner: Tatiana Leshchinsky Project Site &Tax Parcel: Adjacent to and south of 15035 Sunrise Drive, Bainbridge Island, WA TA#352602-3-026-2007 Project Description: Reasonable Use Exception to allow construction of a 1200 square foot single - family residence on a vacant parcel constrained by wetlands. The residence would be constructed in the existing grass lawn area, with a proposed wetland buffer reduction adjacent to the proposed structure. Invasive species control and native vegetation enhancement are proposed for project mitigation. Environmental Review: This proposal is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. Other permits/studies: Wetland delineation report prepared by Aqua Terra LLC, Sept. 2017 Public Hearing: The City of Bainbridge Island will conduct a public hearing on the proposal on September 13, 2018 at 10:00 AM in Bainbridge Island City Hall Council Chambers. Note: Hearing dates are subject to change; please contact the project planner should you have any questions regarding the public hearing. Comment period: Any person may comment on the proposed application, request a copy of any decision or appeal any decision, request notice of and participate in a public hearing, if any. The city will not act on the application for 21 days from the date of this notice. Comments must be submitted by no later than 4:00 p.m. on August 3, 2018. If you have any questions, contact: David Greetham, Senior City Planner City of Bainbridge Island 280 Madison Ave North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206-780-3785 or pcd@bainbridgewa.gov Wetland Delineation Sunrise Property 9/25/2017 AquaTerra, LLC 11951 Miller Road Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206-619-3167 Page 2 of 4 AquaTerra, LLC Introduction and Background A wetland delineation was performed for parcel number 352602-3-026-2007 located adjacent to the south of 15035 Sunrise Drive NE in Bainbridge Island, Washington on August 9, 2017 (Figure 1). The property is 1.13 acres in size. The property belongs to Tatiana Leshchinsky and is located in Section 35, Township 26N, Range 02E. The wetland is located in the south portion of the subject property along the property boundary. The purpose of the wetland delineation was to establish the wetland boundary and its associated buffer for a future single family residence. The parcel is relatively flat. The majority of the parcel is open field with forested areas along the western and southern perimeter. The property is currently vacant with no existing structures. NRCS Soil Survey The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey shows two types of soil on the subject property: 6-Bellingham silty clay loam and 23-Kapowsin gravelly ashy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. The Bellingham soil contains components of a hydric soil (Norma) and covers the majority of the property. The Kapowsin soil contains components of 3 different hydric soils and spans the western border of the property. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) The US Fish and Wildlife Service NWI mapper does not show the onsite wetland. There are six other wetlands within a mile of the subject wetland. None of the wetlands shown on the mapper tool are associated with the onsite wetland. The City of Bainbridge Island GIS mapper does not show the onsite wetland. However, wetlands are mapped on the property adjacent to the south. Wetland Delineation Methodology for a routine wetland delineation was used in accordance with guidelines in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 (US Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Page 3 of 4 Fieldwork was conducted on August 9, 2017 under sunny skies and approximately 80°F temperatures. The property is accessed from Sunrise Drive NE. There is one depressional wetland in the southern portion of the property (Figure 2). The onsite wetland vegetation is half a forested canopy while the other half is pasture grass vegetation. Pink flags were used to mark the wetland edge and labeled W-1 through W-10 (Figure 2). The onsite wetland vegetation is a forested classification. It consists of red alder (Alnus rubra), iris (Iris sp.), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), buttercup (Ranunculus repens), common rush (Juncus effusus), and blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). No signs of recent disturbance were noted. Therefore the delineation was done on the basis of the existence of normal circumstances on the site. Two data points were dug. The first data point (Test pit 1) was dug west of flag W-3, a second data point (Test pit 2) was dug just east of wetland flag W-2. The vegetation surrounding Test pit 1 was dominantly hydrophytic. The soil from 0-6 inches below the surface was a dark loam with a Munsell reading of 10YR 2/1. The soil profile from 6-22 inches below the surface was a loam, 10YR 2/1 (Munsell) with 15% soft masses of 10YR 4/1 (Munsell) and 5% pore linings of 10YR 4/6 (Munsell). There were drift lines and water stained leaves present. No high water table or soil saturation was present. (See Data Forms in Appendix A) The vegetation surrounding Test pit 2 was dominantly hydrophytic. The soil from 0-22 inches below the surface was a loam with a Munsell reading of 10YR 3/2 with 5% pore linings of 10YR 4/6. The soil was not saturated and there was no water in the pit. There were no other signs of wetland hydrology present. (See Data Forms Appendix A) Wetland Rating The wetland was rated based on functions provided by the wetland according to the Revised Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology 2014). The hydrogeomorphic classification for the wetland is depressional and was rated as a depressional wetland. The overall score for the wetland is 16, making it a Category III wetland. The water quality function score is 6 and the hydrologic function score is 5. The potential for providing habitat function is 5. (See Rating Form in Appendix B) Page 4 of 4 Category III wetlands are regulated according to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) Critical Area Ordinanace (CAO) Title 16.20.160. Category III wetlands receive a standard buffer width of 60 feet from the delineated edge (CAO 16.20.160, Table 6). The land use impact is moderate. The total buffer width for the wetland is 60 feet with an additional 15 feet of building setback. All activities are prohibited within the wetland and its buffer except those specified in BIMC CAO. Summary There was one freshwater wetland found on the southern portion of the property. The wetland was delineated on parcel 352602-3-026-2007. The wetland is rated as a Category III wetland and regulated under the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and Critical Area Ordinance. Category III wetlands with moderate land use receive a buffer total of 60 feet. The total wetland buffer will be 60 feet with an additional 15 foot building setback from the delineated edge of the wetland. Sincerely, 9/25/2017 Brenda Ruddick Wetland Biologist AquaTerra, LLC Figure 1 Vicinity Map *Image from Google maps Subject parcel" 8 Figure 2 *This is not a survey. The wetland edge and its buffer is an approximate location only 100 ft. Wetland buffer Wetland Wetland Edge Approx. Parcel Edge Appendix A Wetland Data Forms US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.0 1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 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 Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.0 1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 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 Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Appendix B Wetland Rating Form Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______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 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands 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 ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are 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 any plants 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 from seeps. 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 and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 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 that stream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland 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 ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 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 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 > ½ of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation : This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 -D 2.3? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? 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 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 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 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 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 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 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 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 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? 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 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 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 7 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4 Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0 Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1 -R 2.4 Other sources ____________________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality ? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 8 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is 10-20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5-<10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1-<5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes). Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0 Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 9 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 LAKE FRINGE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality L 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? L 1.1. Average width of plants along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Plants are more than 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 6 Plants are more than 16 ft (5 m) wide and <33 ft points = 3 Plants are more than 6 ft (2 m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Plants are less than 6 ft wide points = 0 L 1.2. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other plants that are not aquatic bed > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other plants that are not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed plants and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Total for L 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 8-12 = H 4-7 = M 0-3 = L Record the rating on the first page L 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? L 2.1. Is the lake used by power boats? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of wetland unit on the upland side in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 2.3. Does the lake have problems with algal blooms or excessive plant growth such as milfoil? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for L 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential: If score is: 2 or 3 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page L 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? L 3.1. Is the lake on the 303(d) list of degraded aquatic resources? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 3.2. Is the lake in a sub-basin where water quality is an issue (at least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list)? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 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 lake or basin in which the unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for L 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 10 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 LAKE FRINGE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion L 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 4.1. Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include Aquatic bed): Choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland . > ¾ of distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 6 > ¾ of distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 6 ft (2 m) wide points = 4 > ¼ distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 4 Plants are at least 6 ft (2 m) wide (any type except Aquatic bed) points = 2 Plants are less than 6 ft (2 m) wide (any type except Aquatic bed) points = 0 Rating of Site Potential: If score is: 6 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page L 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? L 5.1. Is the lake used by power boats with more than 10 hp? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 5.2. Is the fetch on the lake side of the unit at least 1 mile in distance? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for L 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page L 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? L 6.1. Are there resources along the shore that can be impacted by erosion? If more than one resource is present, choose the one with the highest score. There are human structures or old growth/mature forests within 25 ft of OHWM of the shore in the unit points = 2 There are nature trails or other paths and recreational activities within 25 ft of OHWM points = 1 Other resources that could be impacted by erosion points = 1 There are no resources that can be impacted by erosion along the shores of the unit points = 0 Rating of Value: If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2 Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? Other sources ________________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows . Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1 All other conditions points = 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam that have flooding problems: The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 S 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 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 ____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. 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 ____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 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 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 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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) ____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? 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 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.  Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).  Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).  Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.  Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.  Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).  Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.  Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).  Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.  Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page).  Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.  Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.  Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.  Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS 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 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) 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 name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMO Date: March 31, 2018 To: David Greetham, Planning Department From: Assistant Chief Luke Carpenter, Fire Marshal Re: Leshchinsky PLN51036 RUE 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. The proposed use is acceptable to the Fire Marshal’s office. Mitigation Plan Leshchinsky Property 6/14/2018 AquaTerra, LLC 11951 Miller Road Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 206-619-3167 Page 2 of 5 AquaTerra, LLC Introduction and Background One category III wetland exist s on parcel 352602-3-026-2007 located to the south of 15035 Sunrise Drive NE in Bainbridge Island, Washington (Figure 1). The property belongs to Tatiana Leshchinsky. It is 1.13 acres in size and is located in Section 35, Township 26N, Range 02E. The wetland is located in the southern portion of the subject property along the property boundary. A wetland delineation was previously conducted in 2017. The purpose of this mitigation plan is to apply for a Reasonable Use Permit (RUE) for a future single family residence. The entirety of the property is encompassed by the wetland and its buffer. The applicant has designed a building plan that will create the least amount of impact to the wetland and its buffer. Existing Conditions The parcel is located on the western side of Sunset Drive NE and is relatively level. There are no existing structures on the property (Figure 2). The property consists of undisturbed vegetation. The northern portion of the property is grassy meadow vegetation. The southern portion of the property consists of a forested canopy with three layers of vegetation below it. The eastern most portion is Himalayan blackberry. The onsite wetland is regulated by Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC). Project Description The wetland and its buffer cover the entirety of the parcel. Plans for the construction of a single family residence will be submitted with a building permit. The building will be situated on the property in such a way to minimize the impact to the buffer and be as far away from the wetland as possible. To further minimize impact, the septic system will be on the adjacent property to the north. The single family residence will have a 1200 square foot footprint to meet the RUE regulations of no larger than a 1200 square foot footprint (BIMC 16.20.030). A new driveway will be installed along the northern property boundary to access the single family residence. The Page 3 of 5 eastern portion of the property is encumbered by Himalayan blackberry. It is recommended to remove the blackberry and replant with native vegetation (listed below). In addition, the area directly north of the house will be planted with native species to create a vegetated buffer between the subject property and the property located to the north. Minimization and Mitigation Measures Minimization/Avoid ance for Temporary Impacts During the course of the restoration, standard best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented. These BMPs include, but are not limited to: • Installing appropriate sedimentation and erosion control where necessary, such as silt fencing • Prevention of all materials and debris of entering the stream and its buffer • Keeping noise and artificial light to minimum Mitigation for Permanent Impacts In order to mitigate for loss of vegetation from the impacted area, native plants will be installed. All invasive vegetation will be removed prior to the planting process. Himalayan blackberry is the primary invasive vegetation. The most effective process is to cut back the blackberry vines and then dig out the root balls. Once the invasive vegetation is removed, mulch will be added to help prevent the re-establishment of invasive species and promote the growth of the planted native species. Regulatory Requirements The impacted portion of the buffer will be no greater than 1200 square feet which will be replanted at a ratio of 1:1. This is in accordance with BIMC 16.20.110 and 16.20.140 Table 7. Planting must occur during the spring or autumn seasons in order to promote the survival of new vegetation. Therefore, planting will be implemented October through November or March through June. Page 4 of 5 Restoration and Enhancement When construction is completed and the blackberries have been removed at least 3 inches of mulch will be laid down to promote vegetation growth and deter growth of invasive species. All invasive species in the section of the buffer to be re-established will be removed by hand. The following are recommended species to be planted within the restored area: Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quantity Western red cedar Thuja plicata 3 gal 15 ft 3 Red alder Alnus rubra 3 gal 15 ft 2 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1 gal 6ft. 30 Sword fern Polystichum munitum 1 gal 3ft. 100 Salal Gaultheria shallon 1 gal 6ft 100 Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa 1 gal 6ft 100 The approximately 1200 square feet of restored buffer is highlighted within the red polygons in figure 2. Monitoring and Maintenance The re-established area will be monitored for no less than 7 years. This is in accordance with BIMC 16.20.180. No less than 7 sample plots will be randomly chosen after the project is completed. They will be photographed every year and submitted to the City of Bainbridge Island to demonstrate the success of the planted vegetation. Performance Surety and Maintenance All restoration and enhancement will be completed within the compliance of the mitigation plan (BIMC 16.20.180). In the first year, all planted vegetation will have 100% survival and the removed invasive vegetation should have a coverage of less than 20%. Vegetation survival should be at least 80% for the second year and at least 75% of the original planting for the third year. Every year after, the survival shall be no less than 75% of the original as built mitigation plan. Plants that do not survive will be replaced at the expense of the applicant. The applicant shall demonstrate financial resources required to complete the scope of this mitigation plan. Page 5 of 5 Summary A category III wetland and its buffer encompass the entire subject property. The property qualifies for a reasonable use permit. A single family residence with no more than a 1200 square foot footprint, with proper minimization and mitigation, will be allowed to be built on the property. The applicant will minimize the impact to the wetland and its buffer and restore the buffer by implementing the mitigation plan presented above. Sincerely, 6/14/2018 Brenda Ruddick Wetland Biologist Figure 1 Vicinity Map *Image from Google maps Subject parcel" Figure 2 1 Jane Rasely From:don <dmczone@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, August 2, 2018 12:43 PM To:PCD Subject:comments on PLN51036/RUE Don Truscott comments, 206‐842‐4831: 1. no construction/disturbance in the wetland itself by accurately determining boundary. Minimize any allowed disturbance, including driveway and septic system. Require & enforce mitigation, including restoration the previously disturbed wetland. The lot’s wetland & buffer has already been disturbed by clearcutting and regrading‐ causing sediment flowing into the sound from 10 to 8 years ago, which included a code enforcement officer vist. 2. septic system does not appear to be included in development area calculations (SAR rpt). 3. this property is about 95% encumbered for wetland, buffer, and setbacks – it doesn’t seem reasonable to expect to have all the property’s development to be in encumbered areas. 4. the property is already being reasonably used as part of the adjacent residence, which has included various livestock. Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictuprotect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatthis picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com z Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception September 13, 2018 Project Name: Proposal: SFR on lot encumbered by wetland/buffer Land Use Request: RUE Hearing Examiner: Ted Hunter City Planner: David Greetham Applicant: Tatiana Leshchinsky z z Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception Applicant requests increased buffer signage in lieu of split rail fence. Can be accommodated via revisions to staff recommended conditions (see memo) Staff recommends approval with amendment to mitigation plan at future building application (cond. 6) Entire lot encumbered by wetland and buffer 1.13 acre lot created via short subdivision in 1977 z z Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception September 13, 2018 Project Name: Proposal: SFR on lot encumbered by wetland/buffer Land Use Request: RUE Hearing Examiner: Ted Hunter City Planner: David Greetham Applicant: Tatiana Leshchinsky  Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception Applicant requests increased buffer signage in lieu of split rail fence. Can be accommodated via revisions to staff recommended conditions (see memo) Staff recommends approval with amendment to mitigation plan at future building application (cond. 6) Entire lot encumbered by wetland and buffer 1.13 acre lot created via short subdivision in 1977  