Feasibility Study Report Dune Firebreak and Walk and Bike Path Ocean Shores, Washington for City of Ocean Shores May 26, 2016
Earth Science + Technology
Feasibility Study Report Dune Firebreak and Walk and Bike Path Ocean Shores, Washington for City of Ocean Shores May 26, 2016
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 253-383-4940
Feasibility Study Report Dune Firebreak and Walk and Bike Path Ocean Shores, Washington File No. 2634-008-01 May 26, 2016
Prepared for: City of Ocean Shores, Engineering Department 801 Minard Avenue NW Ocean Shores, WA 98569 Attention: Karla R. Roberts Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 253-383-4940
David B. Conlin, PWS Project Biologist
Bruce A. Stirling, PWS Senior Environmental Planner DBC:BAS:ab Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Fire Protection .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Non-Motorized Access ....................................................................................................................................... 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 2 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 4
North Beach Recreation Management Plan for the Ocean Beaches ............................................................. 4 Comprehensive Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Shoreline Master Program ................................................................................................................................ 4 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan....................................................................................................... 5 Ocean Shores Municipal Code .......................................................................................................................... 5 Washington State Regulations .......................................................................................................................... 5 Federal Regulations ........................................................................................................................................... 6 FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 6 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 8
Proposed Alignment ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Wetlands and Buffers ................................................................................................................................. 8 Width ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Topography and Trail Slope ........................................................................................................................ 9 Trail Material ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 Base Course ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Crushed Oyster Shells ............................................................................................................................... 10 Crushed Gravel .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Asphalt ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Trail Use and Accessibility ............................................................................................................................... 11 Trailhead Parking ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Recreational .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Americans with Disabilities....................................................................................................................... 12 Emergency Vehicles .................................................................................................................................. 12 Firebreak ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Water Supply ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Other Amenities ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Lighting ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Drainage and Erosion ............................................................................................................................... 14 Weed Control ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Trail Surface Material ............................................................................................................................... 15 Trail Amenities.................................................................................................................................................. 15 ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE OF COST ........................................................................................................................16
Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................................................................ 16 Scoring the Alternatives................................................................................................................................... 16
May 26, 2016 | Page i File No. 2634-008-01
LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................................................18 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................18 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map APPENDICES
Appendix A. City of Ocean Shores Firewise Development Map (2013) Appendix B. KPFF 10% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Appendix C. GeoEngineers Wetland Verification Report (2016)
Page ii
INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) with assistance from KPFF Consulting Engineers, has prepared this feasibility study report for the City of Ocean Shores’ (the City) proposed Dune Firebreak and Walk and Bike Path project (the project). The feasibility study report is intended to serve as background information to support the City’s goal to fund and construct a non-motorized “firebreak trail” located on the vegetated dunes on the outer west coast of the City’s shoreline (Figure 1). The trail is being considered for multiple purposes including possible vegetation and fire management, as well as non-motorized mixed-use access and recreation. The trail would improve the safety of residences and businesses from potential fires, as well as provide recreational and economic benefits through non-motorized access along the shoreline. It would also restrict the use and future development of “unmaintained” paths through the dunes to the beach, thus reducing the impact to wetlands and other natural vegetation being caused by people damaging these sensitive areas. This report assesses design considerations and environmental constraints for constructing the project and presents an engineering estimate of cost for the recommended “preferred” design option that was discussed with the City at stakeholder meetings in February and May of 2016. The future design and construction of the project would be managed by the City’s Engineering and Planning Departments. Funding for the project may come from a number of state, federal, and local sources as discussed in the report. The project has the support of several stakeholders and community groups including the City Council, Mayor, City Planning Commission, Community Firewise Team, Fire Department, and the Quinault Nation. If successfully funded and constructed, future phases of the project may include extending the trail north onto a portion of Grays Harbor County to include access to Ocean City State Park and the Quinault Beach Resort.
PURPOSE AND NEED In 2014, with assistance from American Community Enrichment (ACE), a non-profit rural community assistance corporation, the City was awarded Firewise Community Designation from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). This designation allows the City to pursue Firewise Community projects to compete for federal grants to assist them with funding for projects that will help lessen the risks of wildfires. The Firewise Community Designation, through additional support from ACE, helped the City obtain a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development grant to support the completion of the firebreak trail feasibility study. Tasks proposed in the USDA grant application to be satisfied by the feasibility study include: verification of the coastal dune wetlands identified in the 1996 inventory; a topographic survey along the proposed trail alignment; the environmental processes needed to complete the project; and an engineers’ estimate of cost for design, permitting, and construction. Improving the safety of residences and commercial land owners through improved fire protection, and promoting recreational access and connections to the shoreline were identified as the primary needs for constructing the project.
Fire Protection Protecting the City’s residences and commercial property owners from coastal dune wildfires has been an ongoing need for the City. In 1989 the City-approved the Beach Recreation and Management Plan which ranked constructing a firebreak trail along the coastal dunes as a high priority for future beach improvements (Ocean Shores, 1989).
May 26, 2016 | Page 1 File No. 2634-008-01
Although human-caused dune wildfires occur almost every year along City’s shoreline, the Sand Dune Avenue wildfire (shown to the left) burned approximately 53 acres in 2013 and prompted the City to pursue Firewise Community Designation from the NFPA. The designation helped the City win a USDA Rural Development grant to support studying the feasibility of constructing a firebreak trail along the coastal dunes between the beach and the residences. Section 4.06, Dune Management, of the City’s 2015 draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) also identifies specific policies for “managing beach dunes to reduce hazards to human life and property from natural or human-induced actions” (Ocean Shores, 2015).
Non-Motorized Access The need to have greater access and connections for non-motorized transportation (walking and bicycles) throughout the City has been identified as a priority in several City comprehensive planning documents. The City’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan (amended in 2007 and 2014) identifies “developing a system that provides for alternate modes of transportation” such as pedestrian and bicycle travel paths as one of its primary transportation goals. The goal specifically includes establishing policies for using utility corridors and street rights-of-way (ROW), where adequate space is available, and other public lands for trail or bicycle pathway purposes (Ocean Shores, 2007). Public comments from the City’s updated 2012 – 2017 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan also identified the need to increase opportunities to connect more bike and pedestrian pathways throughout the City, and identified walking, biking, sightseeing, and nature viewing as four of the “top” eight favored activities by citizens in Washington state (Ocean Shores, 2012). Specific recommendations from the plan included emphasizing bike and pedestrian pathways throughout the City as well as developing a “comprehensive” bike/pedestrian plan. The City’s draft SMP identifies “the need to increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline” including giving priority to developing paths and trails to shoreline areas and linear access along the City’s shorelines, especially those trail corridors that would be a regional recreational and transportation resource (Ocean Shores, 2015). The plan also calls for “increasing recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline” including encouraging and planning for development of public recreational facilities in the shoreline.
EXISTING CONDITIONS The project is located with City limits on the outer west coast of the Ocean Shores Peninsula (Figure 1). The project area and proposed alignment for the trail are shown on the City’s September 2013 Firewise
May 26, 2016 | Page 2 File No. 2634-008-01
Development Map in Appendix A. The project area is located on City ROW west of the developed portion of Ocean Shores, between existing residential and commercial development and the ocean beach. It is located on vegetated sandy dunes that characterize the outer coast throughout the Ocean Shores Peninsula. The Geologic Map of Washington, southwest quadrant (1987) maps this area as Beach Deposits (Qb). Beach Deposits are described as “fine to coarse sand forming beaches and associated active and stabilized back-beach dune fields and minor estuarine deposits.” The proposed trail alignment, which was previously mapped by the City as part of the Firewise Community Development Program, generally follows the crest of the “primary dune,” which is a linear feature oriented north-south along the outer coast. The proposed alignment extends approximately 4.5 miles between Damon Road and Marine View Drive. In 1996 the City received funding from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to complete a wetland inventory within the City’s jurisdiction, including the area on the outer coast in the vicinity of the proposed trail alignment (Brooks, 1996). The purpose of the inventory was to develop a better understanding of the location and relative value of wetlands within City limits in support of revisions to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and completion of the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance. The inventory results were presented at three public meetings in the City in 1996. The 1996 wetland inventory identified a total of 210 wetlands during the aerial photo and published data review. Approximately 212 wetlands were identified in the “final” inventory after an extensive field verification effort of the mapped data. The final inventory identified 35 percent of these wetlands as Class I (irreplaceable), 52 percent as Class II (high value), and 13 percent as Class III (moderate value). Approximately 75 of these wetlands were categorized as “deflation plain” and are located on the outer coast, primarily east of the proposed trail alignment. GeoEngineers completed a wetland verification of the proposed alignment in February 2016 as presented in Appendix C (GeoEngineers, 2016). The verification was completed in part through review of existing database sources, as well as direct field observations. Field-verified wetlands were mapped and rated according to standard wetland delineation methodology from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ([USACE], 2010) and wetland ratings were developed from Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington guidance (Ecology, 2014). For the purpose of wetland verification, the project review area was defined as the area within a 110-foot buffer around the proposed trail alignment, mapped by the City and shown on the Firewise Community Development Program Map (Appendix A). A 110-foot buffer was chosen to limit the level of effort required to verify the potential wetlands occurring in proximity to the proposed alignment. Wetlands identified within the “review area” were grouped into two wetland mosaics based on the spatial arrangement on the landscape and vegetation characteristics. Results from the GeoEngineers study indicate there are two primary mosaics occurring primarily east and west of the review area. Both are considered depressional (mosaic) palustrine shrub-scrub and emergent, seasonally flooded, interdunal wetlands with Category II ratings. Category II wetlands, with a moderate level of function for habitat and a moderate land intensity, have 110-foot buffers according to the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance, which references Ecology’s April 2005 Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands in Washington State (Granger, T. et al., 2005).
May 26, 2016 | Page 3 File No. 2634-008-01
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS The actions associated with the project should first be reviewed to ensure that the goals of the City’s policies are being met and that specific design and construction standards from the City’s codes and other state and federal regulations are assessed. Once specific elements of the project are known and developed further, a more detailed review of the regulations should be considered. The City’s policies and applicable regulations are summarized below.
North Beach Recreation Management Plan for the Ocean Beaches The Beach Recreation Management Plan outlines policies for the management of beach recreation activities including the areas within the City and unincorporated Grays Harbor County. The plan contains recommendations for improvements to beach vehicular traffic regulations including designating motor vehicle and pedestrian/non-motorized vehicle use. The plan describes the recommendations made by the local governments, which are related to pedestrian and vehicular access to the ocean beaches, and the planning process and data use in deciding which areas should be designated for motorized and non-motorized use (Ocean Shores, 1989).
Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan covers policy decisions regarding growth and includes planning elements such as the City’s overall land use patterns, how to serve the City with adequate housing and community facilities (streets, sewer, and water), and how to protect the City’s natural resources and manage the shorelines (Ocean Shores, 1998). The Comprehensive Plan is designed to satisfy the City’s adopted goals and policies for growth and to guide the zoning and subdivision ordinances, capital improvements budgeting, and other legal actions that shape the physical community and are required to implement and be consistent with this plan.
Shoreline Master Program In addition to 6 miles of ocean beach shoreline, the city has about 23 miles of interconnected freshwater canal and lake shorelines. The SMP is intended to carry out the regulations necessary to protect the public interest of the City’s shorelines, while recognizing and protecting private and public interests (Ocean Shores, 2015). The SMP provides for the management of shorelines by fostering reasonable and appropriate uses and protection against adverse effects on public health and the environment. Segments of the proposed alignment occur within the SMP’s “Urban Conservancy” preliminary shoreline environment designation. The Urban Conservancy designation is intended to provide for ecological protection and rehabilitation in relatively undeveloped areas of the City’s shorelines. The designation is assigned to areas covered under the SMP that are appropriate and planned for low-intensity agricultural, recreational, and residential development and are compatible with maintaining or restoring the ecological functions of the area. Primary allowed uses in the Urban Conservancy designation include those that: 1. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline environment, promote preservation of open space, floodway, floodplain, or critical areas directly, or over the long-term that result in restoration of ecological functions.
May 26, 2016 | Page 4 File No. 2634-008-01
2. Implement public access and public recreation objectives whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. 3. Give preferred water-oriented uses priority instead of non-water-oriented uses. Water-dependent and recreational development should be given highest priority. 4. Ensure that standards for new development for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications do not result in a net loss of ecological functions or degrade other shoreline values.
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan provides a vision and strategy for the City’s park and recreation system; lists locations, types and degrees of development of park and recreation facilities; describes the important public process in developing a park and recreation system; reviews local and statewide trends in recreational preferences; lists park capital assets, conditions, future needs, costs and likely fund sources; and describes how the city will review and approve the park and recreation plan and how it can be updated as the years proceed (Ocean Shores, 2012).
Ocean Shores Municipal Code
■ Ocean Shores Municipal Code (OSMC) Title 17 (Zoning) includes specific zoning districts and associated building, parking, transportation and landscaping design standards.
■ OSMC Chapter 19.02 (Critical Areas Regulations) includes regulations on managing and developing critical areas and the administrative processes required prior to approving a regulated use or activity within a critical area. Critical areas, as defined by the City, include wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat including buffers, habitat zones, geologic hazardous areas, flood hazard areas and groundwater recharge areas.
■ OSMC Chapter 15.40 (Construction) outlines the City’s regulations and application requirements for land use construction permits.
■ OSMC Chapter 19.04 (State Environmental Policy Act) provides a more thorough understanding and review of the SEPA adoption process.
■ OSMC Chapter 13.16 (Storm and Surface Water Utility) regulates and controls storm and surface water drainage conditions.
■ OSMC Chapter 13.17 (Ecology Stormwater Manual) specifies the development regulations set forth in the Stormwater Manual for Western Washington, prepared by the Washington Department of Ecology as the stormwater regulations for development within the City.
Washington State Regulations
■ Ecology would have jurisdiction over any proposed discharges from the project to “waters of the United States” under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which also triggers compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act. This would include any proposed work within wetlands along the proposed alignment.
May 26, 2016 | Page 5 File No. 2634-008-01
Federal Regulations
■ Compliance with environmental laws governed by the United States may also be necessary to implement the project. The USACE would be in charge of reviewing the project for compliance with several federal laws under their jurisdiction including Section 404 of the CWA. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE has jurisdiction over any discharges to “waters of the United States” including working in dune wetlands. This compliance process is typically administered under the Nationwide Permit (NWP) system by the USACE Seattle District and includes compliance with other laws such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS A number of different sources of funding are available for constructing non-motorized trails. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Washington Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) are two primary sources of grant funding for non-motorized trails in Washington State. The primary source of federal funding that is available through WSDOT to support trail funding is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The purpose of the TAP is to fund projects that allow communities to strengthen the local economy, improve the quality of life, enhance the travel experience for people traveling by all modes, and protect the environment. TAP funds support funding for the RCO’s Recreational Trails Program (RTP). Additional information on how WSDOT administers funds from the TAP can be found here:
■ http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/ProgramMgmt/TAP.htm The RCO administers a dozen grant programs for providing recreation, conserving habitat, preserving farmland, and recovering salmon. Many RCO grants come with long-term obligations to maintain and protect the project area. The project area must remain dedicated to the use as originally funded. Additional information for applying for RCO grants can found here:
■ http://www.rco.wa.gov/grants/find_grants.shtml ■ http://www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/manuals_by_number.shtml FEMA also offers pre-disaster funding to assist states and local communities in implementing pre-disaster natural hazard mitigation programs. These programs are intended to reduce the overall risk to populations and structures from future hazard events while also reducing the reliance on federal funding after disasters. The program awards planning and project grants and provides opportunities for raising public awareness about reducing future losses before a disaster happens. Additional information on FEMA’s pre-disaster funding can be found here:
■ http://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program Although the USDA Firewise program does not directly provide financial assistance to applicants, the program does provide information on grants and funding opportunities for fire protection including Fire Prevention and Safety Grants, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants, Hazard Mitigation Grants, Wildland Urban
May 26, 2016 | Page 6 File No. 2634-008-01
Interface Community and Rural Fire Assistance, and Self-Determination Act Title II County Funds. Additional information about opportunities offered through the USDA Firewise program can be found here:
■ http://firewise.org/usa-recognition-program/grants-and-funding.aspx?sso=0 Some other important factors that should be considered before applying for any grant funds include:
■ Qualification Criteria. All grants have rigorous qualifying criteria that should be thoroughly researched prior to applying. Understand the objectives of the grant, record as many details as possible, and maintain excellent records through the grant process.
■ Systematic Planning. Most grant programs require grant applicants to complete a systematic planning process, such as developing a comprehensive plan that includes a purpose and need for the project before seeking funding.
■ Existing Support. It is important to show that the project is already being supported by the community and the services the project will provide. Having relevancy and a track record of success and connection to the community are important. Include quotes, case studies and testimonials from stakeholders explaining why the project is needed.
■ Matching Funds. Most grants require applicants to contribute to the project by providing either cash or in-kind contributions, up to 50 percent of the cost of the project. There are also specific requirements for matching federal funds with non-federal outside sources to increase the level of support provided by a federal funding agency. Matching funds can be also be generated by teaming with other parties that have a vested interest in building the trail including the Quinault Nation, Grays Harbor County, Washington State Parks, and private developers.
■ Application Review. All grant applications go through a thorough review by program staff as well as governing panels or steering committees. Grant applications are generally scored and judged based upon the written applications so having a well-written, organized application that meets all of the grant qualifications and follows the application criteria is important.
■ Long-Term Maintenance. Most grant programs require the grant recipient to operate and maintain the grant site long-term for the purposes for which funding was sought, so understand the post-construction commitments prior to applying.
■ Grant Reimbursement. For most grant programs, grant recipients must spend money and then request reimbursement for those costs. Grant funding is generally not awarded upfront, with rare exceptions.
■ Regulatory Considerations. Consider the environmental regulations that the project may trigger. Federally funded projects are required to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which can be a more rigorous environmental compliance process than the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process.
■ Federal Standards. There are many standards for trail design that come with federal funding that should be considered including Americans with Disabilities (ADA), American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), state guidelines, and other standards that can be found here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/guidance/manuals.cfm
May 26, 2016 | Page 7 File No. 2634-008-01
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Proposed Alignment The City developed a proposed trail alignment, which approximately follows the top of the primary dune along the shoreline between Marine View Drive and Damon Road (Appendix A). Although this places the trail at a high vantage point for views to the ocean and potentially minimizes potential impacts to wetlands, constructing the trail at the highest point on the dunes would add a lot of cost to the project due to significantly more grading and fill that would be required. A more cost-effective approach is a trail alignment located adjacent to the primary dune but outside of wetlands while still maintaining view points along the higher points of the dunes. The current proposed alignment was established in September 2013 by a City representative who field-interpreted the primary dune and followed it between Marine View Drive and Damon Road. A global positioning system (GPS) unit was used to log waypoints along the route, and a data layer or shapefile of the alignment was created from the waypoints that were recorded. The trail alignment shapefile was provided to GeoEngineers, who used the proposed alignment segments along with the 1996 wetland delineation mapped data and topographic contours data to verify that the trail approximately followed the primary dune and avoided wetland habitat. Wetlands and Buffers
GeoEngineers conducted a field verification of previously mapped wetlands from Brooks (1996), identifying revised wetland boundaries, additional wetlands, and associated buffers along the City’s proposed alignment (Appendix C). Results show a more extensive system of wetlands currently exist than were previously mapped in 1996, which may result in adjustments to the alignment in those areas where wetlands and buffers can be avoided. Information from GeoEngineers’ wetland verification report should be used, in part, to determine a final “preferred” alignment, and to document avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and buffers during the design and permitting phase of the project. Width
The width of the proposed trail in the USDA grant application is listed as 12 feet. Beyond maintaining consistency with the grant application, factors impacting the proposed width of the trail include its proposed uses and its firebreak potential. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Bicycle and Pedestrian Program recommends a minimum of 10 feet for two-way, shared-use paths that include walkers, joggers, skaters, and bicyclists, as shown in the photo to the right. We propose trail widths that are 12 feet for crushed oyster shell and crushed gravel surfacing, and 10 feet with two 1-foot gravel shoulders for asphalt surfacing. These widths are anticipated to provide adequate two-way recreational usability, access for maintenance and emergency vehicles, and a firebreak. Additional discussions of vehicle access and firebreak potential are included below.
May 26, 2016 | Page 8 File No. 2634-008-01
Topography and Trail Slope
The final alignment of the trail may also be impacted by the existing topography of the dunes. The running grade of the trail is the grade along the trail in the direction of travel. A maximum running grade of 5 percent is recommended by FHWA for mixed-use trails and is required for ADA accessibility. If portions of the trail are not ADA accessible, steeper running slopes may be used but with limitations:
■ 8.3 percent for a maximum distance of 200 feet ■ 10 percent for a maximum distance of 30 feet ■ 12.5 percent for a maximum distance of 10 feet Achieving these running grades along the primary dune may require significant grading and earthwork. For final design, it is recommended that the alignment be analyzed with respect to topography, and that adjustments be made to minimize earthwork and associated impacts.
Trail Material Trail surfacing must accommodate the recreational uses proposed for the trail including walking, jogging, biking, and other wheeled uses such as strollers, wheelchairs and assisted walkers. The trail must also be capable of occasional use by maintenance and emergency vehicles. Three potential surfacing types were identified at the stakeholders meeting: crushed oyster shells, crushed gravel, and asphalt. Concrete and pavers were also discussed but are not being considered due to high costs without significant functional benefits compared to oyster shells, gravel, and asphalt. Each surface type has constraints and advantages, which are discussed in more detail below. The engineer’s estimate of probable cost looks at the differences between three surfacing alternatives. Base Course
All surfacing types for a trail must be underlain by an angular, locking base course, such as crushed surfacing base course, which is a standard aggregate used in the construction of roadways and sidewalks. In general, it is believed that the sandy soils in the dune area are well compacted and represent a stable subgrade for a trail with limited vehicular traffic. If compacted and graded properly, its in-place strength shouldn’t be much less than the gravel borrow, and likely would not be the limiting factor for pavement design. As such, a minimal import sub-base will likely support the loads expected on the trail. It is recommended that a geotextile fabric be used to help create a support base for the trail, but also to act as a root barrier. Keeping the sand under the pavement section is the key. The root guards at the sides of the trail will need to keep the sand contained and roots out. A good application for this may be a “Geo-Cel” although using a more standard geotextile wrap at the sides might be able to provide the same benefit with a non-proprietary method. The depth of the base course should be designed to reduce the potential for differential settlement due to the underlying sand, and it should accommodate the occasional maintenance and emergency vehicle loadings that are anticipated. In wetland areas, trail excavations need to be deeper to ensure stability of the base course. Nearby sand can be used to fill excavations in order to properly support the water line and loads on the trail. Each wetland scenario will be different and should be evaluated separately to achieve proper design.
May 26, 2016 | Page 9 File No. 2634-008-01
A typical trail section with some of these specific features is shown below.
Crushed Oyster Shells
Crushed oyster shell surfacing would be composed of locally produced and obtained oyster shells that are byproducts of local oyster fisheries. The shells are crushed to produce a gradation similar to fine gravel, and are placed and compacted over a base course to produce a surface similar to fine gravel, as shown in the photo to the right. The resulting surface would be semi-hard with some loose fragments. A fine gradation capable of compaction and providing a firm, stable, and slip-resistant surface should be used. Crushed shells could be mixed with gravel or fines to obtain a desirable gradation. Crushed oyster shell surfacing, if maintained properly, would be generally firm and stable for walkers, joggers and mountain bikes. However, the more pointed loads of road bikes, strollers, roller skates, wheelchairs, and assisted walkers would compress and rut the surface. These users would experience significantly reduced slip resistance and limited access to the trail system.
May 26, 2016 | Page 10 File No. 2634-008-01
Crushed oyster shell is a natural surfacing that utilizes the byproducts of a local sustainable industry and are generally viewed as a low impact surfacing. With the fine gradation and compaction required for a trail, it should be considered to be an impervious surface. Its construction and repair costs would be similar to gravel surfacing, but more expensive to maintain than asphalt surfacing. See additional discussion under the “Accessibility” and “Maintenance” sections below. Crushed Gravel
Crushed gravel surfacing would be composed of fine gravel placed and compacted over a base course. The resulting surface would be semi-hard with some loose aggregate. A fine gradation capable of compaction and providing a firm, stable, and slip-resistant surface should be used. Crushed gravel surfacing, if maintained properly, would be generally firm and stable for walkers, joggers, and mountain bikes, as shown in the photo to the left. However, similar to crushed oyster shell surfacing, the more pointed loads of road bikes, strollers, roller skates, wheelchairs, and assisted walkers would compress and rut the surface. These users would also likely experience significantly reduced slip resistance and limited access to the trail system. Crushed gravel surfacing for a trail should be considered impervious due to the required compaction and fine gradation. Its construction and repair costs would be similar to oyster shell surfacing but more expensive to maintain than asphalt surfacing. See additional discussion under the “Accessibility” and “Maintenance” sections below. Asphalt
Asphalt surfacing would be composed of asphalt placed over a base course. The resulting surfacing would be hard, impervious, and durable as shown in the photo to the right. Asphalt would provide superior firmness, stability, and slip resistance relative to oyster shells and gravel. It would be acceptable for all trail users including walkers, joggers, strollers, mountain bikes, road bikes, roller skates, wheelchairs, and assisted walkers. However, the material costs of asphalt are higher than oyster shells and crushed gravel but less costly to maintain.
Trail Use and Accessibility The trail is proposed to provide recreational uses and temporary access to emergency and maintenance vehicles. Other design considerations include trailhead parking, firebreak potential, ADA access, and water supply.
May 26, 2016 | Page 11 File No. 2634-008-01
Trailhead Parking
Parking areas would need to be considered for users accessing the trail where each of the trail segments intersect roads and City ROW. Informal parking areas could be established at some or all of the segments where they intersect City ROW or roads. Parking areas could be on the sand initially and developed with asphalt or other limited features in the future, based on need and funding. Recreational
Recreational users of the trail are anticipated to include walkers, joggers, strollers, and mountain bikers, as any of the three proposed surface types would generally provide a firm and stable surface for those uses. Additional users, such as road bikers and in-line skaters, are only recommended with an asphalt surface type as the point loads from these users would potentially compress and rut crushed oyster shell or crushed gravel surfaces. More detailed discussion of recreational users and trail materials is discussed in the sections above. Americans with Disabilities
Providing trail accessibility to citizens that qualify under the ADA requires that running slopes be no more than 5 percent (slope percent equals vertical distance over horizontal distance). This running slope may be difficult to obtain without considerable grading and earthwork along the highly varied and dynamic topography of the primary dune. Also, surfacing for ADA-accessible routes must be stable, firm, and slip resistant. Per Advisory 302.1 General of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design: “A stable surface is one that remains unchanged by contaminants or applied force, so that when the contaminant or force is removed, the surface returns to its original construction. A firm surface resists deformation by either indentations or particles moving on its surface. A slip-resistant surface provides sufficient frictional counterforce to the forces exerted in walking to permit safe ambulation.” To maintain ADA accessibility along the entire length of proposed trail, there would likely be a high degree of maintenance required for crushed oyster shell or gravel surfacing to meet ADA accessibility standards. With the dynamic and changing conditions of the dune environment, it may not be practical for the City to maintain a trail surface that is not a hard-paved surface to the extent necessary to meet the stable surface requirement for ADA accessibility. To minimize maintenance costs when considering either crushed oyster shell or crushed gravel surfacing, ADA access could be restricted to specific “paved” sections of the trail while the majority of the remainder of the trail are crushed oyster shells or gravel. For example, paved portions could provide beach access points to nearby viewing areas, with longer stretches of intervening trail between access points surfaced with crushed oyster shells or gravel. Another alternative to a non-paved trail could include combining surfaces, providing a minimum width of paved surface and gravel or oyster shells making up the remaining width. Soft surface areas of the trail would be ADA access limited (i.e., non-ADA-accessible areas). Emergency Vehicles
The City’s Fire Department is equipped to access the shoreline dunes using off-road emergency vehicles without the use of roadways or paths. The Fire Department may use the trail at their discretion for emergency access and firefighting. However, the trail should provide a relatively narrow band of access
May 26, 2016 | Page 12 File No. 2634-008-01
along its route through the broad dunes, and the alignment generally should not affect the Fire Department’s accessibility to the dunes. The Fire Department’s off-road emergency vehicles carrying water and hoses are very heavy. Close inspection of the trail needs to be performed after the vehicles have driven over it. If maintenance is not done, the trail will potentially lose its stability and will break and crack in these areas. Firebreak
Campfires, fireworks, and other combustion sources associated with recreational use of the beach can result in wildfires in the dune vegetation. Due to prevailing winds from the west, fires can spread rapidly through the combustible plants in the dunes and race to property and structures in the City. The trail should be a 12-foot break in vegetation between the ocean and the residences, and the lack of combustible fuel should stop a fire or slow its progress. It is estimated that a firebreak should be approximately 2.5 times the height of vegetation, in which case a 12-foot firebreak correlates to vegetation 4.8 feet higher. Currently, this is higher than existing vegetation along the trail alignment. Water Supply
Having access to water on the shoreline dunes during fire emergencies is an option that was discussed during the stakeholder meetings. In an effort to support firefighting efforts, a 2.5-inch water line is proposed to run under or along the trail. The pipe material is recommended to be flexible high-density polyethylene (HDPE) to account for the possibility of settlement within the sand. The pipe would be installed with 2.5 feet of cover. The Fire Department has indicated that standpipes located every 600 to 800 feet would be preferred. The standpipes could be located in small vaults or meter boxes along the sides of the trail. The standpipe locations would be flagged or marked such that off-road emergency firefighting vehicles could locate them and connect to them for filling their vehicle tanks. The Fire Department currently operates an off-road Humvee pumper with a 150-gallon tank, which would serve as the model vehicle for using this system. The system would be a semi-dry system only pressurized during the fire season and for testing. FDC standpipes will be used in place of blow-offs for flushing and testing. The system would connect to the City water system with valves at the beach access points for pressurizing the system. As an alternative, the City can choose to have a “dry system.” In a dry system scenario, the water line would be charged only during the fire season. The exact dates can be determined by the Fire Department and City. When charging the line, 500 feet of firehose will be used to connect the dry system to the city’s existing water system. With the installation of a proper backflow device on the firehose, the City’s water supply would be protected when filling the line. Sprinklers were also mentioned at the stakeholder meeting and should be discussed in the context of firefighting equipment that could be attached to the water line as needed. These systems are likely temporary systems that could be positioned during active fires or periods of high fire danger and attached via hoses from the standpipes along the water line.
Other Amenities Lighting
Lighting could extend the safe use of the trail to include early morning, evening, and nighttime hours, especially during the winter months of relatively brief daylight. Lighting would need to be low to the ground (waist-high or lower), with fixtures that direct light downward while shielding light pollution from shining
May 26, 2016 | Page 13 File No. 2634-008-01
upward. This would help to maintain the unobstructed views from the shoreline to the ocean and also limit the amount of light pollution to the sky at night. The layout and spacing of the lighting should be determined during final design of the trail based on the ultimate decided uses, but spacing of approximately 10 to 20 feet would generally be sufficient for low-speed wayfinding. Low-energy lighting, such as LEDs, could minimize energy needs. If the City elects to include lighting along any portion of the trail, there are two power source options that could be utilized. Solar
Lighting with a localized solar power unit on each fixture could eliminate the need for conduit, wiring, and connections to the power grid. However, the effectiveness of solar units could be limited by the unpredictable amount of solar radiation reaching the units during the winter months and during times of fog and clouds. Furthermore, the solar panels will need to be protected in some fashion from potential vandalism. Wired
Lighting may also be hard-wired along the trail, providing lighting at any desired time independent of solar weather conditions. Electrical conduit would have to be installed under, or adjacent to the trail, to feed each of the fixtures. Connections to the electrical grid would need to be installed at one or more of the beach access points. Use of wired lighting is unlikely because of the significant cost of running hard wire the length of the trail (almost 5 miles) and connecting almost 500 light fixtures. Also, a hard wire utility would involve excavating a separate trench from the proposed water line, thus incurring additional excavation costs.
Maintenance The dunes are a potentially erosive environment with rain, wind, and wind-blown sand. Over time, some areas of the dunes will erode away and some areas will fill up. Beach deposits in the Ocean Shores area consist of fine to medium sand with silt. As discussed above, this material is generally free-draining and can provide a firm subgrade for the trail provided it is contained laterally and covered. However, if exposed, this material can be highly erodible by both wind and water. It is anticipated that there will be a number of considerations for maintaining the trail along the shoreline. Some of the more important maintenance considerations are summarized below. Drainage and Erosion
Sand may be blow onto the trail surface due to the prevailing winds with periodic episodes of increased blowing sand during storms. The sand may also build on the trail surface in the short-term and can be maintained by sweeping (for asphalt), as discussed below. The more diligent the maintenance crews are about sweeping the sand off the trail when covered, and moving it to the areas where it’s eroding away on the edges, the longer the trail will last. However, blowing sand may contribute to gradual but long-term maintenance issues for the trail. The locations and extents of wind-blown sand along the trail will be highly variable and difficult to predict. Once the trail is constructed, localized mitigation measures may be applied as needed, to address any areas of consistently blowing sand that appear. Erosion measures may include native plantings and other wind breaks. The proposed trail alignment should typically follow adjacent to the primary dune. Stormwater runoff from the trail should sheet flow off its sloped surface and discharge to the edge of the trail and adjacent dunes with eventual discharge to groundwater. Trail shoulders should be sloped no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) to prevent erosion due to stormwater runoff. The City’s stormwater control
May 26, 2016 | Page 14 File No. 2634-008-01
regulations will be followed for managing stormwater that may be generated from the project. Based on our understanding of the code, stormwater will not be collected or conveyed in a concentrated manner and detention facilities should not be required. Because the trail is non-motorized, it will be a non-pollutiongenerating impervious surface, which will not require water quality treatment. Weed Control
Grasses and other vegetation along the dunes are highly invasive and are known to be difficult to control. To the extent feasible, the trail should have root guards designed along the trail edges and in the subgrade to prevent roots from intruding into the trail. Root guards along the trail edges may consist of HDPE or metallic bands embedded in the sand, separating the trail from the adjacent dune. Along the bottom of the trail subgrade, a geotextile separation membrane will help to prevent root intrusion into the base course. Plants that break through the root guard or otherwise establish on the trail should be controlled using herbicides. The City should consult with Ecology to determine the best herbicide for use in the dune environment adjacent to wetlands. Trail Surface Material
Walking, jogging, pushing strollers, biking, stormwater runoff, and subsurface settlement will eventually result in wear, rutting, and the general unevenness of crushed oyster shell and gravel surfaces. Trail surface material management should include inspections and regular maintenance consistent with the trail’s use and observed rate of deterioration. Inspection and maintenance includes visually identifying areas that have lost a level, firm, stable, and slip-resistant surface, then rehabilitating the areas by raking, grading, applying new material, and recompacting. Asphalt surfaces are more durable than gravel or oyster shells but may crack due to settlement or unanticipated heavy loads. An asphalt trail should be inspected and maintained approximately every 6 months. Cracks wider than 0.5 inch should be filled and sealed. Any areas of significant differential settlement creating sudden changes in level should be reconstructed. Any surface should be kept free of sand to the extent practicable to retain a level, firm, stable, and slip-resistant surface. Asphalt pavement may be mechanically swept. Sweeping of crushed oyster shell and crushed gravel surfacing is problematic and not recommended unless significant sand accumulation is present. Minor sand accumulations on these surfaces may be addressed by raking, grading, applying new material, and recompacting to revitalize the surface.
Trail Amenities Amenities will improve the experience of trail users, increase the trail’s functionality, and reduce trail maintenance costs. Recommended amenities to consider for the trail include:
■ Viewpoints for wildlife and the ocean, ■ Benches for resting and relaxing, ■ Signage and way-finding directing users to destinations and points of interest, ■ Fencing for discouraging off-trail travel at specific locations, ■ Kiosks at viewpoints and other areas for education on natural history, and
May 26, 2016 | Page 15 File No. 2634-008-01
■ Trash containers for disposal of waste and recyclables. ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE OF COST An engineer’s estimate of probable cost is provided in Appendix B. The probable cost estimate evaluates three primary surfacing options (asphalt, gravel, and crushed oyster shells) as well as other components for the trail as discussed above. The section below presents an evaluation of the three trail surface alternatives in selecting a preferred alternative.
Evaluation Criteria In order to justify the selection of a preferred alternative, the three surfacing materials (asphalt, gravel, and crushed oyster shells) were scored relative to seven evaluation criteria. Evaluation criteria were selected based on our understanding of the project, and on information that was discussed during stakeholder involvement meetings in February and May 2016. Criteria were defined to objectively account for the goals of the project as well as the needs of the community. The alternatives were evaluated according to the ability to satisfy each of the criteria. The evaluation criteria used in the alternatives selection process included:
■ Fire Protection. Is there a difference when considering the ability to provide for improved fire safety. ■ Economic Development. Is there a difference in economic development opportunities that would result for the City.
■ Future Funding. How easy would it be to apply for and obtain additional funding to design and construct the trail considering funding requirements.
■ Design and Construction. What is the cost to design and construct the trail. ■ Operations and Maintenance. What is the cost to operate and maintain the trail. ■ Accessibility. What opportunities would there be for the general public to access the entire trail system. ■ Environmental Impact. Is there a difference when evaluating the potential environmental impact of constructing the trail. For each alternative and each evaluation criteria, one of three quantitative ratings was assigned as follows:
■ High (3) – Alternative fully satisfies the criterion and/or is measurably superior to the other alternatives. ■ Moderate (2) – Alternative partly satisfies the criterion and/or is average relative to the other alternatives.
■ Low (1) – Alternative satisfies little or none of the criteria and/or is measurably inferior to the other alternatives.
Scoring the Alternatives The results of the scoring are presented in Table 1 below. High, medium, and low ratings were converted to numerical scores and the ranking of alternatives was achieved by applying equal weighting to each of the criteria with a cumulative score representing the overall rank. In cases where there was no difference in the ranking of alternatives for a criteria, that criteria was not included in the cumulative score.
May 26, 2016 | Page 16 File No. 2634-008-01
TABLE 1. SCORING OF TRAIL SURFACING ALTERNATIVES Alternative Criteria
Asphalt
Gravel
Crushed Oyster Shells
Fire Protection
--
--
--
Economic Development
3
1
1
Future Funding
3
1
1
Design and Construction
1
3
2
Operations and Maintenance
3
1
1
Accessibility
3
1
1
Environmental Impact
--
--
--
Cumulative Score
13
7
6
OVERALL RANK
1st
2nd
3rd
Note: Scoring: 3 = High, 2 = Moderate, 1 = Low -- = No difference in scoring for these criteria.
Asphalt surfacing scored and ranked the highest of the three alternatives and is therefore, our recommended alternative for surfacing the trail. The greatest differences in scoring the alternatives were related to economic development, future funding, and accessibility. An asphalt surface for the trail will result in better economic development opportunities for the City by allowing more of the general public to access the trail system including disabled and elderly citizens. Gravel and oyster shell surfaces would limit trail access for the disabled and elderly as well as for strollers, roller skates, scooters, and skate boards. Increasing the number of public users of the trail system would result in better opportunities for economic development by increasing the number of visitors that could use the trail when visiting the City. Funding opportunities would also be greater for an asphalt surface trail system that could be accessed by all potential users. The potential for future federal funding to design and construct the trail would also be limited if disadvantaged populations, such as the disabled or elderly, could not access the trail system. There was no difference in ranking the alternatives when considering fire protection and environmental impacts. All three alternatives provide equal improvements in fire safety by creating a large enough break in the vegetation between the open beach, where fires are likely to start, and the residential properties to the east, where potential fires are likely to travel. Fire fighting vehicle access to the dunes will not be obstructed any differently by asphalt, gravel, or oyster shell surfacing. There is also no significant difference in environmental impacts between the three surfacing alternatives when building the trail. Environmental impacts are associated with clearing and grading, and constructing the base course and water line, which are the same for all three surfacing options. Asphalt also shouldn’t generate any more stormwater runoff than gravel or oyster shells which, when compacted, are considered impermeable surfaces and will create as much runoff as asphalt. Asphalt had the lowest rank for design and construction cost because asphalt is considerably more expensive than crushed oyster shells or gravel. Gravel is the least expensive surfacing alternative. Of the three alternatives, asphalt has the lowest maintenance costs because it is more durable and therefore, will
May 26, 2016 | Page 17 File No. 2634-008-01
last longer and require less maintenance over time. Removing wind-blown sand from asphalt is much easier as well.
LIMITATIONS GeoEngineers has prepared this Feasibility Study Report in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices in the field of planning and permitting services in this area at the time this study was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this assessment are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of City of Ocean Shores, authorized agents and regulatory agencies following the described methods and information available at the time of the work. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. The information contained herein should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. The applicant is advised to contact all appropriate regulatory agencies (local, state and federal) prior to design or construction of any development to obtain necessary permits and approvals.
REFERENCES Brooks, K.M. 1996. City of Ocean Shores Wetland Inventory. Produced for the City of Ocean Shores under Department of Ecology Grant G9600033. 28 pp. plus appendices. City of Ocean Shores. 1989. North Beach Recreation Management Plan for the Ocean Beaches. City of Ocean Shores. 1998. Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan (amended December 10, 2007 and April 14, 2014). Prepared by the City of Ocean Shores Planning Division. City of Ocean Shores. 2015. Draft Shoreline Master Program. Prepared January 19, 2015. Prepared by AHBL and Herrera. GeoEngineers. 2016. Wetland Verification Report. Prepared for the City of Ocean Shores. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Wetland Delineation Methodologies. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014. Wetland Rating System for Western Washington.
May 26, 2016 | Page 18 File No. 2634-008-01
PROPOSED TRAIL ALIGNMENT
P:\2\2634008\GIS\MXDs\0263400800_F01_VicinityMap.mxd Date Exported: 02/22/16 by cchelf
Pacific Ocean
4,000
µ 0
4,000
Feet
Notes:
1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Mapbox Open Street Map, 2016 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N
Vicinity Map Firebreak Trail Feasibility Study Ocean Shores, Washington Figure 1
APPENDIX A City of Ocean Shores Firewise Development Map (2013)
¸
City of Ocean Shores
R
G
K
OP
CT
KIN R
LO ZE EE BR A SE
IN MA R
T AT C
VIE W
DR
OTTE
MU S
R CT
KR
AG AT E
INE
CT
OAKRIDGE CT
ST
F AVE
E AV
R PALME
KA
LU S
CT
SEAS
NIC
SANTIU M
S
KIN
G
CT
HA SL TCO
WYNOOCHE
R E D
COMET CT
ST
SE OT B UT T E RCL AM
AD
L
FOX CT
ST EE
AP
FAIRW
CT
D DUNE
AVE
SANDERS CT
RUDIS CT
Proposed 6' to 8' Firebreak Trail Damon Road Approach Trail Section Chance a La Mer Approach Trail Section Pacific Approach Trail Section Ocean Lake Way Approach Trail Section
Map Features Corporate Limits
Taurus Approach Trail Section
Wetland Delination 1999
Butterclam Approach Trail Section
OS Parcels
OCE
DUNE
S. SAN
BRENTWOOD CT
INGLEWOOD CT
LAR CT SAND DOL
HIN CT
H CT STARFIS
TALL SHIP
S CT
CT SHRIMP
DECATUR ST
PROSPER CT
OCEAN SHORES BLVD
LEMA CT
CEDAR CRESTCT
K
EC
JANUARY CT
EL
COUGAR CT
MOOSE CT
ST
MITER CT
MAR
A LIN UZ SA CR ST
YORK
IT WH
CT
OCEAN SPRAY ST
TR U
ST
TELLUS CT
HO
NG CT VIKI AVE
ST
RY
RES BLVD
AS
RE
LIPARI CT
OCEAN SHO
SE
CAMDEN CT
E AVE
SAND DUNE AVE
SC
OW
IF IC SUR
HORE
ST
RES BLV D
SAND DUNE AVE NW
SAND DUN
CA
PA C
E TORRESDALEAV
QUEETS ST
OCEAN SHO
R
N
B UT T E R RS HO
CT
E
ST
ST
M
A CL
H WA EL
E
DR
COC KLE ST
ST ST
AH
HOH CT
W IS HK
T MS LA EC
VOLANS AVE
MA
M
ST BA
VOLANS AVE
CT
E AV
CLA
CYRUS
B
US
DR
SR AZ OR
EB
GN
AM
E AV TEX
ST
AR
ZINITA CT
CY
E AV
CL
WY N OOC H E
S
R ZO
XM TE
LOOP
A NT
U UR
RA
GEODUCK
CE
E AV PYXIS CT
S
G
E
AN XT
VIR
IGAAV
POLARIS BLVD
SE
SATSOP ST
PUPPIS CT
E AV
GO
ST
RE
ST
MA R
NA
COD CT
WO WA
T OS
N
TAURUS BLVD
ST VELA
C S U R YD H
IO OR
MINK CT
NT SA EA PH
H
E AK
NA
R MU
E AV
QUAIL CT
AH W LA
KO DIA
AC BE
TYEE CT
E AV WO WA
D
OP
TONQ UI CT N
CT
WILLOW CT
E AV
OO CHW
LO
YE
ND
SHARK CT
LP CE CT SPRU OAK
DE NE
CT
O
GO L
BEA
CT
AB
BU
L FF
G VA
CT
SEA URC
N
SIL VE
A ON W AW HC
O
M
BE
R
CT
AUK CT
N W
SALAL CT
O
WHALE CT
FIR CT
AD E EH
MYTLE CT
ST E AT AG SE
OW
CT
HERO
T AN
ST
CAKE
RAIN CTIER
BR
LIN
E AV
DR
BR
R
AV E
N CT
SCAUP CT
SPRIG CT
WIDGE CT ON
SCO ST
A ST SOST
SWAN CT
A AW OK AM SK
CT HK A OL H TA
L
OR RM CO
T NS
CT
O LO
ST E CL CIR
A OL KACHES CT S
WO CTLF
IE LL
NA
KA
H
ST M
U LL
MC KU SK
LO TL OH
OO
AV E
LT AU QU IN
CHEH UA AL LOQ CTCIS
CK HU
AP AH SN
AV E
SHE KLOCT
CA
O W
ST
ST
AV E IS H
LY M MT .O
LAPA WIL CT
TOLEAK
LEITHA CT
ST
CAPE
ALAVA
CHIKAMIN CT
APUS CT
MIRA CT
PU S
AV E
ERIDANI LOOP
E AV
CA
T
AV E DO DO RA
S ST
ARIES CT
E OC
AH
ORION AVE
AY W
E
K LA
AN
P
O
LO
RT
PO
UM RK WA CT
DORADO ST
NW
NW
P
O
LO
K MA
PT BROWN AVE
CETU
NW
P
O
LO
L
RW HA
NA
N.
AR
O
N.
ST
LT
MA R
PT
ALCADE
Special District
MALLARD C
CT
REDW CT
M CT
BUCKT
SYCA
LST CHAP ARRA
BLVD NW
AU
PT
S OAR LOOP
N SHORES
AUR
AQUILA CT
IN QU
E AV
CANAL DR
S. NARWHAL LOOP
OCEA
AVE NW
ER
K CLOVER CREE
NW
WO ITS
CIR
VENITA CT
OCEAN SHORES BLVD NW
D
MAST AVE NW
N.
KELP ST NW
INLET AVE NW
A ST T C
CLOV
CT
LEEWARD ST NW
VIT DA
NW
MIZZEN AVE
NLP
CT
OCEAN SHORES BLVD NW
TROIS CT
GULLST INLET AVE NW
W
W
PACIFIC BLVD NW
ST N
NW
W CHANCE A LA MER
BARNACLE ST NW
DEUX CT
CAPSTAN ST NW
OCEAN SHORES BLVD NW
JIB
'D RB
HE
E
ND ISLA
E AV
REPORTER CT
OCEAN SHORES BLVD NW
OCEAN COURT
ST
JIB ST NW
NW
E AT
LP ST N
IS AV
LL WA AVE GAD CT ON ALBI
HOKO ST
Y
PERCH ST
ALBATROSS ST ALBATROSS
N
EN
HELM ST NW
SIG
KE
D MU
ON DRAC
COWLITZ CT
DD
ENSIGN AVE ENSIGN ST NW
MINARD AVE
UN CT
A. O. DAMON RD.
CU
CT
NW
NW
IG FR
SHORT CUDDY AVE
PT BROWN AVE
E AV
NW
NW
CANAL DR
PT. BROWN AVE
A R BAILEY CT
OCTOPUS AVE
PUFFIN AVE
S. PORT LOOP
AVE
PIRANHA ST
SUNSET
AVE NW PT. BROWN
ANCHOR AVE
OCEAN LAKE WAY
E
OW AV
AVE PT. BROWN NW
AVE NW PT. BROWN
MINARD AVE
LOOP
WEST LST E PRINCROYA
CEDAR CT
SANDI CT
PARADISE CT
PORT ROYAL
SEAHORSE AVE
BASS AVE
CANAL DR
SHOAL ST
LOOP
FALEIRO CT
GALLEON
SAN ANTONIO CT
LOOP
TRINIDAD CT
VICTORIA
SEA WOLF CT
ALDER CT
S. RAIN ST.
A LOOP
AVE DOLPHIN
J. K. LEWIS ST
CHANCE A LA MER
CT
BIRCH CT
DOLPHIN AVE AVE
MAGELLAN AVE
MAGELLAN AVE
SEAMAST CT
BALBOA CT
OD AVE
MEAD
ARCADIA CT
ST
PEARSALL
R HAGA CT
GLOVER CT
CORNWELL CT
MILLER CT
CT DE HY
LAKE VIEW CT
ST HUTTON
SM
ST
LL POWE
ST S TROS ALBA
TEST OZET
ST O TH FA
M LANYARD CT
KINGSTON CT
RK PA T C
E RAIN ST
Rain St. Addition
RY DO
PONDEROS
WEATHERWAX LP
WOODLAND LOOP
PARK AVE
DOLPHIN
P
COU RT
CARDINAL AVE
EDGEWO
LO O
E
.
LIMPETCT
DR
NW
C
IS
OT
DE
CT
ST
K LA AL OP
EC LL SO
T RET EG C
CT
ER EIDCT
E AV
RO CK CL AM ST
WEST
CHENOIS AVE
ST .
ER AM
AL TA IR
AL
NT BRAT C
KS
TA IL
T
CAPT AIN CT S
CE
. MT
AVE
PIN
CT
RAINBOW CT
AN
OD
BALDPATE CT DR WOODDUCK
E AV
E
CH
T F WILD WO
OVERLAKE ST
S PU YM OL
US
CT
LOOP VIEW
AC
GR O
DUCK LAKE DR.
EAGLE NEST CT
KID
EX
CT
G
CT TERN
TE
IN
OF
CO YO
LAKE
S LL FA
LAKE BAY LP
AV E
CHENOIS AVE
CO RN
IER CT
IN
DR
GLAC
QU
FISHE R AVE
TO N
LAKE
SA
DR.
DUCK
A
AR
DUCK LAKE
LAK
E DR
VIEW
PE
DUCK
PIC OLYM
AV E
1 inch = 450 feet
FIREWISE DEVELOPEMENT MAP GPS TRAIL COORDINATES SEPT 2013
APPENDIX B KPFF 10% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
10% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Consulting Engineers
612 Woodland Square Loop SE Lacey, WA 98503 360.292.7230
10% FINAL
Project Location Client KPFF Job #: By Date
Ocean Shores Firebreak Trail Ocean Shores, WA The City of Ocean Shores 41600006 Blake Lord 5/23/2016
ON-SITE PATH CONSTRUCTION TESC Filter Fabric/Silt Fence Crushed Surface Top Course (including shoulders of path) Construction Signage Separation Geotextile Membrane (for containment of base course) Wetland Mitigation (10% of total cost) Sand Excavation and Return to Trench
QTY 10,000 4,580 1 27,000 1 29,700
UNIT LF TON LS S.Y. L.S. C.Y.
UNIT COST $3.50 $20.00 $5,000.00 $1.10 $175,000.00 $7.00
WATER LINE 2.5" HDPE Pipe FDC Standpipe with Valve Box Meter 2.5" Water Valve 2" Double Check Valve Assembly
QTY 24,300 49 2 49 2
UNIT LF EA EA EA EA
UNIT COST $4.00 $1,100.00 $600.00 $700.00 $2,000.00
OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS Root Guard (HDPE or Metallic Band) Benches Trash Containers
QTY 48,600 10 5
UNIT LF EA EA
UNIT COST $2.50 $400.00 $700.00
ALTERNATIVE COSTS SURFACE MATERIAL ALTERNATIVE: ASPHALT Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement (10' section width) Pavement Markings & Signing
QTY 1,960 1
UNIT TON LS
UNIT COST $150.00 $800.00
SURFACE MATERIAL ALTERNATIVE: CRUSHED OYSTER SHELL Crushed Oyster Shell
QTY 1,500
UNIT C.Y.
UNIT COST $60.00
SURFACE MATERIAL ALTERNATIVE: CRUSHED GRAVEL Crushed Surfacing Top Course
QTY 2,950
UNIT TON
UNIT COST $20.00
SOLAR TRAIL LIGHT ALTERNATIVE Solar Trail Lights
486
EA
M/O COSTS Weed Control - Annual
QTY 1
UNIT LS
TOTAL BASE COSTS
$40.00 UNIT COST $10,000.00
TOTAL COST $35,000.00 $91,600.00 $5,000.00 $29,700.00 $175,000.00 $207,900.00 $544,200.00 TOTAL COST $97,200.00 $53,900.00 $1,200.00 $34,300.00 $4,000.00 $190,600.00 TOTAL COST $121,500.00 $4,000.00 $3,500.00 $148,440.00 $883,240.00
TOTAL COST $294,000.00 $800.00 $294,800.00 TOTAL COST $90,000.00 $90,000.00 TOTAL COST $59,000.00 $59,000.00 $19,440.00 $19,440.00 TOTAL COST $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Page 1 of 2
10% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Consulting Engineers
612 Woodland Square Loop SE Lacey, WA 98503 360.292.7230
10% FINAL
Project Location Client KPFF Job #: By Date
Ocean Shores Firebreak Trail Ocean Shores, WA The City of Ocean Shores 41600006 Blake Lord 5/23/2016
TOTAL HARD COSTS Asphalt Alternative Crushed Oyster Shell Alternative Crushed Gravel Alternative Solar Trail Light Alternative Mobilization Asphalt Alternative Crushed Oyster Shell Alternative Crushed Gravel Alternative Solar Trail Light Alternative Construction Contingency Asphalt Alternative Crushed Oyster Shell Alternative Crushed Gravel Alternative Solar Trail Light Alternative ENGINEERING Estimated Design, Permitting, and Construction Management
$1,178,040.00 $983,240.00 $952,240.00 $19,440.00
QTY 1
UNIT LS
10% 10% 10% 10%
$117,804.00 $98,324.00 $95,224.00 $1,944.00
30% 30% 30% 30%
$353,412.00 $294,972.00 $285,672.00 $5,832.00
UNIT COST $175,000.00
TOTAL COST $175,000.00 $175,000.00
GRAND TOTAL Asphalt Alternative Crushed Oyster Shell Alternative Crushed Gravel Alternative Solar Trail Light Alternative
$1,824,256.00 $1,551,536.00 $1,508,136.00 $27,216.00
TOTAL COSTS PER LINEAR FOOT Asphalt Alternative Crushed Oyster Shell Alternative Crushed Gravel Alternative Solar Trail Light Alternative
TOTAL COST $75.11 $63.88 $62.09 $1.12
ASSUMPTIONS/EXCLUSIONS All costs include incidental construction costs 4" thick Crushed Surfacing Top Course 10,000 LF of TESC Fencing. Assumed at critical areas only Shoulders of the path are crushed surface top course, 1' wide Trail lights are 2 every 100'. One light being on each side of the path Root guard are installed on both sides of the path for the whole length Hot mix asphalt pavement is 10' wide, 2" thick, for the whole length of path (24,300') Crushed oyster shell path would be 10' wide, 3" thick, for the whole length of path (24,300') Crushed gravel path would be 10' wide, 3" thick, for the whole length of path (24,300') Northwest rock charges $60 per cu. yard for oyster shells and delivery Any concrete needed for water line thrust blocks or in standpipe encasing is taken account for in the contigency FDC Standpipes and water valves every 500' Crushed surfacing top course would be 10' wide, 3" thick, for the whole length of path (24,300')
Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX C GeoEngineers Wetland Verification Report (2016)
Wetland Verification Report Dune Firebreak and Walk and Bike Path Ocean Shores, Washington for City of Ocean Shores May 25, 2016
Earth Science + Technology
Wetland Verification Report Dune Firebreak and Walk and Bike Path Ocean Shores, Washington for City of Ocean Shores May 25, 2016
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 253.383.4940
Wetland Verification Report Dune Firebreak and Walk and Bike Path Ocean Shores, Washington File No. 2634-008-01 May 25, 2016
Prepared for: City of Ocean Shores, Engineering Department 801 Minard Avenue NW Ocean Shores, WA 98569 Attention: Karla R. Roberts Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 253-383-4940
David B. Conlin, PWS Project Biologist
Bruce A. Stirling, PWS Senior Biologist DBC:BAS:ab Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 1 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
Data Review ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Field Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Wetland Rating................................................................................................................................................... 3 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
1996 Wetland Inventory .................................................................................................................................... 3 Other Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Field Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Wetland Rating................................................................................................................................................... 5 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................................... 6 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Wetland Verification (Maps A & B) Figure 3. Wetland Verification (Maps C & D) APPENDICES
Appendix A. City of Ocean Shores Wetland Inventory Map Appendix B. Wetland Verification Rating Forms
May 25, 2016| Page i File No. 2634-008-01
INTRODUCTION AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report summarizes the results of a wetland verification completed by GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) on behalf of the City of Ocean Shores (City), for the proposed Dune Firebreak and Walk and Bike Path project (the project). This work was completed as part of a Feasibility Study by GeoEngineers for the City. Wetland verification is being used in part to evaluate feasibility and preferred alternatives for development of the project, as well as in fulfillment of obligations associated with a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development grant obtained by the City. The project is located in the City of Ocean Shores, on the outer west coast of the Ocean Shores Peninsula (see Figure 1). The Ocean Shores Peninsula extends south from the Olympic Peninsula, located between Grays Harbor and the Pacific Ocean. Damon Point State Park and Oyhut Bay Wildlife Recreational Area are located at the most southern end of the peninsula, while the northern end of the peninsula is bounded by Ocean City State Park. The peninsula is a sandy landform that has accreted over the last 10,000 years from sand that is washed into the Pacific Ocean by the Columbia River and bluff erosion along the southern coast of Washington (Brooks, 1996). Prior to settlement and development, the Ocean Shores Peninsula was dominated by a vegetation community primarily comprised of emergent and shrub wetland and upland vegetation including Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica; Facultative Wetland [FACW]), shore pine (Pinus contorta; Facultative [FAC]), and dune grass. The project site is west of the developed portion of Ocean Shores, between existing residential and commercial development and the ocean beach, and is located on vegetated sandy dunes that characterize the coast throughout this area. The proposed trail alignment, which was developed through the City’s Firewise Program, generally follows the crest of the “primary dune,” which is a linear feature oriented north-south along the coast.
METHODS Wetland verification was based in part on a review of existing database sources as well as on direct field observations. Field-verified wetlands were mapped and rated, as described in the following sections.
Data Review We reviewed and relied heavily on the shoreline inventory mapping completed in 1996 for the City (Brooks, 1996). The City of Ocean Shores Wetland Inventory Map, which was based on this inventory, is included as Appendix A. We also reviewed the following public databases, which may identify wetland habitats: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI; USFWS, 2016) and Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS; WDFW, 2016). We obtained a LiDAR-derived digital elevation model (DEM) for the project area from the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium, which was acquired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the Oregon LiDAR Consortium, and originally collected by Watershed Sciences (2010). The 1-meter resolution DEM was projected into the local coordinate system for the project (North American Datum of 1983, Washington State Plane South [feet]) and then post-processed in Esri ArcMap 10.3.1. topographic contours at 1-foot intervals, which were generated using the “Contour” tool and then refined for visualization purposes to reduce extraneous variations exceeding the data resolution and to remove relict contours
May 25, 2016| Page 1 File No. 2634-008-01
resulting from the geoprocessing. Data refinement was achieved by: 1) using the “Smooth Line” tool, with the Polynomial Approximation method, Exponential Kernel algorithm, and a designated tolerance of 60 map units (feet); and 2) selectively querying and removing contour lines shorter than 200 feet in total length. The contours were also indexed for display at 2-, 5-, 10-, and 20-foot intervals. We also obtained and reviewed a geographic information system (GIS) data layer provided by the City of Ocean Shores of the proposed alignment for the trail. This data layer was created by the City by walking the primary dune and collecting field global positioning system (GPS) data using a handheld GPS unit (Karla Roberts, personal communication). Data layer attributes distinguish six trail “segments” as designated by the City, which are based on adjacent road names. The six segments comprise the proposed alignment. The 1996 wetland inventory, 2- and 5-foot contour intervals, and the proposed trail alignment are presented on Figures 2 and 3, along with the results of our field verification (see below).
Field Methods Wetland mapping data from the 1996 inventory was uploaded into a field tablet computer using Esri Collector software and used for our field verification. The tablet computer was accessorized with a Trimble R1 antenna that is capable of receiving and processing Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) transmissions, including both the US-based GPS, Russian Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), and other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSSes). The Trimble R1 also allows for satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS) real-time error correction for improved accuracy, which was estimated to be sub-meter during all fieldwork completed for the project. The proposed trail alignment data provided by the City was also uploaded onto the tablet and a “review area” of 110 feet surrounding the project was generated to ensure that all wetlands within range of having potential regulatory wetland buffers that may be impacted by the project were identified. Field verification was based on standard wetland delineation methodology as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2010), which relies on three primary wetland parameters: vegetation, hydrology and hydric soils. To be classified as a wetland, an area generally must exhibit indicators of all three wetland parameters, although exceptions are possible in some areas considered problematic for one or more parameters and, therefore, only exhibiting positive indicators of one or two parameters. The wetland verification completed for the project was based primarily on shifts in vegetation communities, as well as topographic and hydrologic indicators. Because of the large size of the review area, extensive distribution of wetlands within the review area, and preliminary status of the project, soils were not examined and detailed wetland boundary delineations were not completed at this time. It is anticipated that wetland boundaries of potentially impacted wetlands may need to be delineated in further detail during project permitting after the Feasibility Study is complete, a preferred alternative selected, and engineering design is advanced. A GeoEngineers Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) completed a wetland verification field reconnaissance on February 4th and 5th, 2016, to identify and map wetlands within the project review area, as defined above. The wetland verification focused specifically on the review area; mapping of wetland boundaries that extended beyond the review area was not attempted. During fieldwork, the scientist completed transects that included multiple passes through the review area parallel to, and zig-zagging across, the proposed trail alignment. GPS points were recorded at wetland boundaries where wetlands
May 25, 2016| Page 2 File No. 2634-008-01
began or ended adjacent to the proposed trail alignment, at the closest extent of wetlands to the proposed trail alignment, and/or at other specific points as needed to assist mapping efforts. GPS points were supplemented with descriptive information entered into the tablet computer as well as hand-written field notes and map sketches. Wetland mapping was completed via heads-up digitizing using Esri ArcMap GIS software. Approximate wetland boundaries were digitized by the same wetland scientist that completed fieldwork using a combination of GPS data points, digital and hand-written notes, and interpretation of aerial imagery. Reliance on interpretation of aerial imagery was specifically contingent on field observations, notes and GPS data points recorded in the field for improved accuracy.
Wetland Rating Wetlands were rated using the current version of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology, 2014). The rating system relies on direct field observations, which were noted during the wetland verification field reconnaissance, as well as agency databases and interpretation of aerial imagery, which was completed in the office via desktop computer.
RESULTS Results of our data review and field verification are presented in the following sections.
1996 Wetland Inventory The 1996 wetland inventory (Brooks, 1996) identifies a system of 75 “deflation plain” wetlands that are primarily located east (landward) of the proposed trail alignment. Wetlands identified during the 1996 wetland inventory that occur within the map extent of the project area are shown on Figures 2 and 3. The wetland inventory was completed in 1996, using funds from a Washington State Department of Ecology Grant, as part of a City effort that also included public meetings and coordination with governmental environmental agencies. The inventory was conducted as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update and used in developing a Critical Areas Ordinance. The wetland inventory relied primarily on stereoscopic evaluation of orthophotography that was flown specifically for this purpose in April 1996. Preliminary wetland maps based on this evaluation were subsequently field-verified according to the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetland vegetation parameters were universally present in wetland areas included in the final inventory. Wetland hydrology primary indicators were typically seasonally absent when fieldwork was completed (October) but secondary indicators were present. Hydric soil indicators were also present in wetland areas in the sandy soils, although some non-wetland areas also displayed hydric soil indicators. The resulting wetland inventory included 212 wetlands in total, which included the 75 deflation plain wetlands along the outer coast. The 75 deflation plain wetlands are within the Dune Land soil map unit according to the USDA Soil Survey Map. The deflation plain wetland system was considered to be a single palustrine hydrologic unit and is generally dominated by emergent and shrub wetland vegetation, with seasonal wetland hydrology, and classified as Category II according to the Ecology rating system in use at the time. According to the 1996 study, all three wetland parameters (vegetation, hydrology and hydric soils) were field-verified for the 75 deflation plain wetlands that comprise this system.
May 25, 2016| Page 3 File No. 2634-008-01
Other Data Sources USFWS and WDFW databases both indicate a system of estuarine and marine wetlands on the outer coast beach adjacent to the project site, as well as a system of freshwater emergent wetlands further inland between the beach and developed areas. The latter system appears to be generally consistent with, though less detailed and accurate than, the results of the 1996 shoreline inventory.
Field Results The results of our field mapping are shown on Figures 2 and 3. In only a few places do the wetlands mapped in 1996 extend within the review area for the project, including some lobes and isolated units extending farther west (ocean-ward) and either crossing or on the west side of the proposed trail alignment. We field-verified and mapped the boundaries of 158 discrete wetland areas within the review area for the project. Many of these wetland areas appear to be connected to one another offsite beyond the review area. Many of the field-verified wetlands on the east (landward) side of the proposed trail alignment, as well as a few on the west (ocean-ward) side, are likely contiguous with one or more of the 75 deflation plain wetlands identified in the 1996 inventory. Field-verified wetlands are part of two large mosaic systems that are divided by the primary dune upon which the trail alignment has been proposed. Wetlands on the east (landward) side of the primary dune are part of a mosaic that includes most of the previously identified deflation plain wetlands, which are dominated by a combination of emergent and shrub wetland vegetation. Vegetation observed during the field verification included: slough sedge (Carex obnupta; Obligate Wetland [OBL]), rushes (Juncus spp.; generally FACW or OBL), Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica; FACW), willows (Salix spp.; generally FACW or OBL), other unidentified annuals and grasses, and few small shore pine (Pinus contorta; FAC) at the margins. Wetlands on the west (ocean-ward) side of the primary dune are part of a second mosaic that was generally not identified in 1996.
L to R: (1) typical wetland conditions on the east side of the proposed trail alignment include emergent and shrub components that are part of the larger mosaic of wetlands identified in the 1996 inventory; (2) typical wetland conditions on the west side of the alignment include primarily emergent wetlands that are part of a second mosaic not previously identified.
May 25, 2016| Page 4 File No. 2634-008-01
This mosaic is limited to an emergent vegetation class dominated by slough sedge (OBL), rushes (FACW or OBL), and other unidentified annuals and grasses in lesser quantities. All field-verified wetland areas had characteristic standing water at the time of the field reconnaissance. We also observed some non-wetland depressional areas that also had standing water but were not classified as wetlands due to lack of vegetation indicators. Based on the USDA Wetlands Determination (WETS) table for the location nearest the site, which is Grayland, Washington (USDA, 2016), and parameters specified in the USACE guidance document applicable to this region (USACE, 2010), the expected growing season for the purposes of the hydrology wetland indicator is from February 22nd through November 27th. Field reconnaissance was completed approximately two weeks prior to the start of the growing season, supporting the conclusion that some areas of standing water at the time of the site visit would not be classified as wetlands. Wetland verification assumed that areas exhibiting both hydrology and vegetation indicators would continue to exhibit wetland hydrology during the early growing season. Soil indicators were not examined throughout the study area at the feasibility stage of the project due to time considerations, given the size of the study area, and prevalence of wetlands.
Wetland Rating For the purposes of rating, we considered each mosaic to be a single system with a single wetland rating score. Wetland verification rating forms are included as Appendix B. Both wetland mosaics were categorized based on “special characteristics” according to the current rating system because they are interdunal wetlands. Although the east-side (landward) mosaic received slightly higher rating scores for water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions, primarily as a result of higher vegetative diversity and proximity to developed areas, both mosaic wetland systems received the same final categorical score based on special characteristics as interdunal Category II wetlands.
SUMMARY GeoEngineers completed a wetland verification as part of a feasibility study for the project. The wetland verification included data review, field mapping and wetland characterization. For the purpose of wetland verification, the project review area was defined as the area within 110 feet of the proposed trail alignment, as provided by the City. This distance was chosen to limit the level of effort required to document wetlands occurring in proximity to the project such that: a) potential future deviations from the proposed alignment would likely be captured within the review area, and b) the extent of potential wetland buffers that may affect the project alignment could be evaluated. Wetlands identified within the review area were grouped into two wetland mosaics based on the spatial arrangement of the landscape and vegetation characteristics, as summarized in the following table. TABLE 1. WETLAND SUMMARY Wetland Type
Wetland Rating
Depressional (mosaic); palustrine shrub-scrub and emergent, seasonally flooded.
Interdunal
II
Depressional (mosaic); palustrine emergent, seasonally flooded.
Interdunal
II
System
Location/Extent
Cowardin Classification
East
East of primary dune; patchy distribution to limits of urban development
West
West of primary dune; patchy distribution extending up to approximately 300 feet toward the ocean.
May 25, 2016| Page 5 File No. 2634-008-01
LIMITATIONS GeoEngineers has prepared this Wetland Verification Report in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices in the field of wetland services in this area at the time this study was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this assessment are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of City of Ocean Shores, authorized agents and regulatory agencies following the described methods and information available at the time of the work. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. The information contained herein should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. The applicant is advised to contact all appropriate regulatory agencies (local, state and federal) prior to design or construction of any development to obtain necessary permits and approvals.
REFERENCES Brooks, K.M. 1996. City of Ocean Shores Wetland Inventory. Produced for the City of Ocean Shores under Department of Ecology Grant G9600033. 28 pp. plus appendices. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. USDA Field Office Climate Data. WETS Station: Grayland, WA; State FIPS Code: 53027. Report Date 2/24/2016. United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory Data Online Map. Map data downloaded on February 24, 2016. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2016. Priority Habitats and Species Report. Report downloaded on February 24, 2016. Washington Department of Ecology. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Wetland Washington: 2014 Update. Publication Number 14-06-029, October 2014. Watershed Sciences. 2010. Lidar Remote Sensing Data Collection: Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Southwest Washington, May 24, 2010. Submitted to Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR.
May 25, 2016| Page 6 File No. 2634-008-01
PROPOSED TRAIL ALIGNMENT
P:\2\2634008\GIS\MXDs\0263400800_F01_VicinityMap.mxd Date Exported: 02/22/16 by cchelf
Pacific Ocean
4,000
µ 0
4,000
Feet
Notes:
1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Mapbox Open Street Map, 2016 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N
Vicinity Map
Firebreak Trail Wetland Verification Ocean Shores, Washington Figure 1
SHORT CUDDY AVE 20
OCEAN SHORES BLVD NW
OCEAN SHORES BLVD NW
Map A 20 20
20 20
20
20
20 25
20
20
20
SR 115
20
20
20
20
20
20 20
25
25
20
20
20
20
25
25
20
25
CHANCE A LA MER NW
20
20
20
20
20
20 25 20
25 25
25
25 20
20
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
See Map B
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
25
20
25
20
20
20
25
20 20 20
20
20
20 20 20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
20 15 15
20
OCEAN SHORES BLVD NW
20
20
Map B
20
20
20
20
20
20
15 20
SAND DUNE AVE NW 20
20
25
20 20 20
15
20 25
20
20
20
20
20
20 20
20 20
20 20
20
20 20
20
20
25
20 20 20
20 20
25 25 20
20 25 20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
20
25
20 25
20
20 20
20 15
20
Notes:
15
15
1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Contours were created from Lidar data obtained from Puget Sound Lidar Consortium webpage, data source is FEMA through the Oregon LiDAR Consortium (dated 2009, NAVD88). County Wetland Inventory, Approximate Firewise Trail, and road names from City of Ocean Shores. Aerial from USA NAIP Imagery Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N
20
Approximate Trail Alignment
20 20
20
City of Ocean Shores Wetland Inventory (1996)
Wetland Verification Results (2016)
Damon Road
Non-estuarine, High Value
Review Area
Chance a La Mer
Moderately High Value
Field-Verified Wetlands
Pacific
20
20
20
15
Contours (LiDAR-based) Major Contour (5' Interval) Minor Contour (2' Interval)
20
20
15
20
20
20
400
20
µ
20
20 20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20 20
20
20
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
PACIFIC BLVD NW
P:\2\2634008\GIS\MXDs\0263400801BaseMap_FieldWetlands.mxd Date Exported: 03/24/16 by cchelf
See Map A
20
20
20
25 25
20
20
20
20
See Map C
20
0 Feet
400
20
20
20
Wetland Verification
Firebreak Trail Wetland Verification Ocean Shores, Washington Figure 2
20
20
OCEAN LAKE WAY
20
See Map B
20
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
20
25
25
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
20
25
20
20 20
20
20
20
20
25
25
20
20
20
20
SAN D DUNE AVE
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
20 20
20
20 20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20 20
20
25
20
20
25
See Map D
20
20
20
20 Map C
20
LVD SW
20
20
20
20
TAURUS B
20
20
20 20
20
25
15
25
25
25
25
15
25
25
20
25
25
25
25
20
20
See Map C
20
25
25
20
20
25
20 25
20
25 25
20 20
20
25
25
Approximate Trail Alignment Pacific Ocean Lake Way
Non-estuarine, High Value Contours (LiDAR-based)
Taurus
Major Contour (5' Interval)
Butterclam
Minor Contour (2' Interval)
TALL SH
T
IPS CT
DECATUR
STARFIS HC
ST
PROSPER CT
20
15 20
20
20
S. SAND
20
DU NE A VE
20
20
25
25
25
20 25
15
20
25
25
25
25
Wetland Verification Results (2016) Review Area Field-Verified Wetlands
400
20
25
25
20
25
20
20
20
20
25
City of Ocean Shores Wetland Inventory (1996)
20
20
25
25
25 25
15
1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Contours were created from Lidar data obtained from Puget Sound Lidar Consortium webpage, data source is FEMA through the Oregon LiDAR Consortium (dated 2009, NAVD88). County Wetland Inventory, Approximate Firewise Trail, and road names from City of Ocean Shores. Aerial from USA NAIP Imagery Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N
20
20
20
Notes:
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25 25
20
20 20
25
20
20
20
20 20
20
20
20
µ
P:\2\2634008\GIS\MXDs\0263400801BaseMap2_FieldWetlands.mxd Date Exported: 03/24/16 by cchelf
20
20
20
20 20
T
T
20
20
25 20
IEW DR
20
20
20
25
MARIN EV
20
20
20
20
20
BUTTE R
20
20
Map D
LIPARI CT
20
20 20
CAMDEN C
20
20
ALCADE C
20
20
CLAM S
20
T SW
25
LAR CT
25
SAN D D OL
25
IN CT
15
SEA UR CH
20
0 Feet
400
Wetland Verification
Firebreak Trail Wetland Verification Ocean Shores, Washington Figure 3
APPENDIX A
City of Ocean Shores Wetland Inventory Map
SHO RT C UDDY AVE
A. O . DAMO N RD.
Spec ial Dis trict
C U D
Wetlands in Ocean Shores Washington State Wetland Rating System
MAGE LLAN AVE
D Y C T
VICTORIA
PT. BRO WN AVE NW
MINA RD AV E NW
TR INIDAD CT
SAN ANTO NIO CT
MAGE LLAN AVE
ANCHOR AV E NW
OCE AN SHO RES BLV D NW
UN CT
LO OP
GALLE ON
Rain S t. Addition
D O
LO OP
R
E RAIN S T
C
EDG EW OO
Y T
DEUX C T FALE IRO CT
NTS
PA RK CT
D AVE
BARNACLE S T NW
W
SHO AL S T
CHENO IS AVE
E DOLP HIN AV
LA NYARD CT
PARK AV E
CARDINAL AV E
S. R AIN S T.
SE AHORS E AVE
LIMP ETCT
PA CO
PT. BRO WN AVE NW
OCE AN COURT
ST
LI S
OCE AN SHO RES BLV D NW
CAPS TAN ST NW
DUCK LA KE DR.
KING S TO N CT
TH FA
DR
OM
.
W C HANCE A LA MER
DOLP HIN AV E
CHANCE A LA MER
J. K. LEW IS ST BALBOA CT
RAINB OW CT
SE AMAST CT ALDER CT
PO RT RO YAL
SANDI CT
AN CE
OZ E
A LA
ROYAL ST PRINCE
CH
TTEST
R
PARA DIS E CT
DUCK LA KE DR.
CHENO IS AVE
W AVE
N
FR
S IG
INLE T AV E NW
AVE
EN
MEA DO
SUNS ET
PUFFIN AV E
CANAL DR
PT. BRO WN AVE NW
ARCADIA CT
ME
OCE AN SHO RES BLV D NW
CEDAR CT
WEATHERWAX LP
WOO DLAND LO OP
MINA RD AV E
SE A WO LF CT
BIRCH CT
IG
AV E
E AT ST
NW
N
NW
GULLS T
W
ST
SS
DU CK
TR O AL BA
LA KE
ALBATRO SS
TR OIS CT
ALBATRO SS S T
DR
HELM ST NW
K E
ST NW
O
PO WEL
ST
OLY MPIC
DR
VIE W AVE
LA KE
NW
PIRA NHA
ST
CANAL DR
YD
E
C
T
R
CO
BASS AV E
N IN
SM ITH
G
ST
C T
E DOLP HIN AV
MIZZE N AVE
PE RCH ST
H
OP
'D
ENS IG N AVE
RB STA T C
MAST AVE NW
W
R
FIS HE
N
PT B ROWN AVE
AVE NW
SHO RES BLVD NW
SAND DUNE AV E NW
OCE AN
CLOV ER CRE EK
PO NDERO S A LO
OCTO PUS AV E
LE E WARD S T NW
AVE
ST
L
DUC K
CT
P VIE W LOO
LO P
VIT DA
PT. BRO WN AVE
NW
LA KE
WES T
ST
LO O P
PACIFIC BLV D NW
ER
NW
CL OV
COURT
LP
ENS IG N ST NW
KE
KELP S T NW
LA KE VIE W CT
LA
JI B
INLE T AV E NW
OCE AN SHO RES BLV D NW
WES T
JIB S T NW
HUTTO N ST
N
.O
R
W
H
T
LO
L
LO
R
LO
O
P
N
Wetland Inventory By Category 1997
O
P
A
O
R
MILLE R CT
A
N
W
CORNW ELL CT
W
GLO VE R CT
O
AR HAG CT
1 Estuarine, high value
PE
A
R
SA
NW
OV ERLAKE ST
P
ST
.P
A
LL
N
N
.N
OC
EA
LA
N
KE
W
OCE AN LAKE WAY
NW
AY
MARK CT
KERR CT
RIG AAV
DUCK LA KE DR
AU
KIRKW OO D CT
S ST
E
DO
S. P O RT LO O P
RA
2 Non-estuarine, high value
SUNRIS E AVE
BAILE Y CT
AQUILA CT CETU
ARIE S CT
3 Moderately high value
MURPHY CT
W ER CTNE
PE ARSALL
DO
R
ST
AV E S OAR LO OP
MALUS CT
GL AC IER CT
S. N ARWHAL LO O P
JUNIPE R CT
H YD R C
DORADO ST
S T
OR IO N
SY CA
AR RA
SE
LST
ST . IR A
AVE
E
LT A
AV CANAL DR
NU
E AV
G
US
CY
UR
S E AV
ERIDANI LO O P M
PUP PIS CT
PY XIS CT
TL
O
AU
LT
TAXUS CT
IS
AV E
AV E
ULEX CT
CT CAPT. GRAY
KU
MC
HU
CK
ST
CT
OO
ST
ALAVA
ST
QU
K AV E
OW
ST
BR
AH
N
KA
E
RS
AV
HO L EC
HK
W
O
CT
ST
H
BL
AL
L IE TO LEA K
M
AM ST
ST
VINC A ST
H'BE RRY CT
E
LP
LA RC
ZO C IR
WO C TL F
CL
WIN G
RA
OL KAC HES CT S
UE
ST AM
WA EL
APA W ILLCT
CK CL
DR
RIV ER VIEW S T
RO
GE ODUCK
CHIN O O
A VE
VE
R
PT
W LA
AH
DR
HOKO ST
LE ITHA CT
HA
LA
H
CA
E
HK
ST
WY N O O C H E
HO
KA
TA
RA INI CT E
U LT
MA
ST
IS
CHIKA MIN CT
IN A
L DR
SAND DUNE AV E
VO LANS AV E
QUE ETS S T
HOH CT
W
COWLITZ CT
UM
UM RK T WA C
CA NA
CH EH U AL LOQ CTCIS
A LL
E KE DRIV DUCK LA
CA PE
SATS O P ST
CT
OY STE R
AV E
HE KLOS CT
SK
HARBOR CT
APUS CT
H
TAURUS BLV D
REDWO O D CT
MIRA CT
AV E
NLP D HE
LO
AP
H
IN
S
CYP RES S CT
EAG LE NE ST CT
QU
AH
PU
MU
BLV D
VO LANS AVE
SHO RES
ORIO N AV E
OCE AN
SAN D DUN E AV E
SN
LY M
E IS AV
O ST
VI RG
T. O
OR N
CT
DRA CON
ST
BUC KTH
HARBOR V IE W LO OP
S
A NT
LA KE BAY LP
AN XT
CE
VE LA
FLA X CT
MOR E CT
CH AP
OD
E AV
WILD WO
PT BROW N AVE
U
PO LARIS BLV D
P
KS
LA
SHO RES
BUTIN CT
Y E AV LI LL CT ND ISLA
KE
CT
WA
E
O KA
AV
AM
US
SK
E
ST
A VE
LE
MP
AV
OT
OCE AN
CK
O LY
EC
WO
CO
M T.
LL
IT S
QUAIL CT
TE R ASCT
SO
LO O
AM
ST
SA NT
T C
AV E
F
AD E
SU R
CA SC
PACIF IC
SE U O G R
TE
C
T
S CT PTA IN
O Y
CA
O C
AV E IN U Q N
W
DR
AK
N P OR
TAL LO
OP
PO LARA CT
L N BE
AIR
LOO
P R
NA IN SP ST OR
NO RT N
E AK
R
ST
E
KE
M
K IN
G
OC
EA
N
SH
O
RE
S
AV
BL VD
E
T S L IB
U
LO
SP
A O LO
M
SA
P
BE
L
KE
S
NA
A IR
AVE
LP
S
ND
TA
CALIE NTE CT
N
R
T A L
Y
ER CT S
EA K
E
IE W
A AV
E AV
E
KING CT
A VE
OCE AN
O
K IN STOR
M
SHO RES
CT
HAM MO
BYR NE ST
BLV D
OCE AN
CRES T
DR
PE BBLE CT RIV IER
BR
V
AVE
A
D AV
AV E
SE
BLV D
TW IN
E WI ND
AVE
W ES
HE AD
SHO RES
RANDALL CT
LE
KONA CT
OND
JETT
LP
TR AD
OCE AN
TH
KAILUA CT
DIA M
R
H IL
O
O
S
P
PO
R
S
PE
BB
L
IN
A IN
ST
R
SP
OP
K
E
R
N
PO RTAL
SP I N
H
N J ETTY
DELTA CT
SHE MYA CT
CT
ST
IUM ST
TO
VIE
BRIS TOL CT E
LO
E
EZ
O
P
V A D IV
ND C T
AV E
AN E OCE
SHO RE
D S BLV
G
.
W ES VIE T W PO S T RT
"
DIS CO VE RY AV E
STARFIRE C T
T "D
TR ACT "C"
E
E
IO LA AV E
D
ST
SKY LARK ST
LE MANS CT
ST
IN
R
TR ACT "G "
CAMOKO
A
LA
GU ND
VE
R
VE
FU RY CT
GE MINI CT
A
D BLV
G
IM PA
D
HO ECT
AR
B
E
N
T
U
R
E
TR ACT "A"
AVE
RE S
M
D
AC
ATTU CT
A
VI EW
O AN SH
P
O
A
TR
CT
E E OC
LO O
IN
N
O
T
D
WA S
T
AD SE
IT
AV
CT
E
K
O
LP LE NS T HE MT S " T "A AVE TR AC ON E RS
DR
C
RD
N E
CT
CLA IRE
DE
A LI DA
AL
S
W
O
O
PE
C LY
R
KD OOC T
E AV
IR
N
K
ER
BAY VIEW CT
T AS
AV E
BR
L
FA
IN
SLO OP CT
BE
ST
M
NE TW
CUTLASS C T
OF
AV E
R
E R CT FIR C
CAMERO
O
AN
BLVD
E
S
AY E
IA
WAY
IA
ST
R
FL E
LL
US
TH
O
NEP TUNE
ENV IEW AVE
ON R NT VE C
T
CH
OCE AN SHO RES
C
OW
CT
R
VE
GRE
DO EN CT
Y
P
BR
AV E ST
OP
GL
X
O
R G
IA
K
OO D
E
LA
CT
O
K IN
E
MB
AV
LU
A
CO
R
N
D
LO
ER CA SP CT
S ID ER R IV T C
A
CATALINA
G
SIL VE O
CT
W
T
W A
HW
E AV
G
AR
RY
T
EN
CT
TR
DR
IN
CT
SP ORTS MAN'S S T
LA
PO
ST
E CT
HILL CT
O A LO
T
CK
BROO KSID
FO RE ST
VE
O LY
MP
LO
LE CT
WA KIN
C
R
MINK CT
M
D DRIV E
IEW
ER
CT
R
IN CT
E AV
E
EN V
IEW
EW
O
E AV
MT B
W
GLE NDA
AVE
M
BEAC
FAIR WOO
GR E
EN V GR E CT
BLV D
OO R
WO OD
EN
O
MARINA V IE W
BR
Y BA
G RE
C
CT
E LO O P
S
CT
T CK
T
TO NQ UIN CT
LE MA CT
CRES TSHIR
SHO RE
BROADM
MAPLE
DU
H
DE
S
C
K ID
LU
C EV ER
C
CT
TC
AV E IS
T
RA
N.
N
SK
R CT
M
LP
AV
AC
CT
MU
OT TE
T
SCHO ONE R CT
EX
E
KA
Y BA
EE
CT
EA
JANUARY CT
SANDE RS CT
VIEW S T.
R
L IN
RR VI EW
O
AR FA B
CT
MU
AVE
CT
DU NE CT
IN E
AL
M
NT
C
E
E YE
CT
SA
KE
LA
D
SS
EN
L
VIK ING
CA P
OW
ITE
EA
AT A
BELANA CT
GO LD
CT
LA
IN A
CHACO CT
HA
E AV
WH
FO X CT
S. S AND DUN E AV E
OCE AN
OCE AN
G
E AV
E
PH
M AR
N IC
ER
N
AT
ST OAKRIDG E CT
RUDIS CT
EV
W
WID GE CT ON
N CT
CT
AG
ALPINE CT
K WA
OLY MPUS
RO
E AV
M AR
E TO RRE SDALE AV
E AV
KE
LA
KETCH CT
C
AUK C T
WILLO W CT
HA
SU
SANDP IPE R CT
OR CT
MT
SP RIG CT
B
ND
WHALE CT
E
O RE
PALM ER
CEDAR CRES TCT
PLO VE R C T
MET E
TE AL CT
PT
O
SALAL CT
N IN
SCO TER CT
CO
LE
AB
ST
SE ASH
ST
MOO SE CT
R CT
ING LEW OO D CT
SHARK CT
TE X
T
E
OCE AN SP RAY S T
BRENTWO O D CT
RA
HERO E
DR.
O RM
G VA
DR
AV
ST
C
DO LLA
ST
SCAUP CT
A
U
K
HIN CT
TR
EL
SAN D
FF
AD
ST
NT
FIR CT
ON
HIPS C T
H CT
WYNO O CHEE
DE
BU
W WA
A L IN U Z SA C R ST
COUG AR CT
SE A URC
ST ON
E HE
TE LLUS CT
C LY
CL AM
CT SP RUC
TY E E CT
OCE AN SHO RES BLVD
STA RFIS
OF
LO
T R ET EG C
ST
R
CT
S
T
ZO
AR
RA
SHR IMP
TAL L S
CT
T MALLARD CT
MYTLE CT
HA LC ST O
ST
KING FISHE R CT
LP
OA K
COD CT
DECA TUR
PE CT
DOV ER CT
C
AG
XM
S
MITE R CT
TE RN
ST
N CT
IL
E
SCO RPIO
TR INITY
TA
AT
SE
AR ST
CT
TE
ST
CT
YO RKM
PRO PE R
CYRU S
RE
KING ST RY BA
AS
HO
ON
AS
CT
LIPAR I CT
PIN
W WA
SE
CAM DEN
T
ND CIR
EB
C
B
IS LA
CT
Y CT
LL
COME T CT
SY ZYG
FA
OT
T OS
AL L E GA DW CT N AV AL BIO
ZINITA CT
VE NITA
S EG
LAKE
CT
BALDPATE CT WOO DDUCK DR
T BR AN CT
SWAN CT
ALC ADE
FE RN CT
ST
REP ORTE R CT
N.
T TA S
ER EIDC T
S
DUCK
S OS
CA KE
B U T T E RC L A M
R
BLV D
CL
BUTT E R
N
CT
APPENDIX B Wetland Verification Rating Forms
