Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272171(21) 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION ON THE ORILLIA BLOCK 8, LOT 4 SITE ' (Renton #8E Parcel) ' Renton, Washington §)�20 1 ' Prepared For ' GLACIER PARK COMPANY 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700 ' Seattle, Washington 98104 GPCX"5 ' By DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 - 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98005 November 12, 1991 DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES,INC. ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS,PLANNERS,LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS,SCIENTISTS OFFICES IN OREGON,WASHINGTON AND CALIFORNIA 415 118TH AVENUE,S.E. BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98005.3553 ' (206)455.3571 FAX(206)455.3061 ' REPORT PREFACE This report has been for the use of Glacier Park Company and the project consultants. In preparing this report David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) has used the site information ' and proposed development plans as referenced herein. Findings reported herein are based on information gathered in the field at the time of the investigation, DEA's understanding ' of the US Army Corps of Engineers Triple Parameter Methodology, and DEA's understanding of federal, state, and local regulations governing wetlands and stream areas. Prior to preliminary and final design or any construction,all appropriate regulatory agencies should be contacted to verify the findings of this report, and to obtain appropriate approvals and permits. The wetland boundary, wetland and stream classification and recommended buffers are ' DEA's best professional opinion based on the circumstances and site conditions at the time of our study. The final wetland boundary determination, classification of wetlands and streams, and the required buffers and setbacks are made by the appropriate federal, state, and local jurisdictions. i ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A field assessment for the presence and extent of wetlands on the Orillia Block 8, Lot 4 Site has been conducted by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA). The site is located south of ' Southwest 34th Street, west of Springbrook Creek, north of Southwest 39th Street, and east of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. in the City of Renton, Washington. This approximately 9.28-acre site was investigated in September and October 1991. The site consists of herbaceous perennial grasses and forbs. annual herbs, and a fairly large forested component of young to medium-aged cottonwoods and other shrubs. The site was legally filled about twenty years ago; hence, the topography is relatively flat, with small ' depressions and ruts formed by heavy equipment as a result of the grading work. ' The wetland delineation used the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Triple Parameter methodology, and resulted in the identification of three wetlands located on-site. Total area of wetlands identified within the boundaries of the site is 2.63 acres. The wetlands range from 0.05 to 2.39 acres in size. Two of the identified wetlands would be classified according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service system as palustrine, emergent wetlands. The southernmost wetland is a ' forested wetland with cottonwoods, willows and other with shrubs, and thus would be classified as palustrine,forested. ' Federal, state, and local aoencies regulate activities in wetlands. This report can be used b these V b P Y ' agencies to determine permit requirements associated with development plans. Preliminary plat design for Orillia Block 8. Lot 4 Site has been completed, and potential wetland impacts are identified in this report. His ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ' REPORT PREFACE.....................................................................................................ii EXECUTIVESUMMARY..........................................................................................iii INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................I PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................I METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................I ' Preliminary Research.............................................................................................3 Site-Specific I-.restigation..................................................................... 3 ................ Wetland Determination .........................................................................................4 Functional Value Assessment...............................................................................4 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS...................................................................................6 Vegetation..............................................................................................................6 Soils ......................................................................................................................8 Hydrology.............................................................................................................8 Wetland Deter-inination..........................................................................................8 ' Functional Value A.ssessment...............................................................................9 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS........................................................................10 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11 ........................................................................................... ' REFERENCES.............................................................................................................13 APPENDICES..............................................................................................................15 A. Plant Indicator Status Definitions............................................................16 B. Plants Occurring on the Subject Property................................................17 ' C. Feld Data Sheets.....................................................................................18 List of Figures I. Vicinity Map..............................................................................................2 2. Wetland and Data Plot Location Map........................................................7 ' 3. Preliminary Irr,pact Map..........................................................................12 List of Tables 1. Triple Parameter Summary and Wetland Determination...........................8 ' INTRODUCTION ' On behalf of Glacier Park Company, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) conducted a wetland investigation of the Orillia Block 8, Lot 4 Site. lot 4 is located west of ' Springbrook Creek, south of Southwest 34th Street, east of Oakesdale Avenue S.W., and north of Southwest 39th Street in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). ' The 9.28-acre site is surrounded by undeveloped industrially-zoned lands. The site consists of revegetated fill material placed approximately ten years ago. Because the site is situated in the Green River floodplain, there is a need for a site-specific investigation for the presence and extent of wetlands. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and through the Section 404 permitting process, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been given the responsibility and authority to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters and adjacent wetlands of the United ' States. The Corps defines wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine the presence and extent of wetlands on the ' subject pjropet iy, evaluate the functional values of any wetland present, and based on the preliminary site plan layout, identify potential wetland impacts due to site development ' plans. This report may be used by local, state and federal agencies to determine any permit requirements associated with development plans. METHODOLOGY The analysis of wetlands conducted on this site was based on the methodology developed ' by the Corps (1987), commonly referred to as the Triple Parameter Method, for implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Triple Parameter Method 1 r5.W.21,3s _Ygacr� Race r pack 5.W.23r4 St 5.W.27tn 5t. 0 S.W.30th S.W.290,5t, P 51 I E ' W.33r 5 U r � s.w.34tn sc S 0 3 J � 5.w.39tn St. Q U Y i r5 TT on� I ue ( 1 I Site Location � l i I INSET MAP Figure 1. nn Vicinity Map r ��UW Reantonz Block 8, Lot 4 � ' parameters (a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) be present for a wetland determination. Two levels of information have been gathered for this analysis. These include: (1) preliminary site research, and (2) a site-specific investigation for the presence of wetlands. The methodologies used in this approach are described below. Preliminary Research Review of existing information was conducted to develop background knowledge of physical features and to identify the potential for wetland occurrence on the subject property. Information related to topography, drainage, and water features was obtained from these information sources. The following resource documents were available for preliminary review of the site conditions: r • Aerial photograph black-and-white (March 1985) and infrared (July 1988) at one inch = 400 feet scale,and natural color oblique view; • USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1973, Soil Survey of the King County Area. Renton Quadrangle; • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps (1987); • USGS Geological Topographic Survey 1979, Renton Quadrangle; ' Site-Specific Investigation ' Vegetation Representative sample plots were located in identified wetland plant communities and in the adjacent upland areas. Data plots, 11.8-foot radius (0.01-acre), were established in areas of ' homogeneous vegetation. Areas where more than 50% of the dominant species present are hydrophytes (plant species adapted to saturated conditions) were generally considered to be inside ' the wetland boundary, unless clear evidence of the absence of one or more of the other parameters was established. As per the methodology, hydrophytic vegetation was determined to be present if ' more than 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland. These and other plant indicator status definitions are presented in ' 3 Appendix A. In addition, all plant species observed on the site were identified. Appendix B lists these species with their wetland indicator statuses (per Reed 1988). Soils Soils on this site consist of fill material. Although the Corps Triple Parameter Methodology does not require that soils be addressed when vegetation is non-hydrophytic, a few, soils pits were cursorily assessed in various areas on the site. Because the fill material has settled, compacted, and cemented over the years, soil pits could scarcely be excavated beyond six inches. Hydric soils are those that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Hydric 1 indicators used in this study were limited to depressional areas that appeared to hold water long enough during the growing season to meet the hydric soil criterion. Hydrology Observations of wetland 'hydrology were noted on data sheets, and included visuai observations of inundation, soil saturation, clear evidence of areas that have ponded during the last wet season, water-borne sediment deposits,water-stained leaves, and aerial photograph analysis. Wetland Determination Analysis of all three parameters was conducted for the wetland determination. When one or more of the parameters were absent, the area was determined to be non-wetland. Wetlands were ' flagged by DEA biologists and surveyed by Bush, Roed and Hitchings, Inc., Seattle, and the wetland areas calculated by CAD. Functional Value Assessment Wetlands play important roles that provide valuable benefits to society. Wetland habitat and functional values are numerous and varied and have been described by several wetland investigators (WDOE 1988, Adamus et al. 1987, Reppert et al. 1979, Mitsch and Gosselink 1986). Wetlands often play dynamic roles in many ecosystems by performing functions of intrinsic ecological and social value. Important wetland functions include water quality protection, ' storm and flood flow alteration and storage, groundwater exchange, and biological support. 4 Evaluation of the assessment areas provides a context to the impact area evaluation and an understanding of the functions of the site wetlands in their present configuration. The evaluation of the impact areas describes the wetland values and areas directly affected by the proposed development. Both evaluations are used to create a mitigation plan that provides for the replacement of any wetland area and values affected by the proposed development. Water Quality Protection One important value of wetlands is their ability to help maintain and improve the water quality of rivers, lakes, and other water bodies. Wetlands can function to naturally purify water by removing organic and mineral particulate matter. Large, densely vegetated wetlands can improve the 1 processes of sediment and toxicant retention, ion excha:ige, chemical adsorption, and algal and bacterial degradation of pollutants,and may also moderate the effects of acid precipitation. Due to their position between upland and deep water, wetlands can intercept surface water runoff from land before it reaches open water. They also can help filter nutrients, waste, and sediment from flood waters (EPA 1988). Key wetland predictors used to assess the level of water quality improvement are wetland type, its areal extent, vegetation density and geographic factors of its location (Reppert etal. 1979). Storm- and Flood-Water Storage and Alteration Wetlands modify the effects of storm- and flood-waters by reducing floodpeaks, desynchronizing the floodpeaks of the various streams in a single watershed, providing flood water storage, slowing flood waters, and increasing duration of flow. Any depression in the landscape has the ' potential to store water and thereby to play a role in flood control. In general, wetlands not filled with water to capacity will perform a flood control flunct on. "vVetland topography and vegetation dissipate the energy and reduce the velocity of flood waters by providing surface roughness. The storage capacity and the surface roughness of the wetlands are paramount in providing this wetland function (Reppert et al. 1979, Sather and Smith 1984). In watersheds where wetlands have been lost, flood peaks may increase by as much as 80% (Adamus and Stockwell 1983). J Groundwater Exchange Groundwater exchange inciudes both recharge and discharge. These processes are not necessarily mutually exclusive as they are often dictated by seasonal conditions. During dry periods, surface water will be absorbed into the ground and recharge may occur if the geomorphic conditions are ' suitable. As precipitation intensity increases during winter months and the water tables are replenished, water may discharge from a site. Groundwater exchange is a site-specific phenomena, which is dependent on wetland location in the watershed, soil permeability and rdrainage,and the hydrologic regime. Natural Biological Support ' Attributes of this function are wildlife habitat, food chain production, and the potential for environmental studies, sanctuaries, and refuges. General habitat criteria used to assess the biological value are structurai diversity of communities and species, diversity of adjacent upland areas, and the presence of biologicai support for game,commercial,or unique species. INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Field investigations for this study were conducted during September and October 1991. A DEA biologist located 18 data plots on the site (Figure 2). ' Vegetation The National Welland Inve t:;ry (1�9) doe, of identify any wetlands on the subject property. The on-site vegetation consists of an upland association and three wetland associations. The upland association consists of an upland grass community dominated by bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis) and hairgrass (Aira carvophyllea) The wetland associations include two herbaceous and ione shrub community. The herbaceous communities include small stands of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), or a water foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus)-dominated community. The latter often contains varying amounts of soft rush (Juncus effusus), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), or purslane speedwell (Veronica peregrina). The wetland shrub community occurs in three wetland areas and consists of black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) over sparse grasses and forbs. ' 6 r r � fY i r e I A 0 g 1 r F-G I Wetland Area 1 0.05 9 0.19 -G 2.39 "xa;5 e.Area 9.28 acres 2.63 acres ri I r � i 1Wgtl&n6 &ntl Data Plat M&P. ?}ex►` m., ?lard 8, Lot It m._K scr�:e scale•.1"- 1 1 Soils As discussed prey iously. the area has been filled in the past. and the present soil conditions are difficult to assess. The area has been driven on, and the compaction, coupled with type and nature of the fill material and precipitation, has resulted in an extremely dense, hard. surface. It was not possible to adequately characterize the soil profile. Several pits were attempted and to the 6 inch depth, the soil displayed gravels and loams. The color was variable, but typically 7.5 YR 4/3. Hydrology Evidence of temporary inundation for some portions of the Growing season characterized several areas on the subject property. The evidence included cracked mud surfaces, and microtopographic depressions (possibly due to vehicular traffic, poor grading procedures, and settling of the fill material during and after the fill operation). Wetland Determination As described in the methodology, three wetland parameters must be evaluated for positive wetland identification. Criteria established by the Corps typically require that hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils all be present for a positive wetland determination. Table 1 presents a ' summary of the three parameters used to make the wetland determinations. ' Table 1. Triple Parameter Sununary and Wetland Determination Plot Soil` Fl droloay Vegetation Detennination 1 hydric assumed hydrophytic etland 2 non-hydric absent hydrophytic upland ' 3 hydric assumed hydrophytic «etland 4 hydric assumed hydrophytic w etland 5 non-hydric absent hydrophytic upland ' * soils were considered hydric is evidence of ponding was observed 8 Based on a dominance of hydrophytes, supporting hydnc soils data, and evidence of positive wetland h`drology, three wetlands were identified on the subject property (Figure 2). The wetlands range from 0.05 to 2.39 acres in size. Two of the identified wetlands would be classified according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service system as palustrine, emergent marsh wetlands. The remaining would be classified as palustrine, forested wetland. Functional Value Assessment Water Quality Protection Densely vegetated grassy swales provide highly effective biofiltration. Swales 200 feet long can remove more than 80 percent of the lead and total suspended solids from influent, more than 60 percent of the copper and zinc, 5 to 85 percent of the phosphorous. 40 to 85 percent of the nitrate, and 67 to 93 percent of the oil and grease (Horner, 1988). This strongly suggests that a wet meadow, which is densely vegetated by grasses, such as the ones on the site can provide comparable biofiltration. The vegetation of the wetlands consists of low grasses so the surface roughness of the wetland is ' reduced, thereby reducing their ability to intercept pollutants. Tall grasses would be more capable of slowing surface water, and thus, causing sedimentation and absorption of pollutants. The larger forested wetland in the south-central portion of the property would channel flows and assist in sedimentation if pollutants entered the system The wetlands are currently providing minimal to moderate water pr otection.rotection. They may be ' sequestering pollutants from adjacent sites, however due to the lack of drainage to off-site areas, am pollutants that may be discharged to the site may remain on-site. ' Floodflow Alteration The subject wetlands low value for floodflow alteration. The} are very small wetlands (ranging from 0.05 to 2.39 acres). Wetland F-G, due to its forested component and overall size does ' provide moderate water stormwater retention function The wetlands, taken together may assist in some floodflow stabilization due to the nature of their location in an old floodplam area, now largely being used for industrial purposes. 9 Biological Support The wetlands on-site have low value for this function. Sightings over the last few years (DEA) have not yielded much specific information on animal species using these wetlands. It could be ' assumed that during winter months when the wetlands pond. waterfowl use these areas for feeding or resting. However, again due to its size and multi-layer component, wetland F-G would ' probably rate moderate for biological support. Groundwater Exchange The wetlands on-site are not bounded by ditches and are almost completely surrounded by ' undeveloped upland areas. Therefore, virtually all of the edge of the wetlands can participate in groundwater recharge. Therefore, however minimal, groundwater recharge may be associated with the wetlands on-site. In summary, the wetlands probably have low to moderate value for groundwater recharge. This is a very qualitative assessment of groundwater recharge. A more definitive assessment would acquire a detailed, on-site hydrological investigation. ' REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ' Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and through the Section 404 permitting process, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been given the responsibility and authority to regulate the ' discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States including wetlands. The Corps (Federal Register, 1982) and the Environmental Protection Agenev (Federal Register, 1980) jointly define wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Nationwide Permit 26 under Section 404 allows filling less than one acre of isolated wetlands or adjacent wetlands located above the headwaters (defined as an average annual flow of 5 cfs). The Corps will be contacted to verify that wetland fill less than one acre Nationwide Permit 26 is applicable. The State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) is implemented by local agencies and provides a process to analyze the environmental impacts of development. During SEPA environmental ' review, various agencies have the opportunity to review and comment on the proponent's proposal. ' 10 ' For filling wetland habitat, the Cite of Renton will most likely require mitigation as a condition for SEPA approval. ' IMPACT ASSESSMENT ' The preliminary development proposed will result in unavoidable impacts from road and building construction in about 0.70 acres of wetland (Figure 3). In some areas the proposed buildings will be within 25 feet of the existing wetlands. These areas will not be lost to fill. however, they will be ' affected by encroachment. The site plan has been prepared to avoid wetland impacts and affects where feasible. The project was designed to impact wetlands of low value where impacts could not be avoided and still allow reasonable use of the land. 1 1 11 ' REFERENCES ' Adamus. Paul R. and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment, United Sate of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration, Volumes I and 11. Report Number FHWA-]P-82-23 and 24. Adamus, P.R.. E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. "Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology." Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaToe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, United.States Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. ' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water. Office of Wetlands Protection, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. OPA-87-016 ' Federal Register, Volume 45, Number 249. 1980. Environmental Protection Agency, Part IV, "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material." ' Greiff Smith, P. 1983. (quantitative Plant Ecology. University of California Press, Berkeley. Horner, R.R. 1988. Biofiltration Systems for Storm Runoff Water Quality Control. Prepared for ' the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Seattle, Washington. King County Planning Division. 1982. King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook. ' Mitsch. W.J.. and J.G. JGosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Norstrand Reinhold Company, Inc. ' Reed, Jr.. P.B.. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 North%%est (Region 9). Biological Report 88(26.9). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section. St. Petersburg, Florida. Ipp. 861. iReppert. Richard T.. W. Sigleo. E. Stakhiv. L. Messman. and C. Mevers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. Research Report 79-R l, US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. Fort Bel\oir. Virginia. Sather. J.H., and R.D. Smith. 1984. An Overview of Major Wetland Functional Values.US Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/18. Sather. J.H. and P.J.R. Stuber, tech. corrds. 1984. Proceedings of the National WetlandValues ' Assessment Workshop. US Fish and Wildlife Sevice, Western Energy and Land Use Team. FWS/OBS-84/12. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 13 ' United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1987, Hydric Soils of the United States. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. United States Department of the Army. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. ' United States Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. National Wetland Inventory. Renton Quadrangle. United States Geological Sur%ey, 1973. Renton Quadrangle. 7.5 Minute Series, scale 1:24000. United States Housing and Urban Development, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981. Federal Insurance Administration, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map. City of Auburn, Washington, Panel 1. ' Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1988. Wetland Regulations Guidebook. Publication Number 88-5. Weinmann, Fred. 1991. Personal communication. 14 W U A w ' Appendix A. Plant Indicator Status Definitions Indicator Indicator cateoory Symbol Definition OBLIGATE OBL Plants that occur almost always (estimated WETLAND PLANTS probability >9917c) in wetlands under natural conditions, but which may also occur rarely (estimated probability<1'7( ) in non-wetlands. FACULTATIVE FACW Plants that occur usually (estimated probability WETLAND PLANTS 6717T to 9911.7c) in wetlands, but also occur (estimated probability 1'7, to 33%) in non- wetlands. ' FACULTATIVE FAC Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated PLANTS probability 3317c to 67%) of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands FACULTATIVE FACU Plants that occur sometimes (estimated UPLAND PLANTS probability 117c to<33%) in wetlands, but occur more often (estimated probability 67% to 99%) in non-wetlands. OBLIGATE UPLAND UPL Plants that occur rarely (estimated probability PLANTS <1%) in wetlands under natural conditions. NO INDICATOR NI Plants which do not have sufficient data available ' STATUS to estimate their probabilit} of occurrence in wetlands ' 16 ' Appendix B. Plant species encountered during site-specific investigations %Vctland Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status ' Shrubs Cytisus scoparius Scot's broom LPL Populus balsamifera black cottonwood FAC Rubus discolor Himalyan blackbem FACL SalLr hookeriana Hooker willow FAC SalLr lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+ Spiraea douglasii Douglas' spirea FACIA1, Herbs ' Agrop}ron repens quackgrass FACL Agrostis stolonifera creeping bentgrass FAC Agrostis tenuis bentgrass FAC* Aira caryophvilea hairgrass UPL Aira praecox silver hairgrass UPL Alopecurus geniculatus water foxtail FACW ' Bromus mollis bromegrass UPL Cirsium arvense Canada thistle FACU+ Dacrylis glomerata orchardgrass FACU Dianthus armeria grass pink UPL Dianthus deltoides maiden pink UPL Eleocharis palustris creeping spike-rush OBL Festuca arundinacea tall fescue FACU Gnaphalium palustre western marsh cudweed FAC Gnaphalium purpureum cudweed L'PL Holcus lanatus common velvetgrass FAC Hspochoeris radicata hairy vat's ear LPL Juncus ac•uminatu.s taper-tip rush OBL Juncus hufonius toad rush FACNV Juncw effusus soft rush FAC«' Leontodon nudicaule hawkbit LPL Madia glomerata mountain tar%eed FACL' Parentwellia ri>co%a ,ellow parentucellia FACL Phalaric arundmacea reed canars grass F.�C11 Plantago lanceolata English plantain FACL + ' Plantago major common plantain FAC* Poa pralemo Kentucks bluecras, FACL Rumex cropuo curls dock FACT Scirpus acutuc hardstem bulrush OBL ' Spergularia sp. spurrey ° Spiranthes romanzoffianu ladies'tresses OBL Trijoliurn repens a hite closer FACL ' Tspha latifolia common cattail OBL Veronica peregrine purslane speedwell OBL i * note: personal communication with Fred Weinmann indicates that A. tenuis is now considered FAC 17 �� a� �•� .� ,; v� ._ �ti c � � � � a ..� a� .,d � ... � � � � � � � � � � � r � � � � � � � DATA rOR]l JWTLRXEDIATZ-LRVw-J OW ®l [PLI O EftOCBDQRji tBOD QUADRAT TRA DI (vegetation Data) Date: Field Investsqator(s) : State: County: L,r Project/Site: Applicant/owner:_ Transe t J _ Plot 1 J[ote: If a more detailed descript on is necessary, use the back of the data ' form or a field notebook. 14IN]►liT PLANT EpECIEa l�:t�:t�*�►*a*����•t:4�s�#* DO jAdi� gLdiu. Herbs (BrYophY S2 PL 1. _ Z 2. 3. • ��L7A 4. _.. U��(LC JiZ 5. �a iA - -- 6• _ 6. ILIj-.t lL CPL^� Z CAL 7. 7 P�2GJ�/�2'3 Q:'S2� Z _�� S. S. -- 9. 9. _ 10. • 10. - 11. 21. 12. ' 22. 13. 23. �bl3t rees 1T. 1. 2. 2• 3. 3• - - 4. S • 5. S. _ 6. 6. 7. I 7. - S. S. 9. 9. 10. ' 10. -- 11. 11 . 12. 12 . 13. ' 13. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes _ No To the hydric soils criterion met? Yes No- is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No Ts the vegetation unit or plot Wetland? YesL No 33 Rationale for jurisdictional decision: IN"TBRMBDIATZ-LZVZL ON8IT= DETERXINATIOM XZTHOD OR COMPRZHSNSIVZ ONBISR DETERMINATION MLTHOD - -. 48o11t sad Sydrolo") ' Field Invest igat z(s) :�tr,�_ ���na Date: 70 } 25 1 Project/Sita: gG State: ti County: Appl icant/Owner: Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method QI Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method ' wc.a 2ear s ` — 19 1 _ Vegeta-inn Unit /g ame Sample Within Veg. 'nit: Note: If a more detailed site description-Is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. BOILS Series/phase: �� �^�� �� a-\ Subgroup:= ' is the soil On. the hydr.r soils l.ct? Ycs No Undetermi::ed Is the soil a Hi_stosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Color: Other hydric soil\ Indicators: Comments! ,q1,1�� �!#!!!###aocga�a�rlsaa*aa*o!t**l�►asa�aww�.�}4ft!!•!!!!t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!t*!�!!*!t HYDROLOGY ' Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No.� Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No , Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: Nark other field indicators of surface inundation or soil saturation below: _OxidiZed :oct zones hater-stained leaves , _Water marks —Water-stained scoured areas _Drift lines wetland drainage patterns Water-borne sediment deposits Morphological plant adaptations Additional hydrologic indicators: Comments: ' This data form can be used for both the Vegetation Unit Sampling Procedure ' and the Quadrat Transect Sampling Procedure of the Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method, or the Quadrat Sampling Procedure of the Comprehensive Pnsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. , See classification according to "Soil Taxonomy." DATA I'OR1t ZRX - . INTIPAIDIA?Z- T V 8BC? TS DIT IXa IttOCBDt7R1c XATION :a00 ®��� (7 4 a otstion Data) • - 11 Date; Ct Field Investi ator(s) : ���� State: County: (.r Project/Site:rr �) Applicant/owner: plot 1 z - Transect ! - ry, he dzt- Note: If a more detailed descri� ptf n is necessa use the back o, t-.� a ' form or a field notebook. •*f�����*���:��***��►�*�r**�►�► IDOXINANT BLA2i'T aBECIEa �**t*,ttt�*�te�a���i��s***• iI134 Status 90 FAC 1. 15_.,� 2. 2. 3. 3. �\ _ 4. 4 . _ S. 'S• 6• -----_ 6. 7. 7. -- S. _ d. 9. l 9. 10. • 10. -- 11. 12 . - 12. 22 . 13. - 13 . 2 1Trees 1. 2. 2. 3. 3 • 4. 6 • _ 5. S. 6. 6. 7. 7 . S 9. _ 10.10. 11. 12 . 12. 12 . 13. 13 . Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACw and/or FAC Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes No Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes No� Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes __ Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes NoL Rationale for jurisdictional decision: INTERXEDIATS-LEVZL ONBITZ DITERMINATION METHOD OR Z CONPREHENBIVZ ONBISX DITERMINATIONXZTZ0V 48®11s amd 8ydrology) 1 , Field Investigat z e:(s) : e'er- - be'v�a ,� Dat 0 t Project/Site: 0���4. State: County: V, Appl icant/Owner: Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method Qt Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method ' C:t_ p i o t 0 7� �eget.ation Unit i/Name: Sample I W,hin Veg. unit: Note: If a more detailed site descr ption s necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. !tRl4l44li!!!!!liiilit44ii4l4!!!4!!!!!!i!4l44444!!!!!!t!i!4l9F4!!i4l4l4!!i!*! BOILS Series/phase: �� � �� a,\ Subgroup:= is Chae: so.11 On the hydr c soils 1 st? Yes NO Undetermined is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? - Yes No Matrix Color: _ Mottle Color: Other hydric so l Indicators: Comments:: 0 1.�� 0 1 0� � � �.. .. - _ »��A�'���!!!!i!!!!!!!!!!!!!!l414441i11i4tQlidlitS!!'�!:#Al414451t1Z4t•lls6•+__t HYDROLOGY ' Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No\-1/' Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in p Ft/soil probe hole: Mark other field indicators of surface inundation or soil saturation below: ,®Oxidized root zones Water-stained leaves Water marks _Surface scoured areas Drift lines Wetland drainage patterns `Water-borne sediment deposits _Morphological plant adaptations ' Additional hydrologic indicators: Comments: ' This data form can be used for both the Vegetation Unit Sampling Procedure and the Quadrat Transect Sampling Procedure of the Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method, or the Quadrat Sampling Procedure of the Comprehensive �neite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. ' See classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.• DATA FORK 09 I)i'!'LRXEDIATS- � 8EC? aA�tpLIltO ?I NATI QUADRAT TRQCEDQAA ��®f► (Vegetation Data) Date: Field Investi ator(s) . State: County: <-•r Project/S �r 1� Applicant/owner: Plot # 3 Transect # 1LS2 If a more detailed descript on is necessary, use the back of the data ' form•or a field notebook. •*����,*�•:�ili*�**�*��"s**s DOMI *RANT BLA,tT sPECIEi �il�*st*��l�*�t*��4•*�:4�• _ y d status . 3 1. �P� 9 - A % 2. 2. 01 �z •J.� ELc:cirtAe� • 6 - � �� 2 _ F� 4. ' �a�.S. ( �,�s S. � �tiithc �&o�� i/� i- CA, 6. 1(L ELp- ass ��L) 6. 7. 7. a. _ S. -- 9. - 9. 10. • 10. 11. 11. 12. 22. 13. 13. �hr�� 1Trees 1. 2. 2. 3. 3 • __ 4. S • 5. S. 6. 6• ' 7 . S. S. 9. 9. 10. ' 10. 11. 11 . _ 12. 12 . - 13. 13 . Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC �s Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes " No Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No ' Rationale for jurisdictional decisions 33 INTZRXEDIATS-LZVZL ONSITi DiT&RMINATION KZTHOD OR COMPRZ3ZN3IVZ ON5112 DETERMINATION METHOD 1 � Field Investigat z(s) : e�^ ��e�a Date: �© 251 Project/Site: ����o. 4 State:_ _� _County: Applicant/Owner: Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method 41 Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot # S_____ Vegetation Unit #/Name: Sample # Within Veg. Unit: Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. SOIL$ Series/phase: � �� a-\ Subgroup:= ' Is the soil on the hydr c soils 1 st? Yes No Undetermined `Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? - Yes N- Matrix Color: Mottle Color: Other hydric soil Indicators: Comments: 1.�, a--1 a�� o u ClcG r HYDROLOGY ' Is the ground surface inundated? Yes Noy Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: Mark other field indicators of surface inundation or soil saturation below: Oxidized root zones —Water-stained leaves , Water marks Surface scoured areas Drift lines Wetland drainage patterns _Water-borne sediment deposits _Morphological plant adaptations ' Additional hydrologic indicators: Comments: This data form can be used for both the Vegetation Unit Sampling ProcedureJ and the Quadrat TYansect Sampling Procedure of the Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method, or the Quadrat Sampling Procedure of the Comprehensive Pn s ite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. See classification according to "Soil Taxonomy." DATA toRK . I E QUADRAT TRA�2 SECT BAXPLING IROCEDQ"XATIOX =800 (Vegetation Data) ' - - = ator s �� �'` e�c Y`� Date: Field Invests State: County: L.r� Project/Site:�� �N ' Applicant/owners plot # Transect # Note: If a more detailed description is necessary, use the rick of the data form or a field notebook. ¢*��*,�•***i:t*•***s+**it4i DOKIN1►2iT p *LJW1° gpECIEs �*s***t•�et��*e*�:��:�*f�� DdiG. lndic status . Hprhs �grvophytesl tus savlincs 1• 9Kh_AL. PR4� 1G aCl Z - ' 2. •2 _MA, r. an �q YV1 R521(.�fLas� �� - FT nc� 3. 3. -T rN rV A, r yi,i� - ` �irir`L1J 6• 6. �yiJ�-�'�'t2 e�7NAP�(h�L�u^^ ' •7 • 8• - a. 9. - 9. 10. • 10. --- 11. 21. -- 12. 22. 13. 13. 2 2. 3. 3 . 8 � 4. S. 5. 6. 6. 7. 7 . ' _ 8. S . 9. 9. 10. 10. __ 11. 11 . - 12. 12 . 23 . 13. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC r� Is the hydrophytic criterion met? YeSL No ' Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes4 No , Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? YesL No- re the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes4 No 3 � ' Rationale for jurisdictional decision: INTERXZDIATE—LEVEL ONBITS DETLRXINATIOY XZTHOD OR 1 COMcR✓HENo. 08"V3112 DETERXINATION XXTHOD 18®11* and ndroiogy) ' Field Investi at xr o_�- '1� �^^� Date: �o� Project/Site: 1�0. 8c State: County: +� Appl scant/Owner: Intermediate-level Onsite Determinat on Method QZ Comprehensive onsite Determination Method ' Transect _ Plot Vegetation Unit J/Name: Sample # Within Veg. Unit: �1ote: If a more detailed site description s necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. *a�t��e�a�*,r*�rtt*���*�e�*:**��a:*,tos¢t�a����f�i!**4t,������+t�►s���t*a��*��tt**: SOILS Series/phase: �� -�G-�iti�� 0.� Subgroup:: Is the soil on the hydr c soils "Tat'. Yes No Undeterminad Is the soil a Histosol? Yes uo Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? - Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Color: Other hydric soil Indicators: Comments: r 1tlr**Al1R*�l�tfl�ilstsl4���k8t�����A��::4as4�1*l•i!!1*!ltl�ttt44f!*#ttf��f!*A�!!!*ff!*' RiDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No� Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes_ No Depth to free-standing water -in p t/soil probe hole: Mark other field indicators of surface inundation or soil saturation below: _Oxidized root zones Water-stained leaves Water marks _Surface scoured areas Drift lines Wetland drainage patterns _Water-borne sediment deposits _Morphological plant adaptations ' Additional hydrologic indicators: Comments: This data form can be used for both the Vegetation Unit Sampling Procedure and the Quadrat Transect Sampling Procedure of the Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method, or the Quadrat Sampling Procedure of the Comprehensive fnsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. See classification according to "Soil Taxonomy." DATA tOR]l ' IjiTER?QUADRAT TRAH� 8EC? BAMPLING IROCIDURIk NATIOX t1100 (Vegetation Data) • - • 1�.� a /Ip- Field Oate.Invests ator(s) : �}��r State: County:,L•r� Project/Site- r ' Applicant/Owner: plot # Transect use the back of the data : If a more detailed descript on is necessary, Note: or a field notebook. e�f�•i*�*��,►:i,►�����***lt�i*s III*K1►2i'r PLUM ®PECIEd i��r***:*��►**��**����*�::*• DO Indic, 3Skt&tm lanlinvs 1. S 2. ' 2. o 3. 3. 4. 4• S. t 5• 6. 6. 7. 7. S. _ ' 8. 9. 9. - 10. ° 10. 11. 11. 12. ' 12. 13. 13. Trees 1• 2. 2• 3. 3. 4. - 4 • 5. S. 6. 6. 7. 7• S. 8. 9. 9. 10. 10. 11. 11 . 12. 12 . 13. ' 13. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, F1�CW and/or FJ�C Is the bydrop y h tic criterion met? Yes No Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes Nox , Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No ' Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes_ No�L 13 Rationale for jurisdictional decision: V^♦^ a v^^ INTERKEDIATS-LEVZL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR J COHPREHENSIVZ ONSI18 DETERXINATION METHOD ' . . .. t8oiie inn �tyarolo4l) 1 Field Investi,q t (s) : ��'�� Date: 10 1 q ' project/Site: Or7'(K State: ti County: Applicant/Owner: Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method Qr Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method ' T-an,f-L a;-� Plot $ S' Vegetation Unit I/Name: Sample # Within Veg. Unit: Note: If a more detailed site descr ption s necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. !!!!!!!l144444l444lA!!!!!!l444l4!!44$!!!4!!!!!!!ll4f414!!!4l144444/444444144 SOILS Series/phase: �� ^�� �� a-\ Subgroup:: Ie the soil on the hydr c soils list? Yea No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No ' Is the Soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Color: Other hydric soil Indicators: ' Coen? _ �.�� o�ar !*!!!!4!4!!l444l444#4!4!!44l4!!!4!4!!!!!!!!4!!!!!!!4!!!!!!!!!!!44!!44!!#4!## HYDROLOGY ' Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: ' Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: ?Sark other field indicators of surface inundation or soil saturation below: _Oxidized root zones —Water-stained leaves _Water marks Surface scoured areas Drift lines Wetland drainage patterns Water-borne sediment deposits _Morphological plant adaptations Additional hydrologic indicators: Comments: ' This data form can be used for both the Vegetation Unit Sampling Procedure ' and the Quadrat Transect Sampling Procedure of the Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method, or the Quadrat Sampling Procedure of the Comprehensive ' Pnsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. See classification according to "Soil Taxonomy." 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1