HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272171(22) ' WETLAND DETERMINATION
' ON THE
' ORILLIA BLOCK 8, LOTS 11 2, AND 3 SITE
(Renton #8W Parcel)
C �Uc Renton, Washington
Prepared For
' GLACIER PARK COMPANY
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700
' Seattle, Washington 98104
GPCX0005
' Prepared By
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue, Washington 98005
November 16, 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, 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, Lots 1, 2, and 3
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 15.15-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. Most of the site
was legally filled about ten 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 five wetlands located on-site. Total area of
wetlands identified within the boundaries of the site is 6.48 acres. The wetlands range from 0.12
to 3.26 acres in size. Three of the identified wetlands would be classified according to the US Fish
and Wildlife Service system as palustrine, emergent marsh wetlands. The southernmost wetlands
' are forested wetlands with cottonwoods, willows and other with shrubs, and thus would be
classified as palustrine,forested wetlands.
' Federal, state, and local agencies regulate activities in wetlands. This reporty can be used b these
agencies to determine permit requirements associated with development plans. Preliminary plat
design for Orillia Block 8, Lot 1, 2, and 3 Site has been completed, and potential wetland impacts
are identified in this report.
' iii
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
REPORTPREFACE.....................................................................................................ii
EXECUTIVESUMMARY..........................................................................................iii
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................I
' PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................I
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................I
PreliminaryResearch......................................................................................... 3
Site-Specific Investigation .....................................................................................3
WetlandDetermination .........................................................................................4
Functional Value Assessment ...............................................................................4
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS...................................................................................6
Vegetation..............................................................................................................6
Soils ......................................................................................................................8
Hydrology .............................................................................................................8
WetlandDetermination..........................................................................................8
Functional Value Assessment...............................................................................9
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS........................................................................10
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................13
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................15
A. Plant Indicator Status Definitions............................................................16
B. Plants Occurring on the Subject Property................................................17
' C. Field Data Sheets.....................................................................................18
List of Figures
1. Vicinity Map..............................................................................................2
2. Wetland and Data Plot Location Map........................................................7
' 3. Preliminary Impact Map..........................................................................12
' List of Tables
1. Triple Parameter Summary and Wetland Determination...........................8
' INTRODUCTION
On behalf of Glacier Park, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) conducted a wetland
investigation of the Orillia Block 8, Lot 1, 2, and 3 Site. Lots 1, 2, and 3 are located west
' of Springbrook Creek, south of Southwest 34th Street, east of Oakesdale Avenue S.W., and
northwest of Southwest 39th Street in Renton, Washington (Figure 1).
' The 15.15-acre site is surrounded by undeveloped industrially-zoned lands. The site consists
of revegetated fill material placed approximately twenty 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 property, 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
4
S.W.215t 5t.
Lenaacre
Race
Track
S.W.23rd 5t.
S.W.27th 5t.
167
5.W.29th 5t. 51TE
' S.W.30th
3.
m
W.33r
U
Q
34th St
s �
0 3 �
c 3
f
a
5.W.39th 5t.
m
c
o
STT Mon
vue
�\ nton
l * ,
t
� b
16"" urn
\ _ Site Location
JI
I
INSET MAP
vicinity Map
�C(s:D)n Renton: No& 8, Lots 3,2,3
' 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:
• 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 50170 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
rAppendix 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).
' 3
r
i
Soils
r
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
rindicators 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.
r
Hydrology
Observations of wetland hydrology were noted on data sheets, and included visual 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.
rFunctional 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
rinvestigators (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.
r
r4
1
1
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
processes of sediment and toxicant retention, ion exchange, 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 Storace 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 function. Wetland 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).
' 5
Groundwater Exchange
' Groundwater exchange includes 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
drainage,and the hydrologic regime.
Natural Biological Support
Attributes of this function are wildlife habitat, food chain � e production, and the potential for
P
' environmental studies, sanctuaries, and refuges. General habitat criteria used to assess the
biological value are structural diversity of communities and species, diversity of adjacent upland
areas, and the presence of biological support for game,commercial, or unique species.
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
DEA biologists located six data plots on the site (Figure 2). Data was collected in September and
October 1991.
Vegetation
The National Wetland Inventory (1989) does not identify any wetlands on the subject property.
The on-site vegetation consists of an upland association and two wetland associations. The upland
association consists of an upland grass community dominated by bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis) and
hairgrass (Airu curvoph`•Ilea) The wetland associations include herbaceous and forested
communities. The herbaceous community includes a water foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus)-
dominated community. This often contains varying amounts of soft rush (Juncus effusus),
creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), or purslane speedwell (Veronica peregrina). The
forested wetland community occurs in the south-central portion of the site, and consists of black
cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), Pacific and Scouler willow (Salix lasiundru and Salix
SCOUleriana, respectively) over sparse grasses and forbs.
6
' FE�;DUT
D �
Lot 3
' 4 Wetland Area
c 1.46
P 0.07'
E 1.57
0.12
F-G .57
H 3.26
Total 5ite Area 15.15 acres
Lot 2 Tot,*[Wetlanci 6.48acree
' Lot 1
6 Data Plat O
paluetrine,emergent marsh
Paluotrine,forcotea
' W' s-U 'd d D&°t& Plat ykl&T,o
�� male 1"- 200' Ran ton. :Bluth 0, Lots 1.2 & 's
' GPC(0005
' Soils
As discussed previously, 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). The large areas in the south-central portions of the
property also show clear evidence of inundation during the wet season.
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.
1 Table 1.
Triple Parameter Summary and Wetland Determination
Plot Soil* Hydrology Vegetation Determination
1 hydric assumed hydrophytic wetland
' 2 hydric assumed hydrophytic wetland
3 hydric assumed hydrophytic wetland
' 4 hydric assumed hydrophytic wetland
5 non-hydric absent hydrophytic upland
6 hydric assumed hydrophytic wetland
* soils were considered hydric if evidence of ponding was observed
8
' Based on a dominance of hydrophytes, supporting, hydric soils data, and evidence of positive
wetland hydrology, five wetlands were identified on the subject property (Figure 2). The wetlands
range from 0.12 to 3.26 acres in size. Three 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 wetlands.
' 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,
tand 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 wetlands 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 quality protection. They may be
sequestering pollutants from adjacent sites, however due to the lack of drainage to off-site areas,
any pollutants that may be discharged to the site may remain on-site.
Floodflow Alteration
' The subject wetlands low value for floodflow alteration. They are very small wetlands (ranging
from 0.12 to 3.26 acres). Wetlands F-G, and H, due to the forested component and overall size do
' provide moderate water stormwater retention functions The wetlands, taken together may assist in
some floodflow stabilization due to the nature of their location in an old floodplain area, now
' largely being used for industrial purposes.
9
1
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 their size and multi-layer components. Wetlands F-G and H.
' 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 require 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 Agency (Federal Register, 1980)
jointly define wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater
at a freguencY and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation trpicall-v 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.
' 10
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.
For filling wetland habitat, the City of Renton will most likely require mitigation as a condition for
SEPA approval.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The preliminary development proposal will result in unavoidable impacts from road and building
' construction in wetlands (Figure 3). Up to 0.99 acres of wetland will be filled. 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.
' 11
' REFERENCES
Adamus, Paul R. and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Volumes I
and II, Report Number FHWA-1 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). 1988. 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."
Greig-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 Northwest
' (Region 9). Biological Report 88(26.9). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater
Ecology Section. St. Petersburg, Florida. (pp. 861.
Reppert, Richard T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values
- Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, US Army
Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, 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. 1994. 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 Wetlands
Inventory. Renton Quadrangle.
United States Geological Survey, 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
a
' Appendix A.
Plant Indicator Status Definitions
--TIndicator
Indicator cateQo S �mbol Definition
OBLIGATE OBL Plants that occur almost always (estimated
WETLAND PLANTS probability >99%) in wetlands under natural
conditions, but which may also occur rarely
(estimated probability<I%) in non-wetlands.
FACULTATIVE FACW Plants that occur usually (estimated probability
WETLAND PLANTS 67% to 99%) in wetlands, but also occur
(estimated probability 1% to 33%) in non-
wetlands.
FACULTATIVE FAC Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated
PLANTS probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in both
wetlands and non-wetlands
' FACULTATIVE FACU Plants that occur sometimes (estimated
UPLAND PLANTS probability 1% 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 probability of occurrence in
wetlands
16
Appendix B.
Plant species encountered during site-specific investigations
Wetland
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status
' Shrubs
Crtisus scoparius Scot's broom UPL
Populus balsamifera black cottonwood FAC
Rubus discolor Himalyan blackberry FACU
Sahr hookeriana Hooker willow FAC
Sahr lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+
Spiraea douglasii Douglas' spirea FACW
Herbs
Agropyron repens quackgrass FACU
Agrostis stolonifera creeping bentgrass FAC
Agrostis tenuis bentgrass FAC*
Aira caryophvllea hairgrass UPL
Aira praecox silver hairgrass UPL
Alopecurus geniculatus water foxtail FACW
Bromus mollis bromegrass UPL
' Cirsium arvense Canada thistle FACU+
Dactylis 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 UPL
Holcus lanatus common velvetgrass FAC
Hypochoeris radicata hairy cat's ear UPL
Juncus acuminatus taper-tip rush OBL
' Juncus bufonius toad rush FACW
Juncus effusus soft rush FACW
Leontodon nudieaule hawkbit UPL
Madia glomerata mountain tarweed FACU
Parentucellia viscosa yellow parentucellia FACU
Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass FACW
Plantago lanceolata English plantain FACU+
Plantago major common plantain FAC+
Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass FACU
Rumex crispus curly dock FACW
Scirpus acutus hardstem bulrush OBL
Spergularia sp. spurrey
Spiranthes romanzoffiana ladies'tresses OBL
Trifolium repens white clover FACU
Typha latifolia common cattail OBL
Veronica peregrina purslane speedwell OBL
' * note: personal communication with Fred Weinmann indicates that A. tenuis is now considered
FAC
17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 18
DATA FORli
' INTLR"DIATS-LE9,r!, ONSITS DETERMIIITI0N XMIOD QUADRAT TRAHBECT SAMPLIIIO PROCEDURk
(v*90tation Data)
Field Invest sq ator(s) : ���� E�ic ti�C� Date:
Project/Site. -WA""A State: County:
Applicant/Owner:
Transect # Plot #
Note: If a more detailed description is necessary, use the back of the data
form or a field notebook.
•**,r:i*�*::�:i*:t**tit*,►t*s*:��ls::t:**:ti*:�,►*�*��i:�tft**�►�� t�+*�**o*.:�.�
DOXINANT PLANT SPECIEB
Indic. Indic.
Herbs (Bryophytesl Status Saplings Status
' 2. 2.
3• FA,,J 3.
4 . -r c 42-A CAS-') 4.
5. ILAJ1 r C 4uaZ_ t L CA, _ S.
6. k"AA 6.
7. 7.
S. 8.
9. 9.
10. 10.
11. 11.
' 12 . 12.
13 . 13.
Shrubs Trees
11
2. 2
3 . 3.
4 . 4.
S. S.
6. 6.
7. 7.
8 . 8.
9. 9.
10. 10.
12 . 11.
12 . 12.
23 . 13.
1
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW and/or FAC
' Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes"y No
Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes No
ra the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes , No
Ie the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional decisions
DATA IORX'
INTERXZ DIATZ—LEVEL ONSITE DETERNINATIOM METHOD OR
COXPREHENSIVZ ON8118 DETERXINATION XETHOD ,
(boils and Hydrology)
Field Investigators) • 1eY� �. R Date. l� 3
Project/Site: !t�UJ State: County:
Applicant/Owner:
Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method QX
Comprehensive Onsite Qetermination Method
Transect Plot # ) _
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.
•�*ter•�s�t�•ita**s*•a�*t*ttt*t*tt�tt�tt�t•t4�*��*�i��t'*f#,t**t::�t*i��t*t�trti
SOILS
Series/phase: ��� �-��* �� o,\ Subgroup:t _
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes 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: '
Comments: 1.\` a�� _; P yr E
*ef:sa***�*a�r���r *������mr�,�����,:���*���aa�¢�*�t�►f*:t:��►��,►**:�*:*tit***riot
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 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."
DATA t0R]l
IYTER?�ED1ATE-LRV,t& ONSITs DET 0 I DORM ON a00
1 QOADRAT TRANDICT SAX7LIN
(Vegetation Data)
�� ,�d
Date:
Field Investi ator(s) : ��� 2 , State: County: �•r
Project/Site:'— �N
Applicant/owner:
Transect i Plot i use the back of the data
i�t: If a more detailed descript on is necessary,
form or a field notebook.
*�t***,►**♦♦�••i**** �**•s�►its MINJ►lIT p,IJ►x'T BPECIEB �i�*�►*t*f�*�**t•s••*•�•**.
DO
Indic,
NPr�$ ( r1/Ql�hvt�sl �t�tU$ 5"ay- inns
1• �:� 2
2. �-'JM r 3
4• itino t O�{)LvJ12C Z AL 4.
.
6
7.
7. 8. _
S. = 9.
9. lo. •
10. ll.
11. 12.
12. 13.
13.
� frees}
1. 2.
2. 3.
3 • 4. —
4 • S.
S. 6.
7 . S .
S . 9.
9• — i .
10. 11l.
11 . 12 .
12 . 13 .
13 . —
' Percent of dominant species that are ODL, 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, No
' Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No__,_
Rationale for jurisdictional decisions 3
IxJZR?tXD1ATE-LZVZ10 0148I `s DZURMINATION "IbUD OR
COMFR 11ENSIVI ON$I18 DITtRMINATION METHOD
., teoiis and Sydrology)
Field Investsq at �,(s) :��"- eb2�n(� Date: �O 21 1
Project/Site: O•���0. �w state: ti County:
Appl icant/Owner:
Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method QZ
Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method
Tray sect Plot ! 2-
Vegetation Unit 1/Name: Sample # Within Vey. Unit:
Note : If a more detailed site description Ts necessary, use the back of
data form or a field notebook.
!flA�#4ltttttitttttilAlii!!#lA44tiitttilitt!#ttitttttit!#ittl4ttftitttttttt
$OILS
Series/phase: �� �hydr�cloil,
o,� Subgroup::
Is the soil on the Hst? Yes No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil : Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No A
Matrix Color: Mottle Color:
Other hydric soil Indicators:
Comments:
r
*A!A !k#iltitlAlttttttlA itt##At4ti!!4ltitttltiAAf#ltttilifAtttlAAttttttttttt!!
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:
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:
i
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 FORK
I tR} " 11OD
QUADRAT TpBELT SAXPLING PWSDU"
(Vegetation Data)
`-
ti� e�ic r�Ct Date:
Field InvestiVator(s) : � State:
County: �•r
Project/Site:
Appl icant/Crmer:
Transect # Plot # on use the back of the data
If a more detailed des
cript is necessary,
form. or a field notebook.
DO X I NANT PLAYT SPECIES
an c.
2. _
2 . 3.
r-
n AL 4 •
4 .
6.
6. _ 7.
7 . _ S. -
9. --
9. _ 10. '
10. 11.
11. _ 12.
12. _ 13.
13 .
1. 2 .
s . 3.
3 . 4 .
S. 6.
6 . 7 .
7 . S .
8 . 9.
10.
10. 11.
11 . 12 .
12 . 13 .
j 23 .
Percent of dominant species that are 0 L, FAC'W and/or FAC _
Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes No
Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes � No
Is the wetland hydrology criterion net? Yes \� No
wetland? _
Is the vegetation unit or plot d? Ye No
1 Rational* for jurisdictional decisions
1N7ZRMEDIATE-LZVBL ONBITS DITLRXINATIOX XZT80D 01
COMPRERZNSIVZ 0N8Ii` DITS-RXINATION XITR0D
•. . .. t�oii� sad ty®sroiogT) ,
Field Invests qa� z(s) Date:
Project/Site: Or�,,& �� State: County:
Appl icant/Owner:
Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method Qs
Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method
Transect Plot 0 ?
Vegetation Unit #/Name: Sample j Within Veg. Unit:
Fly : If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of
data form or a field notebook.
!!4l114!l444444l4l44l44444l44l4l4444!l444444i444l4!!!44l444444!!!4!f!!!ltttt*
BOILS
Series/phase: �� r�G �� a,\ Subgroup:2 ,
Is the soil on the hydr c soils list? Yes No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil : Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No I
Matrix Color: Mottle Color:
Other hydric soil Indicators:
Comments: �1� NI
!!114444444l4l44tl4l4!lt44l4l4t4444!!l444444444444t!!!!!l444444444t!!44ltl44
RYDROLOGY\
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes Non
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 dater-stained leaves
Water marks —Surface scoured areas
Drift lines Wetland drainage patterns
Water-borne sediment deposits _Morphological plant adaptations
Additional hydrologic indicators:
i
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 TORN
IIITERXEDIAT1-L V.t& oKBITS DETERXINATION KE:a00 �I
- QtiADRAT TR"SBCT QAXPLING PROCIDORR
(vegetation Data)
Date:
be C�
Field Investi ator(s) : o�ti� `, County:
Project/Site:F� �� State:
Applicant/Owner:
Plot
Transect t use the back of the data
Z1Qte: It a more detailed descript on is necessary,
form or a field notebook.
•**+*+++t+++:*+++t++�+»++++DOXZ lttAHT P •I�71)i'1' sBECZEs •+*+*+++++++�+++���+*� *� �.
Indic.
Status
. haul__ina_s
Pal�s:a 3 rA 1.
, 2.
2 . �c .�;c� 3
� Cw
3. 4.
• Z �Cw- • +
8• 3 6.
• 7.
7 .
ra• _ 9. .
9. 10. •
10. - 11. ----
11. 12.
12. 23.
13 .
rees
fib � 1T
� .
1 . 2.
•
3•3 . 4.
f • 5.
S. _ 6.
6. 7.
7 . S .
a . - 9.
9• _-- 1 .
10. 11.
22 . _ 12 .
12 . - 13.
23 .
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 No
vegetation unit or plot wetland? Ye No_
?s the g � I
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
INTZJLKEDIATZ-LZVZL ONSITS DITZRXINATION ML"THOD OR y
COXPRI1LN&1V1E ON8118 DITRRXINATION KRTHOD 1
'• . .. tH®!i� scalld lt�drol�)
Field Investigat x(s) :� �MON:LDate:
Project/Site: State: ti County:
Appl scant/Owner:
Intermediate-level Onsite Determination Method Qt
Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method ,
Transect Plot #
Vegetation Unit #/Name: Sample # Within Veg. Unit.
j1Q &: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of
data form or a field notebook.
SOILS
Series/phase: �� �G �` 0.� Subgroup:2 '
Is the soil on the hydr c soils 1 stYes 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:
Comments: �. � �} ;
HYDROLOGY
\/
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No �C
Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes N
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
_Plater marks Surface scoured areas
Drift lines Wetland drainage patterns
Water-borne sediment deposits _Morphological plant adaptations ,
Additional hydrologic indicators:
r
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
Psite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used.
See classification according to- "Soil Taxonomy."
DATA tORX 5
' INTIRKIDIATZ
QUADRAT TRA?t� 8EC? SAxpLING PIROCE O :EOO
M
4
(Vegetation Data)
--�,� e- iK y,4 Date: 1J �r 1
Field Invests ator(s) : State: County:
pro ject/Site:��^ ��
' Applicant/owner:
Transect # Plot #
Note: If a more detailed descript on it necessary, use the back of the data
fora or a field notebook.
•*****•t�t•�ia**�*���*s�*��*�I�IIlI7►NT PLA1t'P sPECIEi
DO
Inds 9tat icus
EFL s 1Sacl i as
`� ,.1.1c. , 1
2.
2 �
A 3.
• LA
RL-
6. 7.
7 . S.
S. - 9. -
9• — 10. •
10. 11.
11. 12.
12. 13.
13.
Irees
1. 2.
' • .
3 • 4.
s • S.
S. 6.
6. 7.
7 • S.
8 • 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
Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes No'X 1, ,
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes Now
is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes_ NOL
Rationale for jurisdictional decisions
INTLRXIDIATZ-LZVZL ONBI_TA DATZRXIHATIOX XZTHOD OR
COXPRZIENIIFZ ONBISL DITZRXINATIOX MITHOD
Field Investsq at r(s) :�e`''� �^^� Date: �O Z 1
Project/Site: C�� �4� �W State: County: .�
Appl icant/Owner:
Inter-mediate-level Onsite Determinat on Method Qt
Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method
T ransect Plot # �_
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.
!t!! !!!!!Af!!f!A!!!1f!llfff!!l11ff!!lAft!!A!!!!lAff!lflftfA!lAffatfataaafara
80ILS
Series/phase: _vy-NG�'4N a\ Subgroup::
Is the soil on the hydr c soils list? Yes 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:
Comments: 1•� �� �Q�} v_r
as rf!!fA!!aflAaA!!flffaAlAAlfAf!!!a!!!!f!!*:!lfaaaAa!laf�
!etllfaAf!!lalaff! !A
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No �C
Surface Water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Depth to free-standing water-Tn p t/soil probe hole: ,
Nark other field indicators of surface inundation or soil saturation below:
_Oxidized root zones Water-stained leaves
Water marks Surface scoured areas
PDrift lines Wetland drainage patterns
Water-borne sediment deposits —Morphological plant adaptations '
Additional hydrologic indicators:
Comments: —
r
This data form can be used for both the Vegetation Unit Sampling Procedure
and the Quadrat TYansect 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 tORll TERXo
jWTgm3DIATE• '�eE N OIU�pLZlla ROCE ODt1 tEOD
' QDADRAT T
(vegetation Data)
Date: �J
Field InvestJKat (s) : State:
County: -r
project/S
Ipplicant/owner: plot
T ransect ! use the back of the data
PQte: If a more detailed descript on is necessary,
form or a field notebook.
••�t•s•f��*iia�•t*its****,r�*:**��*:t��i•t� apECIE• *�**�*t*�►�****�****:�.*� *�
DOMI)DINT PLANT
d u
2.
1� Sd! ►/C �
2. C 2E 'L 3.
3 . 4.
S. 6.
6. 7.
S. 9. -
9. 10.
10. 12.
' 11. 12.
12. 13.
13 .
1Trees
1. 2 .
� . 3.
' 3 . _ 4.
6.
6. 7.
7 . 8.
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
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_
Rationa10 for jurisdictional decision:
INTLR"DIATt-LEQZL ONBITS DITER?4INATIOX KETBOD off
COMPRZNZNBIV C ON911E DETERXINATION XXTROD
(Bolls and ndrolM) '
��'+- �11
Field Investigat z(s) :� 0 Date: �O
Project/Site: State: County:
Appl scant/Ovner:
Intermediate-level nsite Determination Method QZ
Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method
Transect Plot t
Vegetation Unit t/Name: Sample I Within Veg. Unit:_
note : If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of
data form or a field notebook.
BOILS
Series/phase: _ �G '�� o.\ Subgroup:: '
Is the soil on the hydr c soils list? Yes 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:
Comments:
r
HYDROLOGY
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 saturat on 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 Sapling Procedure '
and the Quadrat Transect Sampling Procedure of the Intermediate-level onsite
Determination Method, or the Quadrat Sampling Procedure of the Comprehensive
�nsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. '
Sea classification according to "Soil Taxonomy.*