HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Otak Secondary Review Report_171213_v1Technical Memorandum
11241Willows Road NE
Suite 200
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone (425) 822-4446
Fax (425) 827-9577
At the request of the City of Renton (City), Otak, Inc. (Otak) conducted a review of the Revised
Critical Areas Study – “Cedars at the Highlands”, dated October 3, 2017, prepared by Sewall
Wetland Consulting, Inc., for the proposed 14-lot preliminary plat on parcel #1457500110. The
project site is located east of 160th Avenue SE in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. The
City requested that Otak review the delineation and classification of wetlands, streams, and buffers
as described in the report to evaluate compliance with the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC)
Chapter 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations).
Otak completed a site visit and critical areas review of the property on November 20, 2017. Weather
was overcast and raining, and the stream delineated in the northeast corner of the property was
flowing. Large areas of standing water were observed in the northwest corner of the property, and
water from a roadside ditch on the east side of 160th Avenue SE was observed flowing into an
underground pipe system that is aligned through the center of the property and discharges in the
southeast corner of the property.
Documents Reviewed
The following materials were submitted by the project proponent and reviewed by Otak:
Revised Critical Areas Study – “Cedars at the Highlands” Parcel #45750-0106, prepared by
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (Dated October 3, 2017).
Tentative Short Plat of Mindy’s Place, Conceptual Site Plan, by Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc.
(DMP, Inc.) (dated November 8, 2012).
Cedars at the Highlands Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plat Plan 14120 160th Avenue SE,
Renton, Washington 98059, prepared by D.R. Strong (DRS) Consulting Engineers (dated
March 17, 2017).
To: Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner
City of Renton
From: Jeff Gray, MS, PWS
Stephanie Modjeski, Wetland Biologist
Copies:
Date: December 6, 2017
Subject: Cedars at the Highlands Critical Areas Review
Project No.: 32847.B
Page 2
December 6, 2017
2
The following resources were also reviewed on November 16, 2017 as part of the background
research on the property prior to the site investigation:
City of Renton (COR) Maps
(http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps)
Google Earth Pro
King County iMap (http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/)
United States Department of Agriculture-National Resource Conservation Service (USDA-
NRCS) Web Soil Survey (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife –National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
(https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML)
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)- Washington LIDAR Portal
(http://lidarportal.dnr.wa.gov/#47.45403:-122.21724:17)
DNR – Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool
(https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/fpamt/default.aspx)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) – SalmonScape
(http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html)
WDFW – Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web
(http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/)
Findings
The critical areas report from Sewall describes one wetland that was delineated off-site, identified in
the report as Wetland A. Wetland A was classified as depressional, rated as a Category IV using the
2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, and determined to have a 50-foot buffer width with
a 15-foot structure setback based on habitat score and land use intensity (RMC 4-3-50(G)2). The
critical areas report found no wetlands on the subject property.
The report describes one intermittent stream in the north east corner of the subject property that
emanates from the Mindy’s Place property to the north. The report classifies the stream as a type Ns
per RMC 4-3-50(G)7 and was determined to have a 50 foot buffer with a 15 foot structure setback
(RMC 4-3-50(G)2). A drainage ditch was identified on the central west portion of the subject
property. The critical areas report found no other streams on the subject property.
The findings of our report review and site investigation are as follows:
1. Wetland A was found to be a contiguous wetland from the Mindy’s Place property into the north
east corner of parcel #1457500110. Flags S5 to S8 shown on the Preliminary Plant Plan dated
March 17, 2017 accurately depict the western boundary of Wetland A on the property. Wetland A
is in a linear depression that slopes southeast. The non-fish seasonal stream (Type Ns) flows
Page 3
December 6, 2017
3
within the boundary of Wetland A as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan for Mandy’s Place dated
November 8, 2012. We concur with the Type Ns classification of the stream and 50-foot buffer
width as the stream eventually flows into a piped system under SE 144th St. south of the project
site. However, the S5 to S8 flags should be revised to depict a wetland boundary rather than a
stream boundary. A wetland determination data sheet (#1) is included with this memo that
documents the wetland fringe along the seasonal flow path. In addition, flags S1 to S5 that are
offsite should be shown to document wetlands within 200 feet of the property boundary and
identify buffers on site from the offsite wetland area per RMC 4-30-050(F)2e.
Photo 1. View of Wetland A near the eastern property boundary. The blue flag delineates a stream boundary per the
report and site plan, but this area should be revised to wetland habitat with the Type Ns flowing within the wetland
boundary. Wetland habitat is shown to the right of the blue flag in the photograph.
Action by applicant: Wetland A should be shown on the site plan. The Type Ns stream should be shown
within the boundary of Wetland A and characterized in the report.
2. Wetland A was rated as Category IV and a habitat score of 4. We concur with the depressional
classification of the rating due to the presence of both depressional and riverine
hydrogeomorphic classes present in the wetland unit, with the depressional classified areas
occupying more than 10% of the wetland rating unit. However, the wetland should be rated as
Category III based on wetland rating points.
Question D2.4 should be revised to 1 point due to the presence of abandoned cars, trucks, and
construction vehicles parked at the top of slope immediately adjacent to the wetland unit on the
Page 4
December 6, 2017
4
property. Abandoned vehicles are common sources of pollutants. Section D2 should be revised
to a high rating. Question D3.2 should be revised to 1 point because the site is located within the
12th digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 171100120107 (Madsen Creek-Cedar River) sub-basin of
Cedar River, which is listed as a 303(d) waterbody. Per the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology), the 12th digit HUC is the basin boundary for determining if the wetland is in a basin or
sub-basin where water quality is an issue. The overall score for water quality functions should be
revised to 6.
Question H3.0 should be revised to 2 points due to the presence of priority logs within 100
meters of the wetland boundary that have sufficient decay characteristics to enable use by wildlife.
The overall habitat score should be revised to 5.
Action by the applicant: The wetland rating form and wetland category should be revised accordingly. Revise
the scores for Question D2.4 from 0 to 1, Question D3.2 from 0 to 1, and the score for H3.0 from 1 to 2 points.
The score for overall habitat functions should be revised from 4 to 5 points.
3. Because Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 5, the wetland buffer width
should be revised to 100 feet for any land use other than low impact in accordance with RMC
Chapter 4-3-050(G)2 (Critical Area Buffers and Structure Setbacks from Buffers).
Action by the applicant: Revise the Wetland A buffer width to 100 feet in the report and on the site plan,
including any buffers that extend on site from the portion of Wetland A that is off site
4. Large areas of ponded water, approximately 6 inches deep, were observed on the northwestern
portion of the site (Photo 2). Indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology were
observed. Vegetation in ponded and saturated areas included black cottonwood (Populus
balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) trees, and abundant black cottonwood saplings approximately 6-12
inches tall. Herbaceous species included bluegrass (Poa sp.), reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea), soft rush (Juncus effusus), slender rush (Juncus tenuis), and creeping buttercup
(Ranunculus repens). A depleted soil matrix was observed. A wetland determination data sheet (#2)
is provided with this memo. These ponded areas were observed flowing into a culvert inlet
situated within the center of the property (see comment #5 and Photo 4). The source of water
appeared to be precipitation and runoff from adjacent uplands, and independent of the roadside
drainage described in comment #5 below.
Page 5
December 6, 2017
5
Photo 2. Significant ponding was observed in the northwest portion of the property with depths greater 6 inche s. A
sample plot in the ponded areas met all three wetland indicators (hydrology, hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation) to
meet the definition of a wetland per the federal wetland delineation manual and regional supplement. The photo
was taken near the west side of the shop looking west towards 160th Avenue SE.
Action by the applicant: The northwest portion of the project area should be re-evaluated for the presence of
jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with the Corps delineation methodology. Additional sampling should be
completed with corresponding wetland determination data sheets to document the findings and characterization of
this area.
5. Surface water in the drainage ditch along the east side of 160th Avenue SE was observed
discharging onto the west side of the property. A significant amount of water was observed in
this drainage during the site visit. Surface water flows into a PVC pipe (Photo 3) and daylights
for ten linear feet near a clump of trees at the southwest corner of the shop (Photo 4) before
flowing underground again into a concrete culvert that parallels the south side of the shop. The
drainage daylights again at the southeast corner of the shop before flowing into a second
concrete culvert underneath the gravel driveway, and discharges on the south side of the
driveway into a surface flow path (Photo 5) through a black cottonwood dominated forest with a
dense Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) understory. The drainage flows south and then
runs along the southern property line before flowing into a plastic pipe that discharges to a ditch
within the right of way that borders the east side of the project property. The ditch confluences
with the Type Ns watercourse that flows through the northeast corner of the property, and the
combined flows discharge into a constructed stormwater pond adjacent to the north side of SE
144th Street.
Page 6
December 6, 2017
6
Photo 3. View east from 160th Avenue SE of the drainage ditch that discharges on the property and flows into a pipe.
Photo 4. View of the drainage from Photo 3 that daylights near the SW corner of the shop, and collects surface water
from the ponded areas shown in Photo 2 before flowing into a concrete culvert.
Page 7
December 6, 2017
7
Photo 5. View of the drainage at the outlet of the concrete culvert downstream of the gravel driveway that flows
through a forest setting before flowing into another pipe situated along the southern property boundary.
The watercourse that flows through the center of the property from 160th Avenue SE is
identified at as a stormwater ditch (Facility ID #450594) per the City of Renton COR Maps.
This watercourse is not mapped by WDNR’s Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool,
WDFW’s PHS On the Web Maps or SalmonScape, King County iMap, or the NWI map. The
majority of the surface water appears to emanate from stormwater facilities north along 160th
Avenue SE that collect water from the East Renton Highlands area as observed in the field and
shown on the drainage systems on the City of Renton’s COR Maps.
This feature is identified in the critical areas report as an unregulated drainage ditch. Per RMC
Chapter 4-3-050(G)7.b, waters that are considered “intentionally created” not regulated under
this section include irrigation ditches, grass-line swales, and canals that do not meet the criteria
for Type S, F, Np, or Ns. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated through documentation,
photographs, statements, or other persuasive evidence. No description or documentation
regarding the purposeful creation of this watercourse was provided in the report. However, we
concur that this watercourse should not be regulated per RMC 4-3-050 as the regional drainage
system appears to have been designed to discharge on to parcel #1457500110 on purpose as
evidenced by recent street and residential developments that have maintained this artificial
drainage system and pathway through the property over time.
Page 8
December 6, 2017
8
Action by the applicant: Provide a watercourse characterization and/ or documentation regarding the
purposeful creation of this watercourse to substantiate claims that it is unregulated per RMC Chapter 4-3-050.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15' belt) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. - Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' belt)
1. Rubus spectabilis 80 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus armeniacus 10 no FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = 45, 20% = 18 90 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' diam) UPL species x5 =
1. Athyrium felix-femina 10 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Tiarella cordifolia 5 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 7.5, 20% = 3 15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: --)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present; passes Dominance Test. Bare ground covered in leaf fall.
Project Site: Cedars at the Highlands City/County: Renton/King County Sampling Date: 11/20/2017
Applicant/Owner: City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: 1
Investigator(s): Jeff Gray, Stephanie Modjeski Section, Township, Range: S14, T23N, R05E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toe of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.476428 Long: -122.1264661 Datum: --
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
All three wetland indicators present. Data point located in wetland fringe adjacent to seasonal stream flowpath.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-14 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Loam Redox starting at 8"
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type: --
Depth (inches): --
Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F6 present. Soils turned to muck at 10".
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4"
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0"
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology present; soils saturated to surface; high water table at 4". Seasonal stream flowing adajcent to data point location.
Project Site: Cedars at the Highlands
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' diam.) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarpa 35 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4.
50% = 17.5, 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' diam.)
1. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 10 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = 5, 20% = 2 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' diam) UPL species x5 =
1. Poa sp. 25 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Phalaris arundinacea 5 no FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Ranunculus repens 15 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. Juncus effusus 5 no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 25, 20% = 10 50 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: --)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present; passes Dominance Test. Bare ground result of leaf fall and ponded water.
Project Site: Cedars at the Highlands City/County: Renton/King County Sampling Date: 11/20/2017
Applicant/Owner: City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: 2
Investigator(s): Jeff Gray, Stephanie Modjeski Section, Township, Range: S14, T23N, R05E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toe of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.476229 Long: -122.1264357 Datum: --
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
All three wetland indicators present. Data point located in ponded depressional areas west of shop.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-10 10YR 4/2 89 10YR 4/1 5 D M loam saturated
10YR 4/6 3 C M
10YR 3/3 3
10-16 10YR 2/1 100 loam dry
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type: --
Depth (inches): --
Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 present. Soils saturated above 10 inches depth.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4"
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 0"
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators present. Area had ponded water during the site investigation. Soils were dry at 10" depth, which
indicates a compacted subsurface that is causing water to pond long enough to cause hydric soil indicators to develop. Ponded water was greater than 6
depth in places and was flowing into a seasonal draiage that runs throigh the center of the property.
Project Site: Cedars at the Highlands