No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Singh_Critical_Areas_Report_171122.pdfHABITAT TECHNOLOGIES wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife – mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 253-845-5119 contact@habitattechnologies.net CRITICAL AREAS REPORT PARCEL 0007200196 CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON prepared for Mr. Phil Kitzes @ PK Enterprises e-mail pkenterprises.mv@gmail.com prepared by HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES P.O. Box 1088 Puyallup, Washington 98371 253-845-5119 April 22, 2017 1 16232 INTRODUCTION The project site (Parcel 0007200196) was located at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Renton Avenue South and South 9th Street within the City of Renton, King County, Washington (Figure 1). The project site was located within a well urbanized area and had been greatly modified by prior and onsite land uses both onsite and within the adjacent vicinity. In particular, seasonal surface water from the well urbanized areas offsite to the east and northeast was collected within a public stormwater system and discharged at three species locations along the eastern boundary of the project site. These discharges had created defined channels for the movement of this seasonal stormwater from east to west across the project site. The onsite assessment and evaluation of critical areas (i.e. wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitats) within and immediately adjacent to the project site was completed following the methods and procedures defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010); the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Publication #14-06-029 (Hruby, 2014), the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-16-030); and City of Renton Chapter 4.3.050 - Critical Areas Regulations. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The project site was located within a well urbanized area within the northeastern portion of the City of Renton. The project site exhibited a moderate east to west slope. However, prior land use actions appeared to have also created a series of small topographically, somewhat flat areas as a result of prior grading and development actions. The project site was vacant, approximately 3.2-acres in total size, and dominated by a deciduous forest overstory often with a very dense understory of primarily invasive shrubs. The project site was bound on the north and east by existing single family homesites, on the south by a regional powerline corridor, and on the west by a presently vacant parcel. As noted above, the project site was crossed from east to west by well defined channels associated with the discharge of seasonal stormwater runoff along the eastern boundary of the project site. BACKGROUND INFORMATION NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 2). This mapping resource did not identify any wetlands or surface water drainages within the project site. This 2 16232 mapping resource did identify a surface water drainage offsite to the west of the southwestern corner of this project site. This surface water drainage continued generally to the southwest to eventually enter a tributary to Thunder Hills Creek, a tributary to Lake Washington. STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource did not identify any priority habitats or species within the project site (Figure 3). STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource did not identify any surface water drainages (streams) within the project site (Figure 4). This mapping did identify an unidentified tributary drainage offsite to the southwest of the southwestern corner of the project site that generally continued to the southwest to converge with another tributary drainage. This mapping also defined the culvert associated with I-405 as a completed blockage to the upstream movement of fish. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 5). This mapping resource did not identify any surface water drainages within the project site. As with the WDFW mapping above, a surface water drainage was identified offsite to the southwest of the southwestern corner of the project site. This tributary area was identified as a Type N Water (non-fish bearing). CITY OF RENTON MAPPING The City of Renton Critical Areas Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource identified a small wetland within the northeastern corner of the project site. Additional wetland areas were identified offsite to the south and west and a tributary to Thunder Hills Creek was identified offsite to the southwest (Figure 6). SOIL MAPPING INVENTORY The soil mapping inventory completed by the Soils Conservation Service (now Natural Resource Conservation Service) was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource identified the soil throughout the majority of the project site as Beausite gravelly sandy loam (BeC). The Beausite soil series is defined as well drained, formed in glacial deposits, and as not listed as “hydric.” 3 16232 WASHINGTON SATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM The Washington State Natural Heritage Program was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This resource did not to identify any high quality, undisturbed wetland or a wetland that supports state threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species within the Section/Township/Range of the project site. ONSITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFICATION For the purpose of the assessment the critical areas reviewed included potential wetlands, surface water drainage corridors (streams), and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined by the City of Renton which may be located within or immediately adjacent to the project site. This assessment did not include an assessment of potential steep slope, erosion potential, stormwater, or geotechnically hazardous critical areas. Wetlands: Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terms, wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands are generally defined within land use regulations as "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" (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 and United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: The assemblage of macrophytes that occurs in areas where inundation or soil saturation is either permanent or of suff icient frequency and duration to influence plan occurrence. Hydrophytic vegetation is present when the plant community is dominated by species that require or can tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during the growing season. 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper parts. Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repented periods of saturation or inundation. These processes result in distinctive characteristics that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods. 4 16232 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or surface soil saturation, at least seasonally. Wetland hydrology indicators are used in combination with indicators of hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation to define the area. Wetland hydrology indications provide evidence that the site has a continuing wetland hydrology regime. Where hydrology has not been alter ed vegetation and soils provide strong evidence that wetland hydrology is present. Surface Water Drainage – Streams: A stream is generally defined as a location where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is typically an area which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes, but not limited to, bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds, and defined channel swales. A stream need not contain water year-round. A stream typically does not include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water run-off devices, or other artificial watercourses unless the constructed watercourse conveys a stream which naturally occurred prior to the construction of such watercourse. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas: Fish and wildlife habitat areas are generally those areas essential for the preservation of critical habitats and species. These areas typically include: 1. Areas with Which State or Federally Designated Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Have a Primary Association. a. Federally designated endangered and threate ned species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that are in danger of extinction or threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be consulted for current listing status. b. State designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, that are in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. State designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are periodically recorded in WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and 232-12-011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The State Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the most current listing and should be consulted for current listing status. 2. State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species. Priority habitats and species are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse 5 16232 assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. Priority habitat and species are identified by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 3. State-Designated Priority Habitat or Critical Habitat for State-Designated Species. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife should be consulted for the current lists of priority habitats and species. 4. Habitats and Species of Local Importance. Habitats and species of local importance are those identified by the city, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, due to their population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. 5. Naturally Occurring Ponds under 20 Acres. Naturally occurrin g ponds are those ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish and wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities, unless such artificial ponds were intentionally created for mitigation. 6. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-031. 7. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity. 8. Land useful or essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces. STUDY METHODS Habitat Technologies completed a series of onsite assessments between January 2017 and March 2017. Specific characterization of the project site was completed on January 27, 2017. Habitat Technologies has also completed similar assessments for several parcels within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The objective of these assessments was to define and delineate potential critical areas (wetlands, drainage corridors, and critical habitats) that may be present within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Onsite activities were completed in accordance with criteria and procedures established in the 1987 Manual with 2010 Supplement, the Wetland Rating System (2014 version), the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-16-030), and the City of Renton Chapter 4.3.050 - Critical Areas Regulations (see Appendix A – field data). 6 16232  Plant Communities The project site had been modified by the prior development actions both onsite and offsite. The project site was dominated by a deciduous forest plant community and an often very dense understory composed primarily of invasive shrubs. The forest plant community was dominated by big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and included a scattering of red alder (Alnus rubra), cherry (Prunus spp.), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), hawthorne (Crataegus spp.), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). The shrub understory was dominated by dense thickets of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procera). Additional observed shrub and understory species included Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), vine maple (Acer circinatum), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius), snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), holly (Ilex spp.), willow (Salix spp.), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), laurel (Kalmia spp.), rose (Rosa spp.), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), ivy (Hedera spp.), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium). This plant community was identified as non- hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of non-wetlands). This plant community was also identified to extend offsite generally to the west.  Soil The soil throughout the project site was dominated by moderately well drained to well drained sandy loam that did not exhibit field indicators of hydric soils. The surface soil layer appeared to have been modified by prior land use actions and in particular the eastern and northeastern portions of the project site included a variety of imported soils and fill materials. The soil did not exhibit prominent redoximorphic features.  Hydrology As defined by onsite assessment the entire project site appeared to drain moderately well and did not exhibit field indicators of wetland hydrology patterns. The onsite assessments completed from January 2017 through March 2017 identified three (3) stormwater outlets along the eastern boundary of the project site. The northern most stormwater outlet was adjacent to the northeastern corner of the project site. Upon entry onto the project site the seasonal stormwater delivered by this stormwater system split around existing debris and form two (2) narrow channels. These narrow channels continued to the west and became very incised – often to a depth greater than four (4) feet and very vertical walls. These two narrow channels converged within the north- central portion of the project site and continued offsite to the west. The presence of this northern drainage appeared to be the result of the stormwater discharge rather than a previously established surface water drainage. Seasonal surface water was also identified to be discharged at the central portion of the eastern site boundary. This discharge was associated with a piped stormwater outlet 7 16232 that appeared part of the Renton Avenue South stormwater system. The amount of seasonal surface water discharged onto the project site at this stormwater outlet appeared limited. This seasonal surface water – when present during larger storm events – generally continued to the southwest within what appeared to be a shallow topographic swale. The presence of seasonal surface water onsite from this outlet appeared directly related to stormwater from the adjacent public roadway. The third seasonal stormwater discharge entering the project site was located near the southeastern corner. This discharge was identified as associated with a stormwater collection and conveyance system within the urbanized area to the east. Seasonal surface water from this third stormwater discharge entered the shallow topographic swale associated with the stormwater discharge from Renton Avenue South. As with the other two stormwater discharge points the presence of seasonal surface water onsite from this outlet appeared directly related to the stormwater system.  Offsite Observations As observed from the southern boundary of the project site the area offsite to the south was also dominated by a managed plant community associated with the requirements of the regional powerline corridor. As observed from the western boundary of the project site the area downslope to the west appeared similar to the onsite plant community. However, well offsite near the toe of the slope the plant community appeared dominated by species more typically associated with wetland features. This offsite area appeared approximately 300-plus feet offsite. In addition, the seasonal surface water runoff identified onsite appeared to eventually enter this offsite area.  Wildlife Observations Wildlife species identified (directly and indirectly) to use the habitats provided within and immediately adjacent to the project site, along with wildlife species previously identified or that would be expected based on habitat features, included violet green swallow (Tachycineta thallassina), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), dark eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), American crow (Corvus brachynchos), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American robin (Turdus migratorius), black capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), rock dove (Columbia livia), house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), shrew (Sorex spp.), stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla), and garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). The project site did not provide direct spawning habitats for amphibians and did not provide habitats for fish species. MOVEMENT CORRIDORS: The project site was generally bound by existing urban development. The areas associated with the offsite regional powerline corridor 8 16232 appeared to provide a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife species. The project site was within the seasonal migratory pathways for a variety of passerine birds. STATE PRIORITY SPECIES: A few species identified by the State of Washington as “Priority Species” were observed onsite or potentially may utilize the project site. Priority species require protective measures for their survival as a result of their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Game Species: “Game species” are regulated by the State of Washington through recreational hunting bag limits, harvest seasons, and harvest area restrictions. A single “game species” – black tailed deer - was identified to use the habitats provided generally offsite along the regional powerline corridor. State Monitored: State Monitored species are native to Washington but require habitat that has limited availability, are indicators of environmental quality, require further assessment, have unresolved taxonomy, may be competing with other species of concern, or have significant popular appeal. No State Monitored species were observed or have been documented to use the habitats provided by the project site. A few State Monitored species – great blue heron, green backed heron, osprey – may use the habitats associated with offsite areas generally associated with the Lake Washington shoreline. State Candidate: State Candidate species are presently under review by the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. No State Candidate species were observed or have been documented to use the habitats provided by the project site. A State Monitored species – pileated woodpecker – may use the habitats associated with offsite habitats to the west of the project site. State Sensitive: State Sensitive species are native to Washington, are vulnerable to decline, and are likely to become endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range without cooperative management or removal of threats. No State Sensitive species were observed or have been documented to use the habitats provided by the project site. A single State Sensitive species - bald eagle – has been documented to use the habitats associated with the Lake Washington Shoreline. State Threatened: State Threatened species are species native to the state of Washington and are likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. No State Threatened species were observed or have been documented to use the habitats provided by the project site. 9 16232 State Endangered: State endangered species are species native to the state of Washington and are seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state. No State Endangered species were observed or have been documented to use the habitats provided by the project site. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES: The project site was not identified and has not been documented to provide critical habitats for federally listed threatened or endangered species. A federally listed “species of concern” – bald eagle - has been documented to use the habitats associated with the Lake Washington Shoreline offsite to the west of the project site. CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION WETLANDS Onsite assessment completed following the methods identified in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010); the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Publication #14-06-029 (Hruby, 2014), the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest P ractice Rules (WAC 222-16-030); and City of Renton Chapter 4.3.050 - Critical Areas Regulations did not identify any areas onsite that exhibited all three of the established wetland criteria. As viewed from the project boundary a potential wetland appeared was located offsite to the west of the project site. This offsite wetland appeared to be approximately 300-plus feet away from the western boundary of the project site. STREAMS The onsite assessment identified three (3) surface water drainages across the project site. However, all three of these surface water drainages were associated with the outlet of concentrated stormwater runoff from City of Renton stormwater systems. As such, these surface water drainages appeared more consistent with intentionally created, artificial features rather than naturally occurring streams. The surface water moved within these drainages appeared in direct response to public stormwater facilities. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS As defined by onsite assessment the project site did not exhibit any critical fish and wildlife habitat areas. The project site was not identified or documented to provide critical habitats for federally or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species; did not exhibit and has not been documented to provide state priority habitats or areas 10 16232 for state priority species; did not provide and has not been documented to provide state designated priority habitats; did not provide and has not been documented to provide habitats and species of local importance; did not provide pond habitats; and was not been documented as essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces. The project site was identified to exhibit three (3) surface water drainages. However, these drainages appeared directly associated with discharge outlets from the City of Renton stormwater system. As such, these drainages appear best defined as intentionally created systems rather than naturally occurring surface water systems. PROPOSED ACTION The presently proposed action for Parcel 0007200196 has not yet been fully defined. However, following City of Renton review and verification of the findings documented above site planning shall ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of the City of Renton Chapter 4.3.050 - Critical Areas Regulations. Thank you for allowing Habitat Technologies the opportunity to assist with your proposed project. Please contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Bryan W. Peck Wetland Biologist Thomas D. Deming, PWS Habitat Technologies Thomas D. Deming 11 16232 FIGURES Date : 3/31/20 17 Notes: The informati on included on this map has been c ompil ed by King County s taff from a variety of sources and issubject to change without notice. King County makes no repr esentations or warr anties, ex press or implied,as to accurac y, completeness, timel iness, or rights to the us e of such information. T hi s doc ument i s not intendedfor use as a s urvey product. Ki ng County shall not be l iable for any general , special, indirect, incidental, orconsequential damages i ncl uding, but not li mited to, lost revenues or los t profits resulting from the us e or mi sus eof the information contained on this map. Any sale of thi s map or informati on on this map is prohi bited exc ept bywritten permi ss i on of Ki ng County. Figure 1 Site Vici nity Figure 2 NWI Mapping Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS user community Estuarine an d Marin e D eepwa ter Estuarine an d Marin e Wetlan d Freshwater Emerge nt Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub We tla nd Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine March 31, 2 017 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.15 0.30.075 km 1:5,896 This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. SOURCE DATASET:WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFEPRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORTREPORT DATE:P170331150347PHSPlusPublic03/31/2017 3.04Query ID:Priority AreaCommon NameAccuracySource EntityOccurrence TypeResolutionNotesSource DateSite NamePHS Listing StatusScientific NameSource DatasetState StatusMgmt RecommendationsMore Information (URL)Sensitive DataFederal StatusGeometry TypeSource RecordDISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency responseas to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fishand wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out thepresence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to vraition caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more thansix months old.03/31/2017 3.041 WDFW Test Map Sou rces: E sri, HE RE , DeL orme, USG S, I nterm ap , INCREMENT P, NRCan ,Esri Japan, ME TI, E sri Ch ina (Hong K on g), E sri K orea, Esri (Thaila nd), PH S Re po rt C lip Ar ea PT LN PO LY AS MAPPED SECTION QTR -TW P TO WN SH IP Marc h 3 1, 2 01 7 0 0.3 0.60.15 mi 0 0.55 1.10.275 km 1:19,8 42 Fig ure 4 WDFW Map pin g US GS/NHDSources: Esri, HERE, De Lo rme , Int erma p, in crement P Corp., GEB CO ,US GS, FA O, NPS, NRCA N, Ge oB ase , I GN, K adaste r NL, Ordn an ce Survey,Esri Ja pa n, ME TI , Esri China (Hong Ko ng ), swisst opo , Map myI ndia , ©Ope nSt re etM ap co ntributors, and the GI S User Co mmun ity All Salmo nScap e Species March 3 1, 2 01 7 0 0.1 5 0.30.075 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:9,02 8 «k «k«k «k «k «k«k «k E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E 200400200 200 200 400400 S Cedar River N X N FUU NF UNNF U NN NNFNN NNNSR-515I-405SR-169 1728264 1728224 1728204 1728262 1728202 1728128 1728240 17282441728148 1728108 1728220 1728200 1728222 1728242 17282601728168 20 29 17 19 21 28 18 16 30 SFDate: 3/31/2017 Time: 3:00:18 PMNAD 83Contour Interval: 40 Feet Application #: ________________________ FOREST PRACTICE WATER TYPE MAP TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH HALF 0, RANGE 05 EAST (W.M.) HALF 0, SECTION 20 1,000 Feet ® HABITAT Figure 6 TECHNOLOGIES City of Sumner Mapping Soil Map—King County Area, Washington (Figure 7 Soils Mapping) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/31/2017 Page 1 of 3 47° 28' 20'' N 122° 12' 8'' W47° 28' 20'' N122° 12' 1'' W47° 28' 14'' N 122° 12' 8'' W47° 28' 14'' N 122° 12' 1'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 0 45 90 180 270 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:957 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 8, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 31, 2013—Oct 6, 2013 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—King County Area, Washington (Figure 7 Soils Mapping) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/31/2017 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI An Arents, Everett material 0.9 19.5% BeD Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 3.8 80.5% Totals for Area of Interest 4.7 100.0% Soil Map—King County Area, Washington Figure 7 Soils Mapping Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/31/2017 Page 3 of 3 12 16232 REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND LIST 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, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, Lewis M. et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Lichvar,R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetlands Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. http://wetland -plands. Usace.army.mil/ Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messma n, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79 -R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. March 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), Environmental Laboratory ERDC/EL TR-08-13. US Climate Data, 2015 http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/tacoma/washington /united-states/uswa0441/0441/2014/1 USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Plants Database, 2015 (for hydrophytic plan classification): http://plants.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. 2016 http://vewsoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/newfeatures.2.3.htm . US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Mapper, 2016 (for NWI wetland mapping): http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. 13 16232 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Maps 2016 http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife SalmonScape Mapping System, 2016 (for fish presence): http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html Washington State Department of Natural Resources FPARS Mapping System, 2016 (for stream typing): http://fortess.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm 14 16232 APPENDIX A – Field Data US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 0007200196 City/County: City of Renton Sampling Date:27 JAN 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: SPB1 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: 47*28"17.96" N Long: 122*12"03.71W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Beausite gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: hillside slope area significantly altered by prior lands use actions dating back several decades VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 70 yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. Symphoricarpus albus 30 yes FACU 3. Rubus procera 70 yes FAC 4. 5. 100% = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 100% = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: area of big leaf maple understory with dense stand of blackberry US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPB1 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 0-4 10YR 2/2 sandy loam and roots 4-22 10YR 3/3 sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: no field indicators of hydic soils HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if avai lable: Remarks: soil not saturated to 22 inches. onsite during seasonal series of rainfall events US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 0007200196 City/County: City of Renton Sampling Date:27 JAN 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: SPB2 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: 47*28"17.96" N Long: 122*12"03.71W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Beausite gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: hillside slope area significantly altered by prior lands use actions dating back several decades VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 70 yes FACU 2. Prunus spp. 5 no FACU 3. 4. 75 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Corylus cornuta 60 yes FACU 2. Symphoricarpus albus <20 no FACU 3. Rubus procera <20 no FAC 4. 5. 95% = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Polystichum munitum 10 no FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 10% = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: area of big leaf maple understory with dense shrubs just upslope of campers US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPB2 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 0-5 10YR 3/2 sandy loam and roots 5-22 10YR 3/3 sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: no field indicators of hydic soils HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: soil not saturated to 22 inches. onsite during seasonal series of rainfall events US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 0007200196 City/County: City of Renton Sampling Date:27 JAN 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: SPB6 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: 47*28"17.96" N Long: 122*12"03.71W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Beausite gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: hillside slope area significantly altered by prior lands use actions dating back several decades VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 60 yes FACU 2. Thuja plicata 20 yes FAC 3. 4. 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Ilex spp. 30 yes FACU 2. Symphoricarpus albus 20 no FACU 3. Rubus procera 40 yes FAC 4. 5. 90% = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Polystichum munitum trace no FACU 2. Pteridium aquilium 20 yes FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 20% = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: area of big leaf maple understory with dense shrubs just upslope of campers US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPB6 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 0-4 10YR 3/2 sandy loam and roots 4-22 10YR 3/3 sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: no field indicators of hydic soils HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: soil not saturated to 22 inches. onsite during seasonal series of rainfall events US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 0007200196 City/County: City of Renton Sampling Date:27 JAN 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: SPB7 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: 47*28"17.96" N Long: 122*12"03.71W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Beausite gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: hillside slope area significantly altered by prior lands use actions dating back several decades VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 90 yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Corylus cornuta 20 yes FACU 2. Berberis nervosa 30 yes UPL 3. Rubus procera <10 no FAC 4. 5. Gaultheria shallon 80 yes FACU 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Polystichum munitum trace no FACU 2. Ptericium aquilium trace no FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. trace = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: area of big leaf maple understory with dense shrubs US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPB7 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 0-3 10YR 3/3 sandy loam and roots 3-22 10YR 4/3 sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: no field indicators of hydic soils HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: soil not saturated to 22 inches. onsite during seasonal series of rainfall events US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 0007200196 City/County: City of Renton Sampling Date:27 JAN 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: SPB9 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: 47*28"17.96" N Long: 122*12"03.71W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Beausite gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: hillside slope area significantly altered by prior lands use actions dating back several decades VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 30 yes FACU 2. Alnus rubra 40 yes FAC 3. 4. 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Symphoricarpus albus 45 yes FACU 2. Holodiscus discolor 40 yes FACU 3. Rubus procera trace no FAC 4. 5. Cornus stolonifera 30 yes FACW 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Polystichum munitum 30 yes FACU 2. Ptericium aquilium trace no FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 30 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 17% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: area of big leaf maple understory with dense shrubs US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPB9 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 0-22 10YR 4/2 100 none sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: no field indicators of hydic soils HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 16 inches (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: saturated at 16 inches. sample plot on slope adjacent to area of stormwater pipe discharage during seasonal series of rainfall events US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 0007200196 City/County: City of Renton Sampling Date:27 JAN 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: SPR1 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: 47*28"17.96" N Long: 122*12"03.71W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Beausite gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: hillside slope area between two well incised channels coming from stormwater discharge pipe upslope to east. area significantly alt ered by prior lands use actions dating back several decades VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 20 yes FACU 2. Alnus rubra 80 yes FAC 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Symphoricarpus albus trace no FACU 2. Prunus spp. saps <10 no FACU 3. Rubus procera 90 yes FAC 4. 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Polystichum munitum <10 no FACU 2. Ptericium aquilium trace no FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: area of red alder and big leaf maple understory with dense shrubs US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPR1 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 0-4 10YR 3/2 100 none gravelly sandy loam 4-22 10YR 3/3 99 10YR 4/6 <1% D M gravelly sandly loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: no prominent field indicators of hydic soils HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 18 inches (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: saturated at 18 inches. sample plot on slope adjacent to area of stormwater pipe discharage during seasonal series of rainfall events US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 0007200196 City/County: City of Renton Sampling Date:27 JAN 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA Sampling Point: SPR3 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: 47*28"17.96" N Long: 122*12"03.71W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Beausite gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: hillside slope area significantly altered by prior lands use actions dating back several decades VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 100 yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Symphoricarpus albus 30 yes FACU 2. Ilex spp. <10 no - 3. Rubus procera 20 yes FAC 4. Thuja plicata saps <10 no FAC 5. Corylus cornuta 20 yes FACU 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Polystichum munitum <10 no FACU 2. Ptericium aquilium trace no FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: area of big leaf maple understory with dense shrubs US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPR3 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 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 none gravelly sandy loam 6-10 10YR 3/3 99 gravelly sandly loam 10-24 10YR 3/4 99 none gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: no prominent field indicators of hydic soils HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: not saturated at 24 inches. onsite during seasonal series of rainfall events