The URL can be used to link to this page

NortonWetlands.pdfPentec rENtAL "'Ae-C,e7l -O 1/114, _ 0 PyAl ivi bt 080 Wetland Delineation 806 Cary Street Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Wetland Report Submitted to: Mr. Ken Mattson Ken Mattson and Associates Submitted by: James R. Hartley Pentec Environmental, Inc. 120 West Dayton, Suite A7 Edmonds, Washington 98020 (206) 775-4682 May '14, 1993 May 14, 1993 Ken Mattson and Associates PO Box 234 Edmonds, Washington 98024 Attention: Mr. Ken Mattson Wetland Delineation for 806 Cary Road, Edmonds, Washington Dear Ken: �'V� JUN ~ 3 19,,3 "NING D As we discussed earlier, I am providing you with a wetland report describing the wetland on the Cary Road property. The report does not discuss regulatory requirements for this wetland in any detaii because of your unique situation with regard to whether you are strictly. subject to the City of Edmonds (City) Critical Areas Ordinance. I do mention in the report that project impacts to- the western lobe of the wetland can be mitigated. If you need our assistance in discussions with the City please let me know. If the City decides to allow wetland buffer incursions or impacts to the wetlands, we can provide you with a wetland or wetland buffer mitigation plan. Please call me at (206) 775-4682 and Iet me know how you would like to proceed at this point. Sincerely, Pentec Environmental, Inc. James R Hartley Project Wetlands Ecologist JRH/rc 00140=11COR RESPdW1ATTCOY RXTR Pentec Envlronmentat, hir- . 120 West Dayton, Suite A7 - Fdnwrrds, WA 98070 - Phone= (205) 775.4682 - Fax: (206) 778-9417 I Wetland Delineation 806 Cary Street Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Wetland Report Submitted to: Mr. Ken Mattson Ken Mattson and Associates PQ Box 234 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Submitted by: James R. Hartley Pentec Environmental, Inc. 120 West Dayton, Suite A7 Edmonds, Washington 98020 (206) 775.4682 May 14, '1993 PREFACE Pentec Environmental, Inc. (Pentec), has prepared this report for use by Ken Mattson and Associates. In preparing this report, Pentec has used the site information and proposed development plans as supplied by Ken Mattson and Associates in and as referenced herein. The results and conclusions of this report represent the professional opinions of Pentec Environmental, Inc. Findings reported herein are based on information gathered in the field at the time of the investigations, information provided by Ken Mattson and Associates, Pentees understanding of federal, State, and local regulations governing wetland and stream areas, and examination of public domain information concerning the proposed site. Prior to preliminary and final design of any construction, all appropriate regulatory agencies should verify the findings of this report, and appropriate approvals and permits should be obtained_ The wetland boundary, wetland and stream classifications, recommended buffers, and functions and values are Pentees best professional opinion based on the circumstances and site conditions at the time of our study. Work performed conforms to accepted standards in the field for routine delineations and the methodology outlined in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Final determination of the jurisdictional wetland boundaries pertinent to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, however, is the responsibility of the Seattle district of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Many different regulatory agencies may require review of the final site development plans that could potentially effect zoning, water quality, and/or habitat functions of the lands in question. Thus, the findings and conclusions contained in this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning and/or construction activities. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.................................................. Background.......................................................... 1 Regulatory........................................................... Methods..................................................... 4 General............................................................. 4 Field............................................................... 4 Vegetation........................................................ 4 Soils............................................................. 5 Hydrology........................................................ 6 Findings .................... 7 Soils...................................---....................... 7 Wetland Description................................................... 7 Wetland Functions and Values . . . . . . .................................... 9 References .......................... ............ .......... I Appendix—Field Data Sheets L w�- WETLAND DELINEATION 806 CARY STREET EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION A wetland evaluation was done to locate and, if necessary, delineate the boundary of a suspected wetland to facilitate site planning for proposed residential development at 805 Cary Street in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of this report is to document the wetland delineation by identifying and describing any discrete wetlands on the site. This report contains the description of the delineated wetland and a schematic reap of the wetland boundary. BACKGROUND The property at 806 Cary Street is approximately 2.6 acres with an existing house on the western portion of the site near Cary Street and a small duplex near the middle of the property. Approximately the front two-thirds of the lot is lawn or landscaping associated with the two residential structures, but the back one-third of the property is wooded and undeveloped. The property slopes gently from Cary Street on the west to Shell Creek, which is just inside of the eastern property boundary. The vicinity is shown in Figure 1. Site visits were conducted on October 8, 1992, and on March 28, 1993. A wetland was identified adjacent to Shell Creek. During the delineation process, areas were considered wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance 2874). Categorization of the wetland follows the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance 2874). REGULATORY The delineated wetland located on the property is subject to regulation as a water of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Because the wetland is contiguous to Shell Creek, the Corps may consider it an "adjacent" wetland. if the mean annual flow of Shell Creek exceeds 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) at this point, an individual Corps permit may be required before filling or grading ftatec 0014010011MATTWETL.APT page Figure 1 Project vicinity. 0014010011MATTWETLRPT P,/tec page 2 within the boundaries of the wetland. It appears that the mean annual flow of Shell Creek is less than 5 cfs at the site. The wetland is also subject to regulation by the City of Edmonds as a critical area, pursuant to the Washington Growth Management Act of 1990 (RCW 36.70 A). 001 4010 0 1 1 MATT W Ef L. RPT ftnwc page 3 METHODS GENERAL The primary purpose of the site visit was to locate, evaluate, and delineate any wetlands and streams on site. Wetland community types are described following Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetlands were identified and delineated using methods consistent with the 1987 Corps manual (1987) and the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation [FICWD] 1989)_ Wetlands possess three essential characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Though all three of these parameters may not be evident at the time of a site visit, evidence of all three parameters must be found to determine an area is a wetland. A review of existing reference materials was made before the site visit to determine if wetlands had been identified on the site by other sources. These references included the 1987 National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map for Edmonds East Washington (US Fish and Wildlife s Service [USFWS] 1987), the critical areas maps of the Snohomish County Tomorrow Growth Management Act Planning Project (Pentec Environmental et al.1991), and the Soil Survey of the y Snohomish County Area, Washington (Debase and Klungland 1983). FIELD The site was traversed and examined to identify and delineate wetlands using the routine on-site determination method in FICWD (1989). Vegetation Dominant plant species were recorded in each vegetation stratum (tree canopy, shrub zone, and groundcover). Each plant's wetland indicator status was assigned using the USFWS National List of Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest—Region 9 (Reed 1988). The indicator code for plant species is noted below. pentec 0014010011MATTWETL.RPT page 4 'p. Code Designation Wetlands probability (percent chance that plant will be found in a wetland) OBL Obligate wetland species > 99 FACW Facultative wet 67 to 99 FAC Facultative 34 to 66 FACU Facultative upland 1 to 33 UPL Obligate upland < 1 -NI No indicator status When 50 percent or more of the dominant species in each vegetative stratum of a vegetation unit have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC, the vegetation is considered hydrophytic. Each vegetation unit was classified as hydrophytic or non-hydrophytic based on the percent of the area covered by the dominant species and their indicator statuses. Synonymy used in this report follows Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976). I r1 On-site samples were taken in each wetland plot using a tile spade or a soil auger. Sails were examined for hydric characteristics and to determine if they were appropriately mapped in the soil survey. Soils colors were identified using a Munsell soil color chart (Kollmorgen Corporation 1975). Depth to soil saturation or depth of surface inundation was recorded for F, each plot. Multiple samples were taken in the around the apparent wetland/upland boundary in order to determine the exact boundary line. Anaerobic (saturated) soil conditions cause soils to exhibit certain characteristics that can be observed in the field. Presence of a chroma of less than 1 (if no mottles are present) or 2 (if mottles are present), gley characteristics (for mineral soils), high -organic -content characteristics (for peau and mucks), and accumulation of sulfitic material were used as indications of hydric soils, as outlined in the guidelines provided in F1CWD (1989). 00140100?1MATTWETLRPT ieAtm Reliance on Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps to determine the small-scale presence of hydric soils on a site may prove inaccurate because of the method and scale of the mapping_ Most SCS maps are produced using aerial photographic interpretation with limited field verification. Map units of a non -wetland soil commonly include hydric soil and vice versa. Hydrology Wetland hydrology is considered present when there is inundation or soil saturation for a sufficient period of time during the growing season to exert an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions. Such characteristics are usually present in areas that are inundated or that have soils saturated to the surface for sufficient duration to develop hydric soils and support vegetation typically adapted for life in periodically anaerobic soil conditions. Wetlands need not be wet year-round to support hydric soils and vegetation. Hydrologic indicators are therefore used to determine if the hydrology is either currently present or can be inferred from indicators. These indicators may include: site inundation, soil saturation, soil mottling, oxidation channels in the soil associated with the rooting zone of plants (rhizosphere), water marks on vegetation, drift lines, plants displaying hydrophytic adaptations, water -borne sediment deposits, algal deposits on the soil surface, surface -scour drainage patterns, wetland drainage patterns, impermeable subsurface soil horizons, and standard hydric soil characteristics such as gleying, mottling in a low chroma matrix, histic soil horizons, concretions, and high organic content. Pe 0014M0011MAlTWETLPPT paagee 6 FINDINGS The site slopes gently from Cary Road east to Shell Creek, which runs along the eastern property boundary. The slope is gentle except along the edge of the main body of the wetland where the uplands drop sharply into the Shell Creek floodplain, which contains most of the wetland. The wetland is adjacent to Shell Creek, occupying approximately the eastern third of the site. The wetland includes most of the forested portion of the site and includes a lobe extending west from the main body of the wetland into a small portion of the lawn near the northern property boundary. The wetland lobe follows a swale that drains into the Shell Creek floodplain. Figure 2 shows the approximate wetland boundary. The wetland boundary was difficult to locate exactly during the initial site visit, which was conducted at the driest time of the year. A second site visit conducted during the spring was necessary to ensure that the wetland delineation was accurate. The NWI map (USFWS 1987) did not show any wetlands on the site. The Snohomish County Tomorrow Growth Management Act Planning Project map, however, did identify this wetland (Pentec Environmental et al. 1991). SOILS The Soil Survey of the Snohomish County, Washington, area maps the soils on the site as Alderwood-Urban land complex 2 to 8 percent slopes and Custer fine sandy loam (Debose and Klungland 1983)_ Alderwood soils are not hydric, but the AIderwood-Urban land complex soil mapping unit is known to include small areas of hydric soils. Custer soil is listed as a hydric soil on county, State, and national lists of hydric soil. ' WETLAND DESCRIPTION An approximately 0.5 -acre forested (PFO) wetland lies in the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Shell Creek. - The main body of the wetland is in the floodplain of Shell Creek. A narrow lobe of wetland extends out of the floodplain to the west. This portion of the wetland follows a drainage swale from the upland down into the floodplain. This lobe of wetland is almost entirely forested, but the westernmost portion extends approximately 20 ft into the lawn. This wetland meets the criteria of a Category lI wetland pursuant to the City of Edmonds Critical Areas ordinance. 0014010011MATTWETL RPT FL-BWC fti Figure 2 Site map and approximate wetland boundary. ftntec oar aowollMArnvE fit. FtPi page 8 T/ �z ia - � ti •r.• '�.....�' �'` '1 • Z �� . � � _ ..�'�` � � y L` r- t--- -R •^' ` e� l •jpr�, `S-t./r+�.`w"".+.�srt�.L�r.� `--:� a ��: `3 -0 - _ ti r ; `' - .-.r; .n - - - - Approximate wetland boundary. Figure 2 Site map and approximate wetland boundary. ftntec oar aowollMArnvE fit. FtPi page 8 The vegetation in the main body of the wetland is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FACW+), salmonberry Rubus spectabilis, FAC), and water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa OBC)_ Other species noted include twinberry (Lonicera involucrata, FACW), lady fern (Ath)rium filix-femina, FACW), and skunk cabbage (L spm americanum, OBL). In the western lobe of the wetland at the edge of the forested area, the vegetation is dominated by bluegrass (Poa, sp. FAC-FACU), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW), and dandelion (Taraxacum officianale, FACU). In the main body of the wetland in the floodplain, the soil is deep black (10 YR 2:5/1) snuck. When the soil was examined a sulfitic odor was noted. The soil in the western lobe of the wetland is gray (10 YR 6/1) sandy loam with yellowish -brown (10YR 5/8) mottles. At the time of the October site visit, the soil in the main body of the wetland was saturated to the surface or was ponded to a depth of 0.5 inches. During the October visit, no water table was detected within 18 inches of the surface In the western lobe, but during the March site visit, the water table was within 16 inches of the surface. The main body of the wetland in the floodplain of Shell Creek is relatively undisturbed and in good condition, given its location within an urban area. The lobe of wetland that extends west up a drainage swale has been considerably more disturbed by dumped material (mostly yard waste such as grass clippings and woody debris) and the construction of a sewer main that traverses the property generally from north to south. The small portion of this lobe that extends into the lawn is continually disturbed by repeated mowing. If development is proposed within a portion of this wetland lobe, impacts to the wetland and buffer can be mitigated through enhancement of the remaining wetland and buffer. WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES -. Wetlands play important roles that provide valuable benefits to the ecosystems where they exist. Each wetland serves some function and has some value, although specifics vary from wetland to wetland. Understanding and identifying these values and roles is currently limited to qualitative assessments of potential functions and judgments of their value. Some of the functional values that wetlands may provide identified by Cowardin et al. (1979) and Reppert et al. (1979) are the high biological productivity of the systems (supply of energy to the food web); important nutrient cycling; high habitat diversity for wildlife, high associated species diversity (plants and wildlife); refuge for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; areas of groundwater recharge and discharge; storm and floodwater storage and control; biofiltration 00140X001\MATTWETLRPT age 9 M for surface water flows, particulates, toxicants, and nutrients; and consumptive and nonconsumptive socioeconomic functions such as aesthetics and recreation. Identified functions for this wetland include groundwater recharge/ discharge; flood control; water quality improvement; retention, removal, and transformation of nutrients and sediment; fish and wildlife habitat; and biomass production and export. 0014010011MATrW ETL, RPT ftntec page 10 REFERENCES Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetland and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildh e Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. Publication No. FWS/OBS-79/31, Debase, A., and M. Klungland 1983. Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service_ Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (FICWD)_ 1989_ Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Cooperative technical publication. Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington press, Seattle, Washington. Kollmorgen Corporation. 1975. Munsell soil color charts. MacBeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation. Baltimore, Maryland. Pentec Environmental Inc. 1991. Snohomish County Tomorrow wetlands areas map, Edmonds East Quadrangle. Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of species that occur in wetlands: Northwest—Region 9. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Welut 86/WIZ. 47. Reppert, R., W. Sigelo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, C_ Meyers. 1979. Wetland values: concepts and r methods for wetlands evaluation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Virginia. US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. National Wetlands Inventory map—Edmonds East Quadrangle. an 001401001WATMETLRPT � Appendix— Field Data Sheets DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMNATION METHODt Field Investigators): 11W�P- rzc`Y Date: 5 z ProjeCVSfte:_ State: Q''`A- Coun - 54(!A1 Appl'usantA)caner: �'� �"J — - -- Plant Community #t/Name: EEJQ — FAD PCA1AJ Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary. use the bads of data form or a field notebook --------------------------------------------------- Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes --'-No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes --------------------------------------------------- No ✓ (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION -3_ = &0Jejr.-4A'r5 Indicator Indicator Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. 4 [ rX - - _ Sr��yAi2i4 F4GW 11. 2„ Ac va. eurssz.A- FAC- T 12- 3. tburci" n"uoucQmZA r,4c W .1_ 13. _ 4. -,curio s- 5'P&-- E geL1'5 W FAc- 5 14. 15. 6. >!±2 ,0z!mL x`- QgU rt 16. 7. 17. 1Q. 2Q Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW, and/or FAC /O 0,0?, Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No Rationale: t�// doesti—tiyts FAC SOILS Sedes/phase: Subgroup:2 Is the sail on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes 2� Na Histic epipedon present? Yes No X Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Noy Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: - - &- -X& x :.7,„5 /r Mottle Colors: .--- Other hydric soil indicators: is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale: fir rr - Saiz- -----yt iO�c 64.Q e— - HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes ✓ No Surface water depth: / Is the soil saturated? Yesy No Depth to free-standing water in pittsoil probe hole: Su2F List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation_ is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale:- ro SussFi4Cr V po,vPiAJd f17--E-AID of 5cLn,-W,57c.. w6 - JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 19/I 3 cz rs --,El r✓f--,'--s 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil. Taxonomy.. B-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION MEfHODI Field Investigator(s): :121-xA eTt-Ey _ _ Date: " 4 Y 3 Pro eci/Slte:--...---C:.A W lza.�rn - ch 01 -Lo vo -5 - Slate: wyq- County- e- Appllcant0wner Plant Community #/Name: Now Ii a more detailed site description is necessary. use the batt of data form or a fieid notebook- --------------------------------------------------- Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes ✓ No (ii no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No ✓ (If yes, explain on back) SOILS Series/phass: Subgroup? Is the soil on the hydric soils fist? Yes No Undetermined u Is the sol a Histosol? Yes No y_ Histic spipedon present? Yes No Y-_ Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No _ Z Gleyed? Yes No V Matrix Color. !O V -d= z�/� Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric sol criterion met? Yes No _ XC Rationale: No dvAc e-' .z s HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ✓ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No t�- Depth to tree -standing water in piUsoil probe hate: ,vou6- wrW41N List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. ONS Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No Rationale: Ivo ,ce /S Z:Opo s.Zf1 s4;7.7-rc_ 7ZJ.J-Al oX7-77,4.01) Ivo o-9,477'r=2,eNs - JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: a P ,r.tE -,es o 144 i f This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community - Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy_' nn VEGETATION )K- _ bOM IA"4-,J Ts Indicator . Indicator nomip�Plarnt Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum . /? LULLS /2.rdd24 +c FOC 2. 5d -!(,K cASIAa anA E/KWk 12 g, 411 dus' A615"" --c Y EAW_ _ 13. A. _ GLa=Qd- D r a c A -W EEC - —14-_ 14. S. 15. 6. 16. 7 17. 8. 18. 9. 19- 10. 24 Percent of dominant species that are OBL. PACW, and/or PAC t e to h the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes v No Rationale: M C ash SOILS Series/phass: Subgroup? Is the soil on the hydric soils fist? Yes No Undetermined u Is the sol a Histosol? Yes No y_ Histic spipedon present? Yes No Y-_ Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No _ Z Gleyed? Yes No V Matrix Color. !O V -d= z�/� Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric sol criterion met? Yes No _ XC Rationale: No dvAc e-' .z s HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ✓ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No t�- Depth to tree -standing water in piUsoil probe hate: ,vou6- wrW41N List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. ONS Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No Rationale: Ivo ,ce /S Z:Opo s.Zf1 s4;7.7-rc_ 7ZJ.J-Al oX7-77,4.01) Ivo o-9,477'r=2,eNs - JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: a P ,r.tE -,es o 144 i f This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community - Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy_' nn DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Field Investigator(s). ~/4 u*f-rz.Fu _ Date: 7-8 a 3 ProjecUSite: CA2_0V .eahh „�- —State: cod`- County: �pwner: �'}'� "�- Plaint Community ##Mame: 4A-UPV ��aZLVA5S7ZW Note. I a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook --------------------------------------------------- Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes ✓ No (K no. explain on back) Has,the vegetation, soils. and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No v (11 yes. explain on back) --------------------------------------------------- VEGETATION D hL4* 4_-M .* Indicator Indicator -Bicron Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1_ G Al gFR uP4-rA6W T14 11. 2 C 9ob*S6y POA s� uNi 12 3. a r-,uUNLu ut s X64-225 F4c".3 F 13. d. VA12 41CrC-116d 08FIc,16I tC E!L4-=O . -- 14. ra. 11MCaS "W47US _1 - 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. $. 18. 9. 19- 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW. and/or FAC _ /0,0 Is the hydrophytio vegetatlon criterion met? Yes t/ No Rationale: ra"' Q 1r7t�2 SOILS Seriestphase: Subgroup.2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined X fs the soil a Histosol? Yes No y, Histic epipedon present? Yes No y_ 1s the soli: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No y Matrix Color... z �� _ Mottle Colors: /n Other hydric sod indicators: 1"C111-62 Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale- Coc.p2. HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: Is the sod saturated? Yes ✓ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: N c s List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation_ Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale: w1 r,Y,1A) / 0,-- JURISDICTIONAL F JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ✓ No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: e!2:6-- This � This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' 0-1 DATA FORM . ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODt Field Investigator(a): Date:. .�,a 5? IF -3 Projec lSlie:— G•4 Y l2o,+A 4- >D QA,05 State-. W�4- County ApplicanwDwner. _. 6t6�6N Plant Community a/Name:L,4 ._� Note. If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook- --------------------------------------------------- otebookDo Donormal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes --' No (if no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed.? Yes No If yes, explain on back) --------------------------------------------------- VEGETATION !)a.scr.t�iturs ak Indicator Indicator -Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 3. c ar frau - 13. ,d 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. T_ 1 T. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FAM and/or FAC u ru Ia the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No uN le - Rationale: SP 5M7W 5 5 MAMc-AJ*W-,0 SOILS Sedeslphase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil.on the hydric soils fast? Yes No Undetermined V Is the soil a i istosoi? Yes No �_ Hisstic ep."cpedon present? Yes No k Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No _ X Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color, / i)y4- �� Mottle Colors: Other hydric sol[ indicators: Is the hydric sod criterion met? Yes No )e Rationale: .Jw HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No )_ „ Depth to tree -standing water in pittsoil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or sod saturation_ C is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X _ Rationale: c- Z::-- W�12 itic JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: sdY45,.,_4 ��r vE6�774-77aR, ?19-%eogA4E7 1 -2 Ad55/AZ-Y .tilt" -T_....-- t This data form can be used for the Hydric Sail Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure_ 2 Ctassifi ation according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B-2