HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING - FDP - FDP130010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (25)1
Wetland Delineation Report
Aspen Heights Development
Prepared For:
The Frederickson Group, LLC
7711 Windsong Drive
Windsor, CO 80550
Completed by:
Wildland Consultants, Inc.
1001 Jefferson Drive
Berthoud, CO 80513
February 2013
1.0 Introduction
Wildland Consultants, Inc. (WCI) completed a wetland delineation for the proposed
Aspen Heights development is located in northern Fort Collins, Colorado in October
2011, another delineation was completed on January 23, 2013 for a wetland area that is
now going to be part of the project. Note: the proposed development review schedule
required the January delineation. The proposed residential development is located on a
total of approximately 34 acres. 140+- development pads are proposed for the site.
Open space areas are proposed for walkways, greenbelts and the storm drain easement.
The site is bounded on the north by Conifer Street, the south by proposed extension of
Vine Drive, the east by Redwood Street, and the west by Blondel Street The
development site is surrounded by open land, and existing residential and commercial
development. Current land uses on the site include abandoned agricultural land/open
space. Site photographs and a Wetland Delineation Exhibit are provided in Attachment
A.
The proposed development is located in Fort Collins Colorado, (See Attachment A,
Maps).
Site Location: T7N, R69W, Sec. 1, SW1/4.
2
Lat./Long. Center of Site : 40.60205, -105.07020W
Elevation: 4985 feet
USGS Quad map: Ft. Collins
The objectives of the wetland delineation were to help with project design and planning,
and to notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) of the wetlands on the site. The
delineation will also support an ACOE jurisdictional determination for the wetlands. The
wetland delineation was completed by Eric Berg of WCI. Mr. Berg is certified as a
Professional Wetland Scientist. WCI has completed wetland delineations throughout the
Rocky Mountain area.
2.0 Methods
Site-specific soil information included in the Larimer County Soil Survey (SCS 1980)
was reviewed prior to completing the wetland delineation. The wetland delineation was
completed according to the methodology recommended by the ACOE (COE 1987 and
2008 Wetland Delineation Manuals). Vegetation, soils, and hydrologic characteristics
were evaluated and recorded during the wetland delineation. Wetland data forms were
completed at 3 wetland and 3 upland sites during the delineation. These forms provide
basic information regarding soils, vegetation, and hydrology of the wetland area (wetland
data forms are included in Attachment A). Wetland boundaries were flagged in the field.
The wetland boundaries were then surveyed and included on a wetlands map (See
Attachment A, Wetland Exhibit). The original delineation was completed in October
2011. Another delineation was completed in January 2013 because of a change in
development site boundaries (to include a drainage swale).
3.0 Results
NWI mapping does not show any wetlands within the incised drainages (NWI 2011)
although NWI mapped wetlands are present in the drainage in the new southern part of
the development boundary.
The October 2011 wetland delineation found narrow wetlands present associated with 2
unnamed drainages (See Attachment A Site Photos, Wetland Delineation Map) within the
development site. These 2 drainages join on the site and then connect downstream to a
drainage swale. This downstream drainage swale also supports a wetland. This swale
was delineated in January 2013, because of a change in the development boundary.
The incised drainage channels within the development boundary support a narrow strip of
wetland vegetation (approximately 3-5 feet wide). Dominant plants include: Baltic rush
(Juncus balticus), cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), reed canary grass (Phalaris
arundinacea), cattail (Typha latifolia), plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), coyote
willow (Salix exigua), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and a few other species.
Upland species adjacent to the channels included smooth brome, and other grasses and
forbs.
3
The drainage swale along the south edge of the development boundary supports a strip of
wetland vegetation varying from 5 to over 30 feet wide. Dominant species include
Emory sedge (Carex emoryi), with lesser components of rumex (Rumex crispus), prickly
lettuce (Lactuca seriola). Plains cottonwood trees are found along the fringes of this
area.
Wetland hydrology is evident in the channels on the development site. Flowing and
standing water are present. Wetland soils are also present within channel bottoms (low
chroma colors, soil mottling, high organic matter). Water sources include irrigation
flows and drainage flows.
Flowing water was not observed within the drainage swale to the south of the
development site during the delineation. This was because the delineation was completed
in January, 2013 in this area. Evidence of flowing/standing water was present (drift lines,
sediment deposits, unvegetated areas with dark organic soils).
Wetland soils were also observed within the 2 onsite drainage channels. Wetland soils
are assumed in the southern swale. Frozen soils prevented sampling deeper than 4-inches
in this area. The topsoil layer did provide indicators of hydric soils in this area.
The 2 drainage swales on the site connect to the drainage swale along the south edge of
the site. Wetland vegetation along this drainage swale ends at the City of Fort Collins
bike trail (Attachment A photos 7-9). There is no culvert for this swale under the bike
trail. A slight swale that supports upland vegetation continues across the bike trail and
connects to the Lake Canal. A small (2-3 feet wide) dirt bottomed irrigation ditch has
been cut from the drainage swale to the Lake Canal (Attachment A, photos 10-13). This
ditch has a small culvert under the City Bike trail. The ditch supports an intermittent
fringe of wetland and upland vegetation but not continuous wetland vegetation. The
ditch does show evidence of running water (an unvegetated dirt bottom) in some sections.
The ditch can only flow if the adjacent/upstream drainage swale (where wetlands are
delineated) is full of water. The ditch originates along the upper elevation of the
drainage swale.
The jurisdictional status of the delineated wetlands is not known, the wetland delineation
report should provide the ACOE with information to determine jurisdictional status.
4.0 Conclusions
Wetlands delineated on the development site were associated with 2 unnamed drainages.
These drainages appear to be fed by irrigation runoff and natural drainage flows.
Wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology was present within these
drainages. Another wetland was delineated along a swale along the south edge of the
development site. This wetland was delineated because of possible impacts related to
road development. A total of 30,599 square feet (0.703 acres) of wetland areas were
4
delineated within the development site. The wetland delineation will be used to help
with project planning. If required, appropriate permits will be obtained from the ACOE
for any wetlands lost or impacted due to project construction.
5.0 References
Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. 1994. Munsell soil color chart. 1994 ed. Munsell
Color Co. Baltimore, MD.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1980. Soil Survey of Larimer County.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National List of Plants That Occur in Wetlands:
Central Plains (Region 5).
4
ATTACHMENT A
Site Map, Site Photos
Wetland Delineation Exhibit
Wetland Data Forms
6
7
8
Photo 5, Upland Sampling Point 3
Photo 6, Wetland Sampling Point 3
9
Photo 7. View to east from end of wetland boundary along swale, across bike trail to
Lake Canal (trees).
Photo 8. View to east, east side of bike trail slight swale (upland vegetation) to Lake
Canal
1
Photo 9. View to west from bike trail to wetland edge along swale, wetland along swale
ends here just west of bike trail.
Photo 10. View to east, ditch connection to wetland/drainage swale.
1
Photo 11. View to east along irrigation ditch towards bike trail and Lake Canal (trees).
Photo 12. View to east of ditch towards Lake Canal, east of bike trail to Lake Canal
(trees).
1
Photo 13. View to west from bike trail, irrigation ditch towards drainage swale.
US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region
Project/Site: Aspen Heights Development City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 10/24/11
Applicant/Owner: Aspen Heights State: CO Sampling Point: W1 (photo 2)
Investigator(s): E. Berg Section, Township, Range: T7N, R69W, Sec. 1, SW1/4
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): level field Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): LRR_G Lat: 40.60221 Long: 1105.07023 Datum: WSG84
Soil Map Unit Name: Caruso Clay Loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x 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 x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks: Wetlands were restored from cultivated agricultural fields as part of a wetland bank project. New delineated area along eastern side of
main wetland. No criteria met.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100
(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:
x Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point: w1
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
1-4 10yr 4/1 95 10yr2/1 5 c m clay loam
4-12 10yr3/2 95 10yr4/4 5 c m clay Rusty mottling
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRRI, J)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H)
Black Histic (A3) x Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G)
x Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRRH outside of MLRA 72 & 73)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) x Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) wetland hydrology must be present,
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Heavy clay, saturated, high organic content A layer, mottling
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) x Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
x Saturation (A3) x Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) x Drainage Patterns (B10)
x Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
x Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled)
Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) x Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) x Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Flowing channel
US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region
Project/Site: Aspen Heights Development City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 10/24/11
Applicant/Owner: Aspen Heights State: CO Sampling Point: W2 (photo 2)
Investigator(s): E. Berg Section, Township, Range: T7N, R69W, Sec. 1, SW1/4
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): level field Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): LRR_G Lat: 40.60241 Long: -105.070202 Datum: WSG84
Soil Map Unit Name: Caruso Clay Loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x 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 x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks: Wetlands were restored from cultivated agricultural fields as part of a wetland bank project. New delineated area along eastern side of
main wetland. No criteria met.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100
(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:
x Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. Populus deltoides (adjacent to sampling site)
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Salix exigua 20 y Obl
2.
3.
4.
5.
US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point: w2
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
1-4 10yr 3/1 100 10yr2/1 Sandy clay
4-12 10yr 2/1 85 Sandy
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) x Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRRI, J)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H)
Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G)
x Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRRH outside of MLRA 72 & 73)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) wetland hydrology must be present,
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
Sandy clay over a gravel subsoil. Gleyed, low chroma colors, standing water
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) x Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
x Saturation (A3) x Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) x Drainage Patterns (B10)
x Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
x Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled)
Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) x Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) x Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Flowing channel
US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region
Project/Site: Aspen Heights Development City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/23/13
Applicant/Owner: Aspen Heights State: CO Sampling Point: W3 (photo 6)
Investigator(s): E. Berg Section, Township, Range: T7N, R69W, Sec. 1, SW1/4
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): level field Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): LRR_G Lat: 40.5992 Long: 105.06921 Datum: WSG84
Soil Map Unit Name: Caruso Clay Loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x 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 x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks: Wetlands were restored from cultivated agricultural fields as part of a wetland bank project. New delineated area along eastern side of
main wetland. No criteria met.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100
(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:
x Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point: w3
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
1-3 10yr 4/1 95 10yr2/1 5 c m sandy clay loam
4-? 10yr 3/1-2? 90+? ? c? m clay loam?
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRRI, J)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H)
Black Histic (A3) x Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G)
x Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRRH outside of MLRA 72 & 73)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) x Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) wetland hydrology must be present,
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
Sandy clay, saturated/frozen at surface, high organic content A layer, mottling. Frozen soils prevented sampling below 4-inches
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) x Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
x Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) x Drainage Patterns (B10)
x Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
x Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled)
Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) x Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) x Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ?assumed No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Flowing channel is assumed based on water marks, drift lines, unvegetated areas in bottom with dark organic soils. Delineation conducted in
January when water was not flowing.
100 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Carex emoryi 90 y obl
2. Rumex crispus 5 n FacW
3. Lactuca seriola 5 n FacW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
W3 at narrow wetland zone (5 feet wide), wetlands get wider just downstream, Emory sedge dominates, kochia along
bank.
20 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Typha latifolia 50 y Obl
2. Rumex crispus 15 y FacW
3. Mentha spp. 5 n FAc
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
70 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 90 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
100 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Juncus balticus 60 y obl
2. Typha latifolia 30 Y obl
3. Triglochin maritimum 5 n obl
4. Mentha spp. 5 n Fac
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)