City Code (in separate font) is used as the outline to ensure all required information is provided.

Transcription

1 February 12, 2018 Brian Bowen P.O. Box 42 Buckley, WA RE: Parcel #: Watson St. N Enumclaw, WA Dear Brian: Introduction This letter serves as a wetland and stream report for the above referenced parcel. The property is proposed to be developed into whatever the final zoning allows. There will be no impacts to wetlands, streams or buffers. The NWI and King County Wetland Atlas shows no wetlands or streams on or near the site. The 1998 City Wetland map show the site wetland, but this has been shown in error per the two approvals in a similar situation at the end of the figures. Parcel #: located in T: 20N R: 06E S: 25 Q: NE, Parcel Size: Acres (165,964 Sq Ft) located on Watson St. N. Enumclaw, King County, Washington (Figure 1). The site was evaluated for the presence of wetlands following City Code. City Code (in separate font) is used as the outline to ensure all required information is provided. Appendix B Critical areas report content. Note: The information items listed below represent the minimum information requirements to be included in a critical areas report (refer also to Appendix E of this chapter). Further, if a critical areas report is required by the administrator in accordance with EMC and Appendix E of this chapter, the applicant shall submit a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional as defined in Appendix D of this chapter. No critical area is present thus Appendix E form is not needed. 1. A description of the vegetative cover of the critical area and adjacent area including dominant species; Vegetation of the area is historic farm hay fields mown and managed. Dominant species include reed canarygrass, redtop, fescue species and various non-native farm weed species. The fence lines have some brush which may include hard hack. Adjacent properties are all urban areas with ornamentals. The ditch to the south has red alder and black cottonwood samplings and trees R Page 1

2 2. A site plan for the proposed activity at a scale no smaller than one inch equals 40 feet showing the location, width, depth and length of all existing and proposed structures, roads, sewage treatment, and installations within and adjacent to critical areas; A site plan will be prepared upon approval of the wetland study. 3. The exact sites and specifications for all regulated activities including the amounts and methods; The entire site will be developed with urban streets, buildings and dwellings. 4. Elevations of the site and adjacent lands within the critical areas at contour intervals of no greater than two feet; The King County IMAP topography is used. 5. Typical cross-section views of the critical area to scale; No critical area is present. 6. The purposes of the project and an explanation why the proposed activity cannot be located at other sites, including an explanation of how the proposed activity is dependent upon critical areas; No critical area or buffer will be impacted. 7. A study of flood, erosion, or other hazards at the site and the effect of any protective measures that might be taken to reduce such hazards; The site is not subject to flooding or other hazards. 8. A critical areas report that documents the ecological, aesthetic, economic, or other values of the critical areas, including a discussion of the methodology used to identify, delineate, and survey critical areas described in the report (refer to this Appendix B); No critical area is present. Methodology The property was evaluated for the presence of wetlands during January The "2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region" and 1987 Federal Manual were used per City Code. Field procedures and standards used for this study include the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines for describing and classifying soils R Page 2

3 The 1939 Pierce County Soil Survey was reviewed. The Munsell Soil Color Book was used to describe soil color. Other sources of information used to evaluate the site included USDA-NRCS Soil Survey, geologic history (sequence of events), historic disturbances, landscape features, diagnostic horizons, horizon sequences, and other soil features such as tephra, Ab horizons, albic horizons, spodic horizons, ortstein, filled root channels, fired peds, redoximorphic features, paleoenvironments, Fe-depleted matrix, iron pore linings and concentrations with diffuse vs. sharp boundaries, alluvial vs. redox iron concentrations, soil hydrology, contemporary vs. relic redoximorphic features, and filled worm channels. Understanding and the application of the basic concepts of hydric soil morphology and wetland soil biogeochemistry can provide an invaluable tool for delineation of wetlands. Whereas the site lacks hydric soils, the need to address vegetation and hydrology in great detail is not needed. Furthermore, vegetation and hydrology are altered, leaving soils as the one undisturbed parameter to be evaluated. Furthermore, the vegetation is assumed to be hydrophytic, thus is irrelevant as to the details of the plant species regarding a wetland determination since no hydric soils are present. The 1987 and 2010 Supplemental Federal Manuals are used for the evaluation. The Atypical Methodology is used in the report; the Atypical sheets are simple and outdated from the 1987 Manual. The concept of the vegetation and hydrology altered leaves soils as the one determining factor in the wetland determination. Site Description The property is historic farmland that is mown and maintained. A roadside ditch is to the east with single family residences to the south and multifamily to the north. To the west is similar farm land. The site is mowed, maintained and looks to be hayed on an annual basis. Vegetation Vegetation is described above. Vegetation is disturbed and not reliable. Soils Soils of the site are undisturbed at depth. The plow layer, Ap horizon, shows disturbance to about 9 inches. This has no effect on a hydric soil determination. If the Ap horizon and/or disturbance were to depths greater than 18 inches there would be justification to consider the soils disturbed for a wetland determination R Page 3

4 Soils at the site are comprised of Buckley silt loam (map unit Bu) and the Shalcar muck (map unit Sm) is mapped off-site to the east (Fig. 5). King County Area, Washington Map Unit Map Unit Name Bu Sm Buckley silt loam Shalcar Muck The Buckley soil series is on the hydric soils list. Shalcar is mapped as a hydric soil, but is offsite and not discussed. Test holes evaluated by experienced soil scientists in the study area found the soils do not meet the Buckley series description, nor do they meet hydric soil criteria. The taxonomic classification shows the soils match the Enumclaw series. It was mapped in the 1930's but not placed in the more recent soil surveys. The Enumclaw series was mapped in the 1939 Pierce County Soil Survey and but left out of the most recent 1987 Soil Survey of the Pierce County Area as well. Personal communication with Dale Snyder, the author of the King County soil survey (whose initials appear on the official Buckley description, upper left corner, Attachment 1 under Established Series, DES stands for Dale E. Snyder) has provided clarification of the issue. Personal communication also with Al Zulauf, author of the Pierce County Soil Survey indicated that the Enumclaw series was not mapped in the Buckley area because he was unavailable at the time that the Buckley area of the soil survey was being completed. The point is that the study area does not meet the criteria of a hydric soil Taxonomically, it matches the Enumclaw series, which is not a hydric soil. The Mapped Series is listed as the Buckley loam (official series description Attachment 2). The soils on the site have the general appearance of the Buckley loam but the site s soils have better drainage and do not have hydric soil characteristics. Some may consider the soil hydric due to a 1 chroma surface horizon. This is an error in interpretation. The 1 chroma soils are not considered a wetland indicator because the site has an umbric epipedon which is similar to a mollic epipedon. There are instances in Western Washington of thick dark 1 chroma surface horizons that can be misinterpreted as meeting hydric soil criteria. Attachment 2 discusses this issue, and specifically addresses the Spanaway series. The Spanaway series (description is in Attachment 1) is a somewhat excessively well-drained soil and the water table can be tens of feet below the surface. The soil formation processes are such that it results in a thick black surface, and on many occasions it has been misinterpreted as a hydric soil. The most recent explanation of the dark surface is the recognition of the melanic horizon in the 1990's. Melanic refers to the influence of volcanic ash in the maintenance of the dark surface colors and has nothing to do with saturation or wetness. Volcanic R Page 4

5 ash in the surface horizon reacts with the organic matter, sequestering it and maintaining a black color. Such is the case in the study area with thick dark surface horizon. The key lies in the brown Bw horizon immediately beneath the A horizon which clearly designates the soil as being non-hydric. Attachment 2 provides details with regards to the 1 chroma coloration in the surface horizon. We also see reference to the problem area on page 81 of the DOE Manual, Section E, Mollisols. These soils lack the base saturation criteria for a mollic epipedon, and therefore, they are considered umbric epipedon. With regard to a hydric soils determination, an umbric and a mollic epipedon would both fall under problem areas. The soils of the site while similar to the Buckley series are actually of the Enumclaw series. This is not a hydric soil. This issue is recognized and approved at the quasijudicial hearing examiner level (Attachment 4). HYDROLOGY Hydrology of the site has been altered by the placement of roadside ditches in the area. The roadside ditches throughout the area have also facilitated the drainage. Long history of agricultural drainage has controlled surface water in the area. Recent road construction and utility work has altered the drainage by blocking historic ditches and creating puddling in areas on and off-site. Per code: Wetland. As per RCW 36.70A.030(20), wetland or wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. (Bold added for emphasis) The definition of wetlands does not include those wetlands unintentionally created from non-wetland areas. The ditches and other ponded areas of the site meet technical wetland criteria of ponded for more than two weeks during the growing season. However, per code above, these areas do not meet the definition of a jurisdictional wetland R Page 5

6 The entire site and surrounding area is not a hydric soil. Any ditch or ponded areas because of road construction is present in an upland area and was created as a constructed ditch our unintentionally ponded by road construction. Two ditches are along the south property line. One ditch is on the south side of the fence in the back yard of the homes to the south. The fence between the ditches is built on a bit of a berm and another ditch is on the north side of the fence. The ditches drain to the east to the road side ditch and catch basin system. The north ditch, the one on the site, is blocked and had standing water at the time of the site visit. That ditch needs to be maintained. A utility vault/box at the outlet of this ditch to Watson St. at the SE corner of the site blocks the ditch. The north ditch also has no outlet to the historic roadside ditch that is now tight lined as part of road construction. Stream The Salmonscape Map shows salmon passage in a ditch north of and paralleling SE 456 th St up to about Blake St. The same map shows a stream on both sides of Watson St. The City Map shows the salmon portion of the stream and no more. The east west stream parallel to 456 th is a drainage ditch dug through uplands. That portion of the ditch with salmon is a regulated stream. The north south ditches shown as streams on the Salmonscape map are roadside ditches and not regulated. In fact the ditches are tight lined and incorporated into the City stormwater system. In short, the road side ditches are not streams or regulated. There is no buffer or restrictions on work in those roadside ditches as wetland or streams. Off-Site A wetland may be present several hundred feet to the north on the undeveloped Dickson Ave. road easement. Ponding was observed; this area is far from the site and if it meets wetland criteria would not encumber the site. 9. A description of site development alternatives and an evaluation of those alternatives vis-à-vis any proposed critical area alterations. Include a rationale for not avoiding or minimizing impacts to critical areas identified within the project site; Not applicable 10. A mitigation plan may be submitted to the administrator at the time the applicant submits a critical areas permit (or a Type III through Type V permit application) or the applicant can defer submittal of the mitigation until after the preliminary project design has been reviewed by the administrator. The applicant will be required, however, to submit a final mitigation plan describing mitigation projects for all unavoidable critical area impacts before any project permits are approved by the administrator. The final mitigation plan shall include baseline information, environmental goals and objectives, a financial guarantee quantity worksheet to bond the R Page 6

7 proposed mitigation activities, detailed construction plans, performance standards, a three-tofive-year monitoring program, and a contingency plan. (Ord (Exh. A), 2005). Not applicable. Conclusion Accompanying figures and attachments support the findings that no wetlands, streams or buffers are on or near the site. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Regards, AJ Bredberg Electronic signature Enclosures Figures and Attachments Location Map Soil Map NWI Map SalmonScape City Wetland Map City Stream Map IMAP Contours Air Photos Test Hole Map Data Sheets R Page 7

8 Location Map SITE

9 Soil Map SITE

10 Soil Map King County Area, Washington 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 13, Sep 7, 2017 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 10, 2016 Mar 29, 2016 Oct 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. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/31/2018 Page 2 of 3

11 Soil Map King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Bu Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Buckley gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes % Sm Shalcar muck % Totals for Area of Interest % Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/31/2018 Page 3 of 3

12 Wetlands :21, mi km U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov January 31, 2018 Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other Freshwater Pond Riverine 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. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper

13 Salmonscape Map SITE

14 City Wetland Map SITE

15 City Stream Map SITE

16 1936 Air Photo SITE

17 2015 Air Photo Ponded area in winter SITE

18 County IMAP Contours SITE

19 Test Hole Map Ponded Area TH5 TH6 TH7 TH4 TH3 SITE TH2 TH1

20 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Bowen City/County: Enumclaw/King Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Bowen State: WA Sampling Point: TH1 Investigator(s): AJB Section, Township, Range: 25,20N,6E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plateau Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): 1 Lat: 47 11'45.95" Long: '49.17" Datum: 743 Soil Map Unit Name: Buckley/Enumclaw NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Farmfield with disturbed vegetation and historic ditching, see report VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: (A) (B) 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5 = 1. reed canarygreass 60 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. red top 40 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is < Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 (A/B) 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) % =, 20% = = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) % =, 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

21 Project Site: Bowen SOIL Sampling Point: TH1 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks YR2/2, 2/1+ SiL A YR3/3 SiL Bw YR3/3,4/2 MIXED SL BC 4/6+ 1 Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : 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) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 14 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Ap saturated. Hydrology not normal, farm field with puddles and no water table at depth US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

22 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Bowen City/County: Enumclaw/King Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Bowen State: WA Sampling Point: TH2 Investigator(s): AJB Section, Township, Range: 25,20N,6E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plateau Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): 1 Lat: 47 11'45.95" Long: '49.17" Datum: 743 Soil Map Unit Name: Buckley/Enumclaw NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Farmfield with disturbed vegetation and historic ditching, see report, TREE THROWS AND OLD RUTS IN FARM FIELD VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: (A) (B) 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5 = 1. reed canarygreass 60 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. red top 40 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is < Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 (A/B) 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) % =, 20% = = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) % =, 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

23 Project Site: Bowen SOIL Sampling Point: TH2 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks YR2/2, 2/1+ SiL A YR3/3 SiL Bw YR3/3,4/2 MIXED SL BC 4/6+ 1 Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : 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) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 14 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Ap saturated. Hydrology not normal, farm field with puddles and no water table at depth US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

24 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Bowen City/County: Enumclaw/King Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Bowen State: WA Sampling Point: TH3 Investigator(s): AJB Section, Township, Range: 25,20N,6E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plateau Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): 1 Lat: 47 11'45.95" Long: '49.17" Datum: 743 Soil Map Unit Name: Buckley/Enumclaw NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Farmfield with disturbed vegetation and historic ditching, see report, TREE THROWS AND OLD RUTS IN FARM FIELD VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: (A) (B) 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5 = 1. reed canarygreass 20 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. red top 80 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is < Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 (A/B) 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) % =, 20% = = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) % =, 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

25 Project Site: Bowen SOIL Sampling Point: TH3 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks YR2/2, 2/1+ SiL A YR3/3 SiL Bw YR3/3,4/2 MIXED SL BC 4/6+ 1 Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : 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) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 14 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Ap saturated. Hydrology not normal, farm field with puddles and no water table at depth US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

26 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Bowen City/County: Enumclaw/King Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Bowen State: WA Sampling Point: TH4 Investigator(s): AJB Section, Township, Range: 25,20N,6E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plateau Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): 1 Lat: 47 11'45.95" Long: '49.17" Datum: 743 Soil Map Unit Name: Buckley/Enumclaw NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Farmfield with disturbed vegetation and historic ditching, see report VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: (A) (B) 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5 = 1. reed canarygreass 60 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. red top 40 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is < Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 (A/B) 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) % =, 20% = = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) % =, 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

27 Project Site: Bowen SOIL Sampling Point: TH4 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks YR2/2, 2/1+ SiL A YR3/3 SiL Bw YR3/3,4/2 MIXED SL BC 4/6+ 1 Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : 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) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): * Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 14 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No *2 inch deep puddes Ap saturated. Hydrology not normal, farm field with puddles and no water table at depth US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

28 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Bowen City/County: Enumclaw/King Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Bowen State: WA Sampling Point: TH5 Investigator(s): AJB Section, Township, Range: 25,20N,6E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plateau Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): 1 Lat: 47 11'45.95" Long: '49.17" Datum: 743 Soil Map Unit Name: Buckley/Enumclaw NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Farmfield with disturbed vegetation and historic ditching, see report, TREE THROWS AND OLD RUTS IN FARM FIELD VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: (A) (B) 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5 = 1. reed canarygreass 20 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. red top 80 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is < Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 (A/B) 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) % =, 20% = = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) % =, 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

29 Project Site: Bowen SOIL Sampling Point: TH5 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks YR2/2, 2/1+ SiL A YR3/3 SiL Bw YR3/3,4/2 MIXED SL BC 4/6+ 1 Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : 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) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 14 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Ap saturated. Hydrology not normal, farm field with puddles and no water table at depth US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

30 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Bowen City/County: Enumclaw/King Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Bowen State: WA Sampling Point: TH6 Investigator(s): AJB Section, Township, Range: 25,20N,6E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plateau Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): 1 Lat: 47 11'45.95" Long: '49.17" Datum: 743 Soil Map Unit Name: Buckley/Enumclaw NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Farmfield with disturbed vegetation and historic ditching, see report, TREE THROWS AND OLD RUTS IN FARM FIELD VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: (A) (B) 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5 = 1. reed canarygreass 20 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. red top 80 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is < Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 (A/B) 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) % =, 20% = = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) % =, 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0

31 Project Site: Bowen SOIL Sampling Point: TH6 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks YR2/2, 2/1+ SiL A YR3/3 SiL Bw YR3/3,4/2 MIXED grsl BC 4/6+ 1 Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : 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) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 14 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Ap saturated. Hydrology not normal, farm field with puddles and no water table at depth US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0