Mount Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory

Transcription

1 Mount Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory Prepared for: USDA Forest Service Mt. Hood National Forest Champion Way Sandy, OR Submitted by: Watershed Professionals Network LLC 5805 Billings Road Mount Hood Parkdale, OR April 2010

2 Contents Introduction... 1 Project Area... 1 Topography...1 Hydrology...1 Soils...9 Wetland Assessment Guidance... 9 Wetland Inventory and Wetland Delineation Explained...9 Methods Remote Sensing Methods Field Data Collection Methods Vegetation...12 Soil...13 Hydrology...13 Wetland Functional Assessment Methods Wetlands Cooper Spur Wetlands...15 Government Camp Wetlands...22 Non-Wetlands Cooper Spur...30 Government Camp...32 Hunchback Mountain East...32 Hunchback Mountain West...36 Assessment of Functions and Values Conclusions References Appendices ii

3 Appendix A Government Camp Wetland Delineation Report Maps Appendix B Field Data Forms Appendix C Wetland Functions and Values Data and Calculations List of Tables Table 1. Parcels proposed for transfer... 2 Table 2. Photo points... 8 Table 3. Sample points... 8 Table 4. Definitions of Hydrophytic Wetland Plant Indicator Categories Table 5. List Functions and Values Assessed Table 6. Determined Wetland Attributes Table 7. Example of Assessment results for Wetland Table 8. Function and Values Score Summary for Cooper Spur Table 9. Function and Values Score Summary for Government Camp Table 10. Comparison of total Functional Capacity Units List of Figures Figure 1. Location Map... 2 Figure 2. Hunchback Mountain West... 3 Figure 3. Hunchback Mountain east Figure 4. Government Camp Figure 5. Cooper Spur North Figure 6. Cooper Spur South... 7 Figure 8. Wetland Figure 9. Photo Point 2: Wetland Figure10. Wetland Figure 11. Photo Point 1: Wetland Figure 12. Wetland Figure 13. Photo Point 19: Wetland 5, swale wetland complex with Alder Figure 14. Wetlands 5 and iii

4 Figure 15. Photo Point 23: Wetland 9, small wetland with Alder Figure 16. Wetlands 9 and Figure 17. Photo Point 16: Wetland 10, Mosaic, swale wetland with skunk cabbage Figure 18. Wetland Figure 19. Photo Point 17: Wetland 10, Mosaic, swale wetland with alder Figure 20. Photo Point 20: Wetland 11, emergent/forested wetland mosaic Figure 21. Photo Point 4: Intermittent stream with subsurface flows (same location as PP3) Figure 22. Photo Point 7: Steep slope with vine maple (Acer circinatum) Figure 23. Photo Point 8: Opening, a blow down Figure 24. Photo Point 13: Big leaf maple regrowth on clearcut Figure 25. Photo Point 14: Intermittent Creek Channel Figure 26. Photo Point 15: Alder with sword fern, hazelnut and vine maple Figure 27. Photo Point 21: site with shallow enough groundwater to support alder, no surface hydrology Figure 28. Photo Point 22: Alder stands with sword fern understory on slopes, no hydrology Figure 29. Weighted Comparison of Locations iv

5 Introduction This report documents a wetland inventory and functional assessment of four land parcels located in Clackamas and Hood River counties, Oregon. Watershed Professionals Network LLC (WPN) and Naiad Aquatic Consultants, LLC (NAC) conducted the study. The land parcels included in the study are part of the proposed Hunchback Mountain and Government Camp/Cooper Spur land exchanges. This report details the approximate boundaries, acreage, classification, functions and cultural values of wetlands to facilitate the land exchange feasibility analysis being conducted by the U.S. Forest Service, Mount Hood National Forest. Project Area The project area includes four parcel locations: Cooper Spur, Government Camp, Hunchback Mountain East and Hunchback Mountain West. Figure 1 presents the project area location map, and Table 1 provides a description of the proposed parcels being considered for transfer. Figure 2 through Figure 6 show the four separate project locations with the land exchange parcels are marked in red. A description of photo points identified on the maps is given in Table 2, and sample point locations are given in Table 3. Topography The topography in each of the parcels contain slopes ranging from 5 40%. The Cooper Spur parcels are on a north facing slope of Mount Hood with a number of deep valleys. The Government Camp parcels are on a west facing slope of Mount Hood with numerous swales. The two Hunchback Mountain west parcels are separated by a deep drainage. The southern parcel has more rolling topography, and the northern parcel is a very steep hill. The Hunchback Mountain east parcel has a very large steep rocky scarp. Hydrology The Cooper Spur parcels (mean elevation 3,300 ) and Government Camp parcels (mean elevation 3,900 ) are located at within the Cascade Crest Montane Forest ecoregion (Woods et al. 2003). Snowpack generally persists throughout the winter months, and spring snowmelt has a significant impact on local hydrology. Peak stream flows are generally driven by wintertime rain on snow events. The complex soils and geology, with areas of high to low permeability, drive the occurrence of springs and seeps within this area. 1

6 Figure 1. Location Map Table 1. Parcels proposed for transfer. Map ID General Location Current owner Proposed transfer Acres (GIS) 1 Cooper Spur n/a (inholding) n/a (inholding) Cooper Spur Mt Hood Meadows USFS Cooper Spur Mt Hood Meadows USFS Hunchback Mountain East Clackamas Co. USFS Hunchback Mountain West USFS Clackamas Co Hunchback Mountain West Government Camp Government Camp USFS USFS USFS Clackamas Co Mt Hood Meadows Mt Hood Meadows

7 Figure 2. Hunchback Mountain West 3

8 Figure 3. Hunchback Mountain east. 4

9 Figure 4. Government Camp. 5

10 Figure 5. Cooper Spur North. 6

11 Figure 6. Cooper Spur South 7

12 Table 2. Photo points. Map ID Description 1 Wetlands ' wide 2 Wetlands ' wide 3 Intermittent stream, w/subsurface flows, becomes perennial, tiny wetlands 4 Intermittent stream, w/subsurface flows, becomes perennial, tiny wetlands 5 Riparian wetlands 6 Perennial stream, steep channel, with discontinuous small abandoned terraces 7 Steep slope with vine maple 8 Opening a blow down with larch, Douglas fir, pine, bracken fern and vine maple 9 Drainage a 60/40 wetland mosaic 10 Narrow, steep drainage with alder 11 Old borrow pit, no hydrology, no soils, FAC plant community 12 Old borrow pit, no hydrology, no soils, FAC plant community 13 Big leaf maple re growth on clear cut 14 Intermittent creek channel 15 Alder with sword fern, hazelnut, and vine maple 16 Stringer wetland with skunk cabbage 17 Stringer wetland with alder 18 Stringer wetland with alder 19 Wetland complex; stringer wetlands with alder or skunk cabbage 20 Wetland complex: big emergent wetland and stringer wetlands Alder with shallow enough groundwater to support alder, no indicators of surface hydrology Alder stands with sword fern understory, on slopes. No hydrology >0.5 acre alder wetland Table 3. Sample points. Map ID 1 2:U1* 2 2:W Sample Point 3:W1 1:W1 1:U1 6 10:U :W1 5:U1 5:W1 11:W1 *(2:U1 is Wetland Number: Upland Data Plot and plot number if more than one plot/wetland) 8

13 The Hunchback Mountain West (mean elevation 700 ) and Hunchback Mountain East (mean elevation 1,900 ) parcels are located within the Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys ecoregion (Woods et al. 2003). Snowpack is generally absent within these areas, and local hydrology is dominated by wintertime rainfall events, with only the largest peak flows being driven by rain on snow events. Soils Although the Hood River County and Clackamas County soil survey (USDA 1981, 1985) do not describe the soils in the vicinity of Mount Hood, field data indicate that the area predominantly consists of andisols derived from ash, pumice, cinders and mud flows. Wetland Assessment Guidance The primary objectives of the Mt Hood USFS wetland assessment were to determine the presence, approximate location, and extent of waters of the US and wetlands on the property consistent with current regulatory guidance as articulated in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (ACOE 2008). Wetland Inventory and Wetland Delineation Explained A wetland inventory uses existing information which can include: USFWS National Wetland Inventory maps (NWI), NRCS soils maps, remote sensing data (LiDAR and Aerial imagery), existing GIS layers (streams, county wetland surveys, culvert and bridge locations) and other existing wetland delineation reports Using these data, potential wetlands are located and a field effort determines if these areas meet the three wetland parameters articulated in the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (ACOE 2008). During the field effort, the field team follows the guidelines in the ACOE Manual to determine wetland presence/absence and provide supporting data in the approved determination datasheets. If the field team determines that a wetland is present, they refine the inventory draft field map to more closely match field conditions. If the exact location and size of the wetlands is needed (e.g. the wetland will potentially be impacted by development or the values of a property is dependent on buildable land), then a wetland delineation is required. During a wetland delineation, the field team would use all the above information to determine the presence of a wetland, however at this point 9

14 they would also use guidelines provided in the ACOE Manual to delineate and mark the edge of the wetland. These marks are generally surveyed by a licensed surveyor and maps with calculated areas are provided in a wetland delineation report. For this wetland inventory, some wetlands were mapped as complexes and then wetland coverage was estimated within that complex to be certain that all wetland areas within a large grouping of small, yet connected wetlands were included in our mapping. A Wetland Delineation would provide accurate wetland areas that would likely be less than our estimated coverage. It should be noted that delineation can be time consuming and therefore more expensive. Whether conducting an inventory or a delineation, the wetland presence is determined by the profession field team. However they do not have the authority to verify that the wetland (or other regulatory waters such as streams and lakes) exists in a regulatory context. Only regulatory agencies have the authority to designate jurisdictional wetland boundaries. Generally this is Army Corps of Engineers, but sometimes they give the authority to state land managers such as the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). 10

15 Methods Remote Sensing Methods The forested nature of the parcels presented a challenge for finding wetland habitats using remote sensing methods. Combinations of remote sensing methods were used to find and map potential wetland habitats. Aerial photographs were obtained from the USFS. A stereoscope was used to view the parcels in stereo. A deciduous plant signature on the photos was used to locate the presence of potential wetlands. Areas with potential wetland habitats were digitized as polygons into ArcGIS software and field maps were created from the new data layers. Other data layers added to ArcGIS included the National Wetland Inventory wetland mapping, a stream layer, light detection and ranging (LiDAR) (where available), and an orthorectified air photo layer. The LiDAR data was used in the remote sensing process to look for depressional areas which could contain wetland habitats. A wetland delineation report entitled Wetland Delineation Report for Upper Camp Creek Area, Government Camp, Clackamas County, Oregon by Terra Science, 2006 was obtained from Mount Hood Meadows Ski Resort. This report is for the Government Camp parcels and was obtained after the field data collection was completed. Maps from this report are included in Appendix A. The full report can be found with the digital version of this report. Field Data Collection Methods WPN and NAC staff members, Ms. Nancy Napp and Mr. William Kleindl, performed a wetland determination in areas of interest identified by the remote sensing assessment. Potential wetlands and other waters of the US in the study area were assessed using the routine determination methods as outlined in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (ACOE 2008). To make the wetland determinations, data was collected at locations that represent typical wetland or upland characteristics. The field data collected can be found on the field data forms contained in Appendix B. To be considered a wetland, under normal circumstances, an area must have (1) wetland vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology (ACOE 2008). Areas that do not support indicators for one or more of these three 11

16 parameters generally are not regulated as wetlands. Sites that include a combination of wetland and upland conditions are referred to a wetland complexes or mosaics. They are generally indicated by a percent wetland/upland. In polygons where wetland habitats were present, we used the following methods: The dominant plant species in each stratum were recorded with their percent cover. Percent cover estimates were made using ocular survey techniques. Once these dominant plants were recorded, their wetland indicator status was found using The National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed, 1988). Soil conditions were described at plot locations. The soil pit was dug and characterized using a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Macbeth, 1994) and by noting other soil characteristics. Hydrologic indicators were evaluated. A representative upland plot was taken for each polygon containing wetland habitats. Sample plots were located using a GPS unit. We took photographs of each wetland habitat (See Section 3 for Photos). Wetlands are numbered based on their original polygon number. The field data was collected from October 9th through October 12th. The weather was clear and cool except on October 12th, which was cold with an unusually early snowfall event. Vegetation The dominant plants and the wetland indicator status for each were evaluated to determine whether the vegetation was hydrophytic. To meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, more than 50 percent of the dominant plants must be Facultative, Facultative Wetland, or Obligate, based on the wetland indicator categories that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Reed 1997, and Table 4) assigned to each plant species. Scientific and common plant names used are consistent with Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1991). 12

17 Table 4. Definitions of Hydrophytic Wetland Plant Indicator Categories Wetland Indicator Category Obligate Wetland Plants Facultative Wetland Plants Facultative Plants Facultative Upland Plants Upland Plants Source: Reed Symbol OBL FACW FAC FACU UPL Definition Plants that almost always (>99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but which may rarely (<1% of the time) occur in non wetlands. Plants that often (67 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but sometimes (1 33% of the time) occur in non wetlands. Plants with a similar likelihood (33 67% of the time) of occurring in both wetlands and non wetlands. Plants that sometimes (1 33% of the time) occur in wetlands, but occur more often (67 99% of the time) in non wetlands. Plants that rarely (<1% of the time) occur in wetlands, and almost always (>99% of the time) occur in non wetlands. Soil Generally, an area must have hydric soil to be a wetland. Hydric soils form when soils are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Indicators of hydric soil become visible when anaerobic biological activities result in distinct soil colors. Typically, low chroma colors and mottles of bright color form within the matrix. The color pattern is one of several possible indicators of hydric soil. Other indicators include high organic matter content in the surface horizon, odors of reduced sulfur, and staining by organic matter in the subsurface horizon. Specific hydric soil attributes unique to the western region are articulated in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Manual (ACOE 2008). Project staff examined soils by digging sample pits to a depth of 18 inches or more (where possible) to observe soil profiles and determine hydrologic conditions. Munsell color charts (Macbeth 1994) were used to describe soil colors. Hydrology Project staff examined areas for evidence of wetland hydrology. An area is considered to have wetland hydrology when soils are ponded or saturated for at least 5 percent or in some cases 12.5 percent of the growing season. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology include surface inundation and saturated soils. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology include drainage patterns, watermarks on vegetation, water stained leaves, and oxidized root channels. In north central Oregon, some seasonal wetlands begin to dry out by mid May, and may lack standing water or wetland hydrology consistent with delineation procedures (ACOE 13

18 2008). Areas with wetland soils and wetland vegetation meet the wetland criteria, and under normal circumstances are wetlands even though the wetland hydrology parameter may be seasonally absent. Wetland Functional Assessment Methods A variety of assessment methods have been developed throughout the Pacific Northwest that address wetland conditions, functions, and cultural values. These methods have been developed to address projects that are specific to region, scale, permit requirements and various management and planning priorities. Given the assessment requirements of this project a regional approach was chosen that most closely matches the USFS team s management goals. The Washington State Department of Transportation s (WSDOT) Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (Null et al, 2000) provides an assessment of functions and values appropriate for the region (Table 5) that is based on best professional judgment at a resolution and inquiry appropriate for the project. Table 5. List Functions and Values Assessed Flood Flow Alteration Habitat for Amphibians Sediment Removal Habitat for Wetland Mammals Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Habitat for Wetland Birds Erosion Control General Fish Habitat Organic production and transport Native Plant Richness General Habitat Suitability Educational or Scientific Value Habitat for Aquatic Vertebrates Uniqueness and Heritage The WSDOT method (attached to the digital media copy of this report) provides the field assessment teams a guided series of questions and required observations to determine the presence of physical attributes necessary to support various functions and values. The WSDOT document was modified slightly to provide a method to compare sites within the study area. These project specific datasheets are also included in Appendix C. With this modification, the Oregon field teams use the results of the guided questionnaire to provide a Low, Medium, or High result for each function or values assessed in each wetland. These field results were later converted to a semi quantitative score of 1, 3, and 5 for the respective low, medium, and high results. These scores were then multiplied by the wetland area to determine comparable functional capacity units (FCU) for each site. This approach has been used by various HGM methods (Brinson et al. 1995) through the United States to assist in impact assessment for Clean Water Act section

19 Fifteen potential wetland polygons were identified by remote sensing methods. Five areas were identified on Cooper Spur parcels, six areas on Government Camp parcels, two areas on Hunchback East parcels, and two areas on Hunchback West parcels. Of the fifteen polygon areas that were field assessed, eight contained wetland areas. Five of the wetland areas are located on the Government Camp parcels and three are located on the Cooper Spur parcels. The areas that were determined wetlands under the guidance provided in the ACOE Manual are shown in green on Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6. Also see Table 6 for Determined Wetland Attributes. Table 6. Determined Wetland Attributes Wetland ID Cowardin Class HGM Class Assessment area Polygon Acreage Percent wetland Approximate Wetland Acreage 1 PFO1C/PEM1C Riverine Cooper Spur PSS1B/PEM1B PSS1B/PEM1B Slope Slope Cooper Spur Cooper Spur Land Tract Total: Cooper Spur PSS1B Slope Gov't Camp PSS1B PFO1B/PSS1B PEM1B/ PFO1B PFO1B Slope Slope Slope Slope Gov't Camp Gov't Camp Gov't Camp Gov't Camp Land Tract Total: Government Camp Wetlands Areas that were determined to have all three wetland parameters (wetland soil, hydrology, and vegetation) on the Government Camp and Cooper Spur parcels are described below. Cooper Spur Wetlands There are three wetland habitats located on the Cooper Spur parcels. Each wetland is described below. 15

20 Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is a wetland complex located in a deep ravine. The valley walls are forested with approximately 40% slopes. There is a floodplain at the bottom of the canyon that allows for development of a Riverine forested/emergent wetland complex comprised of approximately 70% wetlands and 30% uplands. The depositional riparian area on the valley bottom is approximately 75 feet wide. Wetland areas are confined to open areas on the valley floor. The forested portions of the complex are dominated by alder (Alnus incana). The emergent portions of the complex are dominated by forbs such as coltsfoot (Petasites frigidus) and willow herb (Epilobium glabberimum) (Figure 7). Soils are comprised of sands with low chroma and redox features in the upper six inches. Hydrology indicators included saturation at nine inches with water table present at twelve inches. The wetland mosaic size is about 3.7 acres and about 2.6 acres are likely wetland) (Figure 8). Figure 7. Photo Point 9: Wetland 1, a 70/30 WL/UL mosaic. 16

21 Figure 8. Wetland 1 17

22 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is located near the Cooper Spur Inn. Wetland 2 is a shrub scrub/emergent slope wetland, dominated by cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) and alder (Alnus incana) with an emergent understory dominated by small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpa), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) and mannagrass (Glyceria elata). Soils are fine sandy loams with thick dark surface layer indicating hydric soils. Hydrology is indicated by the presence of saturation at six inches. Uplands in the vicinity of Wetland 2 are characterized by trees such as western larch (Larix occidentalis) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata), shrubs include creeping blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and mountain alder (Alnus incana) with understory plants such as timothy (Phleum pratense) and pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea; Figure 9). Wetland 2 is located along a tributary to Tilly Jane Creek. The wetland size is approximately 2.0 acres (Figure 10). Figure 9. Photo Point 2: Wetland 2 18

23 Figure10. Wetland 2 19

24 Wetland 3 Wetland 3 is also located near the Cooper Spur Inn, downstream of Wetland 2 (Figure 11 and 12). Wetland 3 is a shrub scrub/emergent slope wetland, dominated by alder (Alnus incana) with an emergent understory dominated by small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpa), and mannagrass (Glyceria elata). Wetland 3 is located along a tributary to Tilly Jane Creek, just downstream of Wetland 2. The wetland size is approximately 2.4 acres. Soils are histosols with hydrology indicators of saturation at the surface and water table visible at four inches. Figure 11. Photo Point 1: Wetland 3 20

25 Figure 12. Wetland 3 21

26 Government Camp Wetlands There are five wetland habitats located on the Government Camp parcels. Each wetland is described below. Wetland 5 Wetland 5 is located on the eastern parcel at Government Camp (Figures 13 and 14). It is a wetland mosaic comprised of 80% wetland/20% upland, approximately 1.1 acres in size (approximately 0.9 acres of wetland). Dominant wetland features are located in swales that drain snowmelt off of the slopes of Mt. Hood. Dominant plant species include alder (Alnus incana), with an understory of skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) and ladyfern (Athyrium felix femina;). Soils are comprised of organic matter (histosols) with a sulfidic odor. Hydrology indicators included saturation at the surface with water table present at 18 inches. Uplands in the vicinity of Wetland 5 are dominated by mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), huckleberry (Vaccinium occidentale) and beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Figure 13. Photo Point 19: Wetland 5, swale wetland complex with Alder 22

27 Figure 14. Wetlands 5 and 11 23

28 Wetland 9 Wetland 9 is an approximate 0.2 acre wetland found in the western parcel of Government Camp (Figures 15 and 16). The wetland is dominated by alder and is somewhat disturbed, due to it s location between roads and trails. Past land use history may also contribute to the disturbed nature of this wetland. Functional assessment data was not taken at this wetland because of its size. Figure 15. Photo Point 23: Wetland 9, small wetland with Alder 24

29 Figure 16. Wetlands 9 and 18 25

30 Wetland 10 Wetland 10 is a forested/shrub scrub slope wetland mosaic located south on the western Government Camp parcel (Figures 17, 18, and 19). It is approximately 8.8 acres. The wetland mosaic is 60% wetland/40% upland (approximately 5.3 acres of wetland). This mosaic is characterized by swales that are dominated by either shrubby alder stands (Alnus incana) or emergent skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) and ladyfern (Athyrium felixfemina). Soils are characterized by having a histic epipedon 12 inches deep over a loamy sand with gravels. Hydrology indicators are saturation at five inches with water table present at 12 inches. Wetland 10 is a series of swales are found winding through forested areas dominated by mountain hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Figure 17. Photo Point 16: Wetland 10, Mosaic, swale wetland with skunk cabbage 26

31 Figure 18. Wetland

32 Figure 19. Photo Point 17: Wetland 10, Mosaic, swale wetland with alder 28

33 Wetland 11 Wetland 11 is a forested/emergent slope wetland mosaic located on the eastern Government Camp parcel. It is approximately 9.4 acres in size (See Figures 13). The wetland mosaic is 70% wetland/30% upland (approximately 6.6 acres of wetland). This mosaic is characterized by a large emergent wetland area dominated by water sedge (Carex aquatilis; Figures 20). Soils are characterized as a histosol, with hydrology indicators of saturation at the soil surface with water table present at five inches. In the forested areas around this large emergent area are swales similar to Wetlands 5 and 10. The swales are dominated by shrubby alder stands beneath forests of western redcedar (Thuja plicata) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). Figure 20. Photo Point 20: Wetland 11, emergent/forested wetland mosaic 29

34 Wetland 18 There are several small wetlands in a mosaic located on the west side of the western Government Camp parcel (See Figure 16). These wetlands were delineated and surveyed by Terra Science, Inc and total 0.6 acres. Collectively the upland/wetland mosaic in that area comprised of 20% wetland and 80% upland totaling approximately 2.9 acres. This mosaic is identified by the Wetland Delineation Report for Upper Camp Creek Area, Government Camp, Clackamas County, Oregon (Terra Science, 2006). This wetland was located using the wetland delineation report entitled Wetland Delineation Report for Upper Camp Creek Area, Government Camp, Clackamas County, Oregon by Terra Science, 2006, and not investigated in the field. Non-Wetlands Photos and discussion of the non wetland habitats on the Cooper Spur, Government Camp, and Hunchback Mountain parcels are included here. Potential wetland habitats were identified during the remote sensing. It is difficult to determine deciduous uplands from wetlands using remote sensing. The non wetlands were frequently deciduous uplands. Photos were taken at each potential wetland site and are shown below. Cooper Spur Potential wetland polygons were visited, in addition to the creeks in the Cooper Spur project area. Below are photos points in the areas that had potential wetland signatures in the remote sensing assessment but were found to not contain the three wetland parameters. There are potential waters of the United States due to these small streams connecting to navigable waters (Figures 21, 22 and 23). See Figure 5 and Figure 6 for photo point locations. 30

35 Figure 21. Photo Point 4: Intermittent stream with subsurface flows (same location as PP3) Figure 22. Photo Point 7: Steep slope with vine maple (Acer circinatum) 31

36 Figure 23. Photo Point 8: Opening, a blow down Government Camp Each potential wetland habitat investigated on the Government Camp parcels was determined to be wetlands. Hunchback Mountain East Two potential wetland habitat areas and one creek were visited to investigate for wetlands. No wetland habitats were determined. Photos of the non wetland habitats are shown in (Figures 24, 25 and 26). below. Refer to Figure 3 for photo point locations. 32

37 Figure 24. Photo Point 13: Big leaf maple regrowth on clearcut 33

38 Figure 25. Photo Point 14: Intermittent Creek Channel 34

39 Figure 26. Photo Point 15: Alder with sword fern, hazelnut and vine maple 35

40 Hunchback Mountain West Two potential wetland habitat areas (one in each parcel) were visited to investigate for wetlands. No wetland habitats were determined. Photos of the non wetland habitats are shown in (Figures 27 and 28). below. Refer to Figure 2 for photo point locations. Figure 27. Photo Point 21: site with shallow enough groundwater to support alder, no surface hydrology 36

41 Figure 28. Photo Point 22: Alder stands with sword fern understory on slopes, no hydrology 37

42 Assessment of Functions and Values The intention of the study was to determine if there is a potential loss or gain of overall wetland functions and values following potential land exchanges. To accomplish this, a modified version of the Washington State Department of Transportation s (WSDOT) Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (Null et al, 2000) was used to assess the functions and values of these wetlands. The original method was modified slightly so that the Oregon field team could assign a Low, Medium, or High result for each function or value assessed using the original document s guided assessment along with best professional judgment. These field results were later converted to a semi quantitative score of 1, 3, and 5 for the respective low, medium, and high results. Table 7 provides an example of this assessment for Wetland 1. The results of all wetlands are provided in Appendix C and the assessment methodology is provided as a separate document. Table 7. Example of Assessment results for Wetland 1. Assessment Questions Functions and Values Functions Rating Semi- Quantitative Score Flood Flow Alteration Y Y N N Y N N M 3 Sediment Removal N N Y N N Y M 3 Nutrient & Toxicant Removal N Y N Y Y M 3 Erosion Control N Y Y M 3 Organic production and transport Y Y Y Y Y Y H 5 General Habitat Suitability Y Y Y Y Y Y H 5 Habitat for Aquatic Vertebrates Y Y N Y Y Y H 5 Habitat for Amphibians Y Y Y Y Y Y H 5 Habitat for Wetland Mammals Y Y Y Y Y Y H 5 Habitat for Wetland Birds N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H 5 General Fish Habitat Y Y N Y Y H 5 Native Plant Richness Y Y Y Y H 5 Educational or Scientific Value N N Y L 1 Uniqueness and Heritage N N N N N N L 1 To provide a comparable measurement of function and values between land tracts, functional capacity units (FCU) were determined for each site. The FCU method has been used by various hydrogeomorphic approaches (HGM) to wetland functional assessment (Brinson et al. 1995) through the United States to assist in impact assessment and proper mitigation for Clean Water Act section 404 permits. For each function the wetland s individual FCU was determined by multiplying the semi qualitative score with the 38

43 wetland s acreage. Then, for each land track, the FCUs were simply totaled for the area. Table 8 and Table 9 provide a summary of these calculations for each land tract. Table 10 below provides a side by side comparison of each land tract. For each land tract the FCUs for each wetland are summed by function and these numbers are totaled to provide a comparable score for each tract. Cooper spur has a total of 337 FCUs and Government Camp has 625 FCUs. Of the total 962 FCUs, Cooper spur contains 35% and Government Camp has 65%. Table 8. Function and Values Score Summary for Cooper Spur Land Tract Cooper Spur Wetland Number WL 1 WL 2 WL 3 Wetland Acreage Function and Values Rating Score FCU Rating Score FCU Rating Score FCU Flood Flow Alteration M M M Sediment Removal M L L Nutrient & Toxicant Removal M H H Erosion Control M H H Organic production and transport H H H General Habitat Suitability H H H Habitat for Aquatic Vertebrates H H H Habitat for Amphibians H H H Habitat for Wetland Mammals H L L Habitat for Wetland Birds H M M General Fish Habitat H L L Native Plant Richness H M M Educational or Scientific Value L L L Uniqueness and Heritage L L L Total FCU By Wetland Total FCU BY Land Tract

44 Table 9. Function and Values Score Summary for Government Camp Land Tract Government Camp Wetland Number WL 5 WL 10 WL 11 WL 18 Wetland Acreage Function and Values Rating Score FCU Rating Score Flood Flow Alteration L L L L Sediment Removal L L M L Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control Organic production and transport General Habitat Suitability Habitat for Aquatic Vertebrates Habitat for Amphibians Habitat for Wetland Mammals M M H M M H L M M H M H M M H M Habitat for Wetland Birds M H H H General Fish Habitat M L L L Native Plant Richness H H H H Educational or Scientific Value M H H H Uniqueness and Heritage L L L L Total FCU By Wetland Total FCU BY Land Tract FCU Rating H M H H M H Score FCU Rating L M M H M H Score FCU

45 Table 10. Comparison of total Functional Capacity Units Functions and Values Total for Cooper Spur Total FCU by Function Weight Score Total for Government Camp Total FCU by Function Flood Flow Alteration Sediment Removal Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control Organic production and transport General Habitat Suitability Habitat for Aquatic Vertebrates Habitat for Amphibians Habitat for Wetland Mammals Habitat for Wetland Birds General Fish Habitat Native Plant Richness Educational or Scientific Value Uniqueness and Heritage Total Wetland Acres Total Functional Capacity Units Ratio of Total FCU Score 35% 65% Weight Score To compare wetland condition amongst tracts, a weighted semi quantitative score was determined by dividing the land tract s total FCU for each function or value by the total acreage of the land track. Figure 29 shows these weighted semi quantitative scores in a graph form with the High, Medium and Low approximated by the color bars. Cooper Spur s wetlands consisted predominately of riparian wetlands or slope wetland with a small open water channel within the wetland. Government Camp consists primarily of slope wetland with limited open water. Because Cooper Spur has open water channels, it scores higher on the functions driven by surface water flux such as flood flow alterations, toxicant removal, erosion control, organic matter transport and aquatic vertebrates and fish habitat. Because the wetlands at Government Camp generally have more of a diverse plant communities and forested buffer it scored higher in the general habitat functions. Government Camp also has easier access to the wetlands than Cooper Spur which drove the score for the educational value higher. 41

46 Figure 29. Weighted Comparison of Locations 42

47 Conclusions Eight wetland habitats were located and determined in this study. Five of the wetland habitats are located on the Government Camp parcels and three are located on the Cooper Spur parcels. Government Camp has about 13 acres of wetland and Cooper Spur has about 7 acres. When the functional capacity is weighted by the acreage of wetland the ratio of the total units is about 65% (Government Camp) to 35% (Cooper Spur). Not the ideal 50/50 relationship, and therefore there will be a loss of both wetland area and wetland functions and values if the land exchange will occur. The Hunchback Mountain East and Hunchback Mountain West parcels did not contain wetland habitats. 43

48 References Brinson, M. M., F. R. Hauer, L. C. Lee, W. L. Nutter, R. D. Rheinhardt, R. D. Smith, D. Whigham A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic assessments to riverine wetlands. Technical Report WRP DE 1, Wetlands Research Program, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Laboratory Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report Y Washington D.C Hitchcock, C. L., and Cronquist, A Flora of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Wash. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation Munsell Soil Color Charts, Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Md. Null, W.S.; G. Skinner, and W. Leonard Wetland functions characterization tool for linear projects. Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office, Olympia. Reed, P.B National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. US Fish and Wildlife Publication NERC 88/ St. Petersburg, Florida. Terra Science Wetland Delineation Report for Upper Camp Creek Area, Government Camp, Clackamas County, Oregon. Report to Mount Hood Meadows Ski Area, September US Army Corps of Engineers Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS

49 USDA, National Resource Conservation Service. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 5.9 USDA, Soil Survey of Hood River County Area, Oregon, USDA Soil Conservation Service. USDA Soil Survey of Clackamas County Area, Oregon, USDA Soil Conservation Service. Vepraskas, M. J Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Technical Bulletin 301, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Whitson, T. D. ET. Al Weeds of the West. University of Wyoming, Pioneer of Jackson Hole, Jackson, Wyoming. Woods, A., S. Bryce, J. Omernik Level III and IV Ecoregions of Oregon. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR. Online lingkage: USF&WS Interactive Wetland Mapper: 45

50 Appendix A Government Camp Wetland Delineation Report Maps

51 This page intentionally blank

52

53

54

55 Appendix B Field Data Forms

56 This page intentionally blank

57 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Cooper Spur City/County: Hood River County Sampling Date: 10/11/2009 Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 1:W1 Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T1S R10E S31 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drainage Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: N/A 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 Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) % Cover Species? Status 1. Thuja plicata 30 * FAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 30 = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5. Acer circinatum 25 * FAC- Prevalence Index worksheet: 4 (A) 5 (B) 6. Ribes sp. 10 N/I Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 7. Alnus cf. rubra 25 * FAC OBL species x1 = 8. FACW species x2 = 9. FAC species x3 = 60 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 80% (A/B) 10. Petasites frigidus 50 * FACW- Column Totals: (A) (B) 11. Epilobium glaberrinum 20 * FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 12. Gallium boreale 10 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 13. Fragaria virginiana 10 FACU* Dominance Test is >50% 14. Viola sp. 5 N/I Prevalence Index is < Lactuca serriola + FACU Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 16. Mimulus guttatus + OBL 17. Osmorhiza longistylis + FACU Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Scirpus microcarpus + OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 19. Luzula sp. + N/I 20. Pyrola sp. + N/I Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: 95+ = Total Cover = Total Cover 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, Valley, and Coast Interim Version

58 Project Site: Cooper Spur SOIL Sampling Point: 1: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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks YR 2.5/ YR 3/3 4 C M sand YR 2/2 100 sand Lenses of organics interspersed with sand YR 4/1 100 sand YR 3/3 100 sand 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) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: 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): 12 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast Interim Version

59 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Cooper Spur City/County: Hood River County Sampling Date: 10/11/2009 Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 1:U1 Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T1S R10E S31 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 40% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, Or Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, Or Hydrology, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) % Cover Species? Status 21. Tsuga heterophylla 60 * FACU Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 60 = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25. Rosa sp. 10 * N/I Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 (A) 5 (B) 26. Rubus cf. ursinus 5 FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 27. Acer circinatum 10 * FAC- OBL species x1 = 28. Ribes sp. 5 N/I FACW species x2 = 29. Corylus cornuta 10 * FACU FAC species x3 = 40 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 0 (A/B) 30. Achlys triphylla 10 UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 31. Linnaea borealis 30 * FACU- Prevalence Index = B/A = 32. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 33. Dominance Test is >50% 34. Prevalence Index is < Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in 36. Remarks or on a separate sheet) 37. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: 40 = Total Cover = Total Cover 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, Valley, and Coast Interim Version

60 Project Site: Cooper Spur SOIL Sampling Point: 1:U1 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 0-3 organic 100 organic OI YR 3/2 100 Loamy sand AC YR 4/2 100 sand BWC 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) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: Andic, ashy 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): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast Interim Version