Report for Village of Brooklyn, Wisconsin

Transcription

1 Report for Village of Brooklyn, Wisconsin Wetland Delineation Proposed Brooklyn Business Complex Prepared by: STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC. 910 West Wingra Drive Madison, WI September 2012

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. or Following WETLAND DELINEATION Introduction and Location... 1 Soils... 1 Hydrology... 3 Vegetation... 4 Summary... 5 TABLES Table 1 Wetland Review Items... 2 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A SITE LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT B SITE MAP ATTACHMENT C RESOURCE MAPPING (FEMA, SOILS, USGS, AND WISCONSIN WETLAND INVENTORY) ATTACHMENT D SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENT E AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENT F WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD SHEETS AND FQI SUMMARY

3 Village of Brooklyn, Wisconsin Wetland Delineation Proposed Brooklyn Business Complex INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION This wetland review for the Village of Brooklyn (Village), Wisconsin, project was conducted using off-site data, aerial and site photographs, and a growing season review based on the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual and the Northcentral Regional Supplement. The proposed Brooklyn Business Complex site, currently owned by George Brothers Farm, Inc., is a 50-acre parcel located on the east side of the Village, south of STH 92, and east of South Kerch Street in Dane County. The site, located in the Town of Rutland, is identified in the Village s comprehensive plan as a potential business park and long-range industrial growth area for the Village. Please refer to Attachment A for a Site Location Map and the public land survey system location of the project. The site is located in the NE1/4, SW1/4, Section 31, T5N, R10E and the NW1/4, SE1/4, Section 31, T5N, R10E (Lat: Long: ). A preliminary review of off-site mapping identified both wetland indicators (hydric soils, wetland/depression signatures on aerial photos) and wetlands at the project site. An on-site review of the project area was completed on September 14, 2012, by Steven Small to further identify wetland areas. A spot and meandering survey field review of the areas with potential wetland indicators was completed. Six test pits (TP) and two confirmation pits were used for this review. Based on this delineation, two isolated wetland (USACE) areas were identified near the north central portion of the site. Wetland Area No. 1 (47 acres) is a shallow marsh with native vegetation components. It is bordered on all sides by agricultural fields. Wetland Area No. 2 (03 acres) is a shallow, open water community surrounded by a narrow shallow marsh zone. It is bordered to the north by Hwy 92, to the south and east by agricultural fields, and to the west by a bovine enclosure. The Site Map showing delineated wetland areas and test pit locations is provided in Attachment B. The following pages describe the three mandatory criteria for wetland determinations (presence of hydric soils, sufficient wetland hydrology, and dominant hydrophytic vegetation) and the results of this review. Table 1 lists the on- and off-site items reviewed for the wetland delineation. SOILS The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey mapped six soil types within the project boundaries, which include the following: Batavia silt loam, gravelly substratum, 2 to 6 percent slopes (BbB). Dresden loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes, eroded (DrD2). Dresden silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded (DsC2). Kidder loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded (KdC2). 5. Salter silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded (SfB2). 6. Salter sandy loam, wet variant, 0 to 3 percent slopes (ShA) Hydric Soil. An area of 0.8 acres of open water was also identified on the Web Soil Survey map. Of these six soil types shown at the site, only the Salter sandy loam (ShA) was identified as a hydric soil (approximately 8.5 acres). These hydric soils were shown along the northern edge of the site. A Closed Depression Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc. 1 \\strand.com\allcorpdata\mad\documents\reports\archive\2012\brooklyn, WI\WD-PBBC jjs.sep\Report\(1) Report Section.docx\092012

4 Village of Brooklyn, Wisconsin Wetland Delineation Proposed Brooklyn Business Complex was also mapped near the central portion of the property. Please refer to Attachment C for a soil survey map of the project site. Examples of soil profiles were reviewed before the September 14, 2012, field review. During the field review, six soil test pits and two confirmatory pits were excavated in potential wetland areas. For the test pits, the soil types and wetland transition areas, if encountered, were evaluated. Field data sheets containing soil test pit information are found in Attachment F. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BROOKLYN BUSINESS COMPLEX REVIEW ITEMS Off-Site References Reviewed Site Location Map and Legal Description NE1/4, SW1/4, and NW1/4, SE1/4 of Sec. 31, T5N, R10E See Attachments A and C Web Soil Survey Mapping System Six soil types mapped in project area with approximately 17 percent of soils hydric. Depressions identified. See Attachment C USGS Quad Map Evansville, Wisconsin, Quadrangles from 1894, 1906, 1961, and 2010 reviewed. Pond and wetlands identified. See Attachment C Site Photographs Photos taken September 14, 2012 during wetland review. See Attachment D State Wetland Map WWI mapping indicates one unnamed perennial pond and two wetlands too small to delineate are located at north central portion of property. See Attachment C NRCS/FSA FSA maps show the two mapped wetlands (pond and shallow marsh in north central portion of property). Map available in project files. FEMA Floodplain Mapping (Index Panel No C0780G) Zone X designation at project location and no mapped floodplains adjacent to site. See Attachment C Zoning Maps No zoning maps were reviewed for the wetland delineation. Site Map/GIS Topography See Attachment B On-Site References Field Survey Information Site was field-delineated on September 14, 201 Topographic elevations determined based on existing Dane County mapping. Wetlands on-site appear to be at ~ ft. amsl. See Attachment B Geotechnical Boring Logs No Geotechnical boring logs were reviewed for the wetland delineation. Site Topography Map Topography data other than USGS and Dane County 2-ft. contours were not reviewed for the wetland delineation. Species List/Floristic Quality Index FQI Completed. 12 species identified. Native Mean C score: 2 Wetland Delineation/Reviews Field Review completed on September 14, 2012, and report dated September 19, 201 Refer to Wetland Delineation Report Soil Test Pits Six test pits and various shovel probes were conducted during wetland review on September 14, 201 See Attachments B and F HazMat or other Hydrologic. Monitoring No HazMat or other hydrologic reports reviewed for the wetland delineation. Cross Sections or Plan Sets No cross sections or plan sets were reviewed for the wetland delineation. Other Information Previous delineation or agency coordination. None known. Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc. 2 \\strand.com\allcorpdata\mad\documents\reports\archive\2012\brooklyn, WI\WD-PBBC jjs.sep\Report\(1) Report Section.docx\092012

5 Village of Brooklyn, Wisconsin Wetland Delineation Proposed Brooklyn Business Complex HYDROLOGY United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain map, the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) map, historic aerial photographs, and the Site Map show the general topography and/or the hydrology of the site. Wetland Area 1 was identified in a low spot compared to surrounding topography and much of the runoff in the area would accumulate at this location. The open waters of Wetland Area 2 are fed by inlets and culverts located along Hwy 9 The delineated wetlands and culverts are shown on the Site Map in Attachment B. Elevations related to these two features appear to be approximately 960 to 962 feet above mean sea level. USGS topographic maps from 1894, 1906, 1961, and 2008 were reviewed for land use changes and hydrologic conditions. The 1894 map showed no open water areas, wetlands, or depressions at the site. The 1906, 1961, and 2008 maps showed an open water pond and a wetland area near the north central portion of the property and a depression near the northwest corner of the site. Copies of the various year USGS topographic maps are in the project files. The FEMA floodplain map shows the entire site, and all adjacent properties, as being within a Zone X floodplain designation, which indicates that it is an area outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WWI interactive mapping system was reviewed to determine whether known wetlands existed along the project corridor. An unnamed perennial pond and two mapped wetlands too small to delineate were identified near the north central portion of the property. Comparisons of aerial photographs from 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 show inundation at Wetland Areas No. 1 and Early photographs also show a small area of possible inundation north of Wetland Area No. 1, but later photos show no water regime in this area. A pit constructed in this area showed the location to be nonwetland. Two other areas of the site contained various wetland indicators or signatures that required review. These locations were investigated using TP-1, TP-2, and TP-6. Aerial photographs reviewed for this report are located in Attachment E. Precipitation data for the three months before the wetland review was evaluated using weather station data from Oregon, Wisconsin (approximately 5 miles north of Brooklyn, Wisconsin). Actual July 2012 precipitation totaled approximately 77 inches, which was 0.41 inches below the historical average of 18 inches. Actual August 2012 precipitation totaled approximately 99 inches, which was 28 inches below the historical average of 27 inches. Actual September 2012 precipitation (through September 12) totaled approximately 0.88 inches, which was 0.24 inches below the historical average of 12 inches. The total precipitation in the project area from July 1, 2012, through September 12, 2012, was 6.64 inches. This actual total is 93 inches below the historical average precipitation of 9.57 inches for the same period. Because of abnormally dry conditions experienced earlier this year in Wisconsin, the project area (as of September 13, 2012) is currently in a severe drought situation. Therefore, additional emphasis was placed on aerial photo and reference document review for this project. The field review included the construction of six test pits and two confirmation pits in the area of potential wetland areas. TP-4 and TP-5 were determined to be located within wetland boundaries. Wetland hydrologies related to these two pits included presence of reduced iron in soils, inundation Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc. 3 \\strand.com\allcorpdata\mad\documents\reports\archive\2012\brooklyn, WI\WD-PBBC jjs.sep\Report\(1) Report Section.docx\092012

6 Village of Brooklyn, Wisconsin Wetland Delineation Proposed Brooklyn Business Complex and saturation visible on aerial imagery, surface soil cracks, the geomorphic position of the pits, high water table, and a positive FAC-Neutral Test. TP-1, TP-2, TP-3, and TP-6 were determined to be in nonwetland areas based on the individual soil test pit and vegetative conditions. FEMA Floodplain Maps, WWI maps, soils maps, and the USGS topographic map are located in Attachment C. VEGETATION The field review of September 14, 2012, identified two isolated wetland areas near the north central portion of the site. Wetland Area No. 1 is a shallow marsh with substantial native vegetation components. Wetland Area No. 2 is a shallow, open water community surrounded by a narrow shallow marsh zone. TP-1 (nonwetland) was constructed near the northwest corner of the site in an agricultural field. The only species identified at this location was soybean (Glycine max), which is considered to be an upland (UPL) species. Test pit TP-2 (nonwetland) was constructed near the central portion of the site within a closed depression in an agricultural field. Soybean was the only species identified at this location. TP-3 (nonwetland) was constructed on a sloped agricultural field between Wetland Areas No. 1 and Nonwetland species (FacU or UPL) identified at TP-3 included alfalfa (Medicago sativa), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and red clover (Trifolium pratense). No wetland species (Fac, FacW, or OBL) were identified at this location. TP-4 (wetland) was constructed in the shallow marsh of Wetland Area Non-wetland species identified at TP-4 included common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and Queen Anne s Lace (Daucus carota). Wetland species identified at TP-4 included narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), panicled aster (Aster simplex), and marsh fleabane (Erigeron philadelphicus). Extensive mats of water smartweed (Polygonum amphibium), although not at the test pit location, were also observed within the marsh area. TP-5 (wetland) was constructed along a shallow marsh zone within Wetland Area Nonwetland (agronomic weed) species identified at TP-5 included common ragweed and common burdock (Arctium minus). Wetland species identified at TP-5 included narrow-leaved cattail, silver maple (Acer saccharinum), riverbank grape (Vitus riparia), and wild cucumber (Echinocystis lobata). TP-6 (nonwetland) was constructed near the southeast corner of the site in a low area within an agricultural field. Nonwetland species identified at TP-6 included alfalfa and common dandelion. No wetland species were identified at this location. An unfarmed area (at approximately the same elevation) just to the south of TP-6 contained nonwetland vegetation confirming the area near TP-6 as nonwetland. A Floristic Quality Index (FQI) list was completed for this report. The majority of the site is farmed, so, the FQI is low and indicative of new natives (FQI = 5 ±). Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc. 4 \\strand.com\allcorpdata\mad\documents\reports\archive\2012\brooklyn, WI\WD-PBBC jjs.sep\Report\(1) Report Section.docx\092012

7 Village of Brooklyn, Wisconsin Wetland Delineation Proposed Brooklyn Business Complex Site photographs illustrating vegetation conditions of the site are provided in Attachment D. Vegetation associated with specific review points are found on the Field Data Sheets and FQI Tables provided in Attachment F. SUMMARY The September 14, 2012 field review identified two isolated wetlands near the north central portion of the property. Wetland boundaries were marked in the field with ribbon and pin flags used to identify test pit locations. A wetland survey was then completed using a handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit. Wetland boundaries and test pit locations are shown on the Site Map in Attachment B and described on the Data Field Sheets in Attachment F. Wetland Area No. 1 (47 acres) is a shallow marsh (E1K) with native vegetation components. It is bordered on all sides by agricultural fields. Wetland Area No. 2 (03 acres) is a shallow, open water community surrounded by a narrow shallow marsh zone (W0H/E2H). These wetlands were identified on the several off-site references reviewed for the project. The exact size and locations of these wetlands are shown on the Site Map in Attachment B. Proposed project improvements will not impact these wetlands. Wetlands identified at the site appear to be isolated and nonjurisdictional. Appropriate planning would include avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating any impacts to these wetlands through appropriate local, state, and federal permitting or processing. If the Village of Brooklyn would like to receive concurrence with the USACE regarding this wetland delineation, Strand Associates, Inc. can assist with that endeavor. Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc. 5 \\strand.com\allcorpdata\mad\documents\reports\archive\2012\brooklyn, WI\WD-PBBC jjs.sep\Report\(1) Report Section.docx\092012

8 ATTACHMENT A SITE LOCATION MAP

9 Path: S:\MAD\ \1605\030\Data\GIS\Figures\USGS 8x1mxd User: danc Date: 9/19/2012 Time: 10:33:58 AM Project Location / ,000 2,000 Feet ^_ Copyright: 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed SITE LOCATION MAP PROPOSED BROOKLYN BUSINESS COMPLEX TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 10 EAST, SECTION 31 VILLAGE OF BROOKLYN DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN ATTACHMENT A

10 ATTACHMENT B SITE MAP

11 TP-5!TP-3 A TP-4!96!2 A A CP-1 47 Acres (! Project Limits S. KERCH STREET PROPOSED DETENTION BASIN TP TP-6! A User: danc Date: 9/20/2012 Time: 1:05:57 PM Path: S:\MAD\ \1605\030\Data\GIS\Figures\Business Park Wetland 11x17.mxd / PROPOSED DETENTION BASIN ! A HILLTOP CIRCLE CP-2 (! Acres TP (! (! Culvert Pipe SECTION 33, T5N, R10E TOWN OF RUTLAND VILLAGE OF BROOKLYN DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN Culvert Pipe! A SITE MAP PROPOSED BROOKLYN BUSINESS COMPLEX HILLTOP CT N. KERCH STR SMITHFIELD PARK Wetland Area 1 - DNR Type (E1K) Wetland Area 2 - DNR Type (W0H/E2H) Test Pit ! A 966 Confirmation Pit (! Culvert (! Legend Feet 200 ATTACHMENT B

12 ATTACHMENT C RESOURCE MAPPING (FEMA, SOILS, USGS, AND WWI MAPS)

13 Map Created on Sep 12, 2012 Legend ft. Map created on Sep 12, 2012 Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) maps show graphic representations of the type, size and location of wetlands in Wisconsin. These maps have been prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery in conjunction with soil surveys, topographic maps, previous wetland inventories and field work. State statutes define a wetland as "an area where water is at, near or above the land surface long enough to be capable of supporting aquatic or hydrophytic vegetation and which has soils indicative of wet conditions." The principal focus of the WWI is to produce wetland maps that are graphic representations of the type, size and location of wetlands in Wisconsin. Within this context, the objective of the WWI is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type, size of these habitats such that they are accurate at the nominal scale of the 1:24,000 (1 inch = 2000 feet) base map. The DNR recognizes the limitations of using remotely sensed information as the primary data source. They are to be used as a guide for planning purposes. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of jurisdiction of any Federal, State, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, State, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and jurisdictions that may affect such activities. The most accurate method of determining the legal extent of a wetland for federal or state regulations is a field delineation of the wetland boundary by a professional trained in wetland delineation techniques. Notes: FEMA FIRM Map Scale: 1:16,000

14 Soil Map Dane County, Wisconsin (Brooklyn Soils Map) 42 51' 12'' 42 50' 56'' ' 51'' 89 21' 52'' Kerch St Church St ± ShA KdC SfB Map Scale: 1:3,540 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. W KdC Meters Feet ShA ! DsC King Lake Rd DrD SfB DsC2 BbB ' 19'' 89 21' 18'' ' 12'' 42 50' 56'' Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/12/2012 Page 1 of 3

15 Soil Map Dane County, Wisconsin (Brooklyn Soils Map) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units 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 Gully Short Steep Slope Other Political Features Cities Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Map Scale: 1:3,540 if printed on A size (8.5" 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,840. 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 accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: UTM Zone 16N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Dane County, Wisconsin Survey Area Data: Version 10, Jun 26, 2012 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/8/2005 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 9/12/2012 Page 2 of 3

16 Soil Map Dane County, Wisconsin Brooklyn Soils Map Map Unit Legend Dane County, Wisconsin (WI025) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI BbB Batavia silt loam, gravelly substratum, 2 to 6 percent slopes % DrD2 Dresden loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes, eroded 9 5% DsC2 Dresden silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded % KdC2 Kidder loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 7 5.0% SfB2 Salter silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded % ShA Salter sandy loam, wet variant, 0 to 3 percent slopes % W Water 0.8 5% Totals for Area of Interest % Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/12/2012 Page 3 of 3

17 Map Created on Sep 11, 2012 Legend ft. Scale: 1:7,766 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Notes: USGS Map

18 Appendix C - Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Map Map Created on Sep 11, 2012 Legend Approximate Project Location Mapped wetlands too small to delineate Mapped unnamed perennial pond ft. This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Scale: 1:7,766 Notes: WWI Map

19 ATTACHMENT D SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

20 Photo No(s): 1-3 Date: September 14, 2010 Time: 3:00 P.M. By: SSS Village of Brooklyn Soybean- central portion of site Village of Brooklyn Wetland Area 2-Open water pond Village of Brooklyn Wetland Area 1-Shallow marsh area Photo No(s): 4-6 Date: September 14, 2010 Time: 3:15 P.M. By: SSS Village of Brooklyn TP-1 Location (soybeans) Village of Brooklyn TP-2 Location (soybeans) Village of Brooklyn TP-3 Location (alfalfa) APPENDIX D Page 1 of 2 WETLAND DELINEATION VILLAGE OF BROOKLYN-PROPOSED BUSINESS COMPLEX SITE PHOTOGRAPHS S:\MAD\ \1605\030\Wrd\Brooklyn Wetland\Report\(5) Attach D Photos.docx\092012

21 Photo No(s): 7-9 Date: September 14, 2010 Time: 3:15 P.M. By: SSS Village of Brooklyn TP-4 at edge of Wetland Area 1 and agronomic weed area. Village of Brooklyn TP-5 Location (emergent zone at pond) Village of Brooklyn TP-6 Location (alfalfa) Photo No(s): Date: September 14, 2010 Time: 3:30 P.M. By: SSS Village of Brooklyn Soil cracking (Wetland Area 1) Village of Brooklyn CP-1 Location (upslope in alfalfa) Village of Brooklyn CP-2 Location APPENDIX D Page 2 of 2 WETLAND DELINEATION VILLAGE OF BROOKLYN-PROPOSED BUSINESS COMPLEX SITE PHOTOGRAPHS S:\MAD\ \1605\030\Wrd\Brooklyn Wetland\Report\(5) Attach D Photos.docx\092012

22 ATTACHMENT E AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

23

24

25

26

27 ATTACHMENT F WELL DELINEATION FIELD SHEETS AND FQI SUMMARY

28 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 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 Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

29 VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 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: Sampling Point: (A) (B) (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 28 ft tall. Woody vines All woody vines greater than 28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

30 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

31 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 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 Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

32 VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 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: Sampling Point: (A) (B) (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 28 ft tall. Woody vines All woody vines greater than 28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

33 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

34 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 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 Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

35 VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 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: Sampling Point: (A) (B) (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 28 ft tall. Woody vines All woody vines greater than 28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

36 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

37 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 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 Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

38 VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 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: Sampling Point: (A) (B) (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 28 ft tall. Woody vines All woody vines greater than 28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

39 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 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: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 : Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version

40 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes No Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 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 Northcentral and Northeast Region Interim Version