Wetland_Delineation_Report_0001.pdf

Wetland Delineation Report

Fish Technology Center Longview, Washington

Prepared for KPFF Consulting Engineers

March 31, 2021 154 124 001

6420 S Macadam Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97239 503.620.7284

Wetland Delineation Report

Fish Technology Center Longview, Washington

Prepared for KPFF Consulting Engineers

March 31, 2021 154 124 001

Prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc.

Timothy L. Walters, PhD, PWS Wetland Biologist

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Project Description 1

1.1.1 Soils 1

1.1.2 Topography 1

1.1.3 Hydrology 2

1.1.4 National Wetlands Inventory 2

1.1.5 Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species 2

2.0 METHODS 3

2.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation 3

2.2 Hydric Soils 5

2.3 Wetland Hydrology 5

2.4 Wetland Classification and Rating 5

2.4.1 Wetland Classification 5

2.4.2 Wetland Ratings 5

2.5 Ordinary High Water Mark Determination 5

3.0 RESULTS 6

3.1 Wetland 1 6

3.1.1 Functions and Rating 6

3.2 Wetland 2 7

3.2.1 Functions and Rating 7

3.3 Upland Areas 7

4.0 WATERWAYS 8

5.0 SUMMARY 8

6.0 REFERENCES 8

TABLES

1 WDFW PHS List in the Vicinity of the Project 2 2 Plant Indicator Status Categories 4 ii | Contents

March 31, 2021

FIGURES

1 Vicinity Map 2 Soils Map 3 USGS Map 4 NWIMap 5 Wetland Overview

APPENDIX A

Wetland Delineation Forms

APPENDIX B

Photographs

APPENDIX C

Priority Habitats and Species Report

APPENDIX D

Wetland Rating Form and Maps

Wetland Delineation Report

Fish Technology Center Longview, Washington

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of KPFF Consulting Engineers (KPFF), Hart Crowser conducted a wetland delineation and ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determination at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Fish Technology Center (FTC) located at 1440 Abernathy Creek Road, Longview, Washington. The Center is on Abernathy Creek, 0.3 mile downstream (south) of the project area, and 12 miles west northwest of the center of Longview. The Abernathy Creek flows directly into the Columbia River. The study area is the water intake for the FTC (Figure 1).

The FTC began operations in 1961 and performs applied research to develop and refine methodologies and technologies resulting in healthy fish populations. Species include: many species of salmonids, Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and short nose (Chasmistes brevirostris) suckers, white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), Olympic mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi), Alvord chub (Siphateles alvordensis) and other species.

1.1 Project Description

The FTC is managed by the USFWS, who requested that KPFF provide a design for a screen intake, passage, and debris/screen chamber. We understand that in order to construct the new facilities, an OHWM determination of the Abernathy Creek will be required and wetlands will need to be identified. The study area encompasses this area around the water intake, including up and downstream of the fish weir, fish ladder, and encompasses both banks of the Creek.

This information will inform the development of design level recommendations and plans, specifications, and estimates.

1.1.1 Soils

The Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS’) Web Soil Survey shows that soils of the entire study area within the Edgewick silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (Figure 2). Edgewick is not listed by the NRCS as a hydric soil.

1.1.2 Topography

The study area is in a narrow valley along the Abernathy Creek. Elevation for the site ranges from 200 to 220 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Hills surrounding the study area slope steeply up to 550 to 600 feet above MSL. Land cover around the facility is shown as forested with very little surrounding development (Figure 3).

2 | Fish Technology Center

March 31, 2021

1.1.3 Hydrology

Hydrology is mostly provided by the Abernathy Creek, which flows through the middle of the study area. In addition, there is surface water flow from rainfall that amounts to 56 inches per year with an additional 4 inches of snow.

1.1.4 National Wetlands Inventory

According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the Abernathy Creek is mapped as riverine (Figure 4).

Due to the elevation, only small wetlands within this and the adjacent stream valleys have been mapped by the NWI.

1.1.5 Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species

Washington Department of Fish andWildlife’s (WDFW) online mapper (WDFW 2019) was used to explore occurrences of Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) in the vicinity of the project. Several fish species were found in the Abernathy Creek or Wiest Creek, just upstream of the study area. Chinook salmon and northern spotted owl are federally threatened and state endangered and the cutthroat is a federal candidate species. These species and adjacent freshwater forested/shrub and emergent wetlands are found in Table 1 and the PHS map is in Appendix C.

Table 1 – WDFW PHS List in the Vicinity of the Project

Common Name Scientific Name Status Presence Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch N/A Occurrence/Migration/Bree ding in Wiest Creek

Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT, SE Occurrence

Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki FC Occurrence/Migration

Fall Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha N/A Occurrence/Migration/Bree ding in Abernathy Creek

Fall Chum Oncorhynchus keta N/A Occurrence/Migration

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Null N/A Aquatic Habitat

Freshwater Emergent Null N/A Aquatic Habitat

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis FT, SE Occurrence, Management buffer

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss N/A Occurrence/Migration

Resident coastal cutthroat Onchorhynchus clarki N/A Occurrence/Migration

Winter steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss N/A Breeding Area in Wiest Creek

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss N/A Occurrence

Roosevelt elk Cervus elaphus roosevelti N/A Regular Concentration Note: NA = Not applicable/available; F=Federal, S=State: E=endangered, T=threatened, C=candidate

Fish Technology Center | 3

March 31, 2021

2.0 METHODS

This wetland delineation was performed in accordance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the USACE’s Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010). These methods use a three parameter approach for identifying and delineating wetlands: the presence of field indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology.

To identify potential wetlands, wetland biologists evaluated conditions by walking through the entire study area on November 26, 2019. For each location that appeared to have potential wetland characteristics, data on dominant plant species, soil conditions in data plots, and evidence of hydrologic conditions were recorded on routine wetland data forms (Appendix A). Adjacent upland locations were also analyzed. On the basis of the collected data, a determination of wetland or upland was made for each location examined. Flagging was hung at the location of these data plots, and “Wetland Delineation” flagging was hung along the wetland boundaries. The sample points and wetland boundary were located using a Trimble GPS model 3000 unit with sub meter accuracy.

2.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation

Hydrophytic vegetation is characterized by the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and persist in anaerobic soil conditions resulting from periodic or long term saturation (USACE 1987). Plant species were identified using local guides (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1987; Cooke 1997). The indicator status of each plant species is based on the North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0 (Lichvar et al. 2016) for the appropriate supplement.

Percent cover of all species was sampled within a circular sampling area centered around the test plot (where soil and hydrologic data is collected). The radius of the circle is typically 30 feet for trees, 15 feet for vines and sapling/shrub species, and 1 meter for herbaceous species. In a small or narrow wetland or upland, the plot size and shape may be adjusted to accurately sample these areas, and therefore, avoiding an overlap into an adjacent community having different vegetation, soils, or hydrologic conditions (USACE 1987). The size of the plot used is marked on the data sheets (Appendix A).

A rapid test, dominance test (e.g., the 50/20 rule), or prevalence index are commonly used to determine which species are considered dominant and to assess whether the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation are met at each test plot (USACE 2010).

In a positive rapid test (Indicator 1), the dominant species are evaluated visually, and if all are Facultative wetland plants (FACW) or Obligate wetland plants (OBL) (Table 2), the vegetation data pass the rapid test.

In a dominance test (Indicator 2), the relative areal coverage of the plant species within a stratum are totaled, starting with the most abundant species and including other species in descending order of coverage, until the cumulative coverage exceeds 50 percent of the total coverage for the stratum. The plant species that constitute this first 50 percent of areal coverage are considered the dominant species in the stratum. In addition, any other single plant species that constitutes at least 20 percent of the relative percent cover in the stratum is also considered a dominant species (USACE 1987). The indicator status

4 | Fish Technology Center

March 31, 2021 category for each plant (Table 2) is also listed on the wetland determination form. If more than 50 percent of the dominant species across all strata are rated OBL, FACW, or Facultative plants (FAC), the hydrophytic vegetation dominance test is met.

Table 2 – Plant Indicator Status Categories

Indicator Status Indicator Symbol Definition

Obligate wetland plants OBL Plants that occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions but also occur rarely (estimated probability <1%) in upland areas.

Facultative wetland plants

FACW Plants that usually occur (estimated probability >67%) in wetlands under natural conditions but also occur (estimated probability 1% to 33%) in upland areas.

Facultative plants FAC Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability 33 to 67%) of occurring in both wetlands and upland areas.

Facultative upland plants FACU Plants that sometimes occur (estimated probability 1 to 33%) in wetlands but occur more often (estimated probability >67 to 99%) in upland areas.

Obligate upland plants UPL Plants that rarely occur (estimated probability <1%) in wetlands under natural conditions.

DRY

UPLFACUFACFACWOBL

WET

Source: USACE (1987).

The prevalence index (Indicator 3) is a weighted average wetland indicator status of all plant species in the sampling plot, where weighting is by abundance (USACE 2010). This method is used where indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present; however, the vegetation initially fails the rapid and dominance tests. To determine the prevalence index, the absolute cover of each species in each stratum is determined. All species (across all strata) are organized into wetland indicator status groups (i.e., OBL, FACW, FAC, FACU, or UPL) and their cover values are summed within the groups. The formula for the prevalence index is applied. If the prevalence index (which ranges from 1.0 to 5.0) equals 3.0 or less, this hydrophytic vegetation indicator is met.

Other specialized and rarely used indicators for wetland vegetation include the presence of morphological adaptations to wetland conditions in plants (Indicator 4) and wetland non vascular plants, (mosses, liverworts, and hornworts), may also meet the hydric vegetation criteria (Indicator 5). “Problematic hydrophytic vegetation” indicator could exist when hydric soils and wetland hydrology are present but Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 1 through 5 are lacking. Examples of these areas include active vegetation management (e.g., farms), areas dominated by aggressive invasive species, active floodplains, and low terraces (USACE 2010).

Fish Technology Center | 5

March 31, 2021

2.2 Hydric Soils

A hydric soil is a soil that is saturated, flooded, or inundated long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (USACE 1987). A soil pit was dug to view the soil colors and if any signs of hydrology were present. Soil color was evaluated by comparing soil colors at test plots to standardized color samples in Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2000). Hydric soil conditions were evaluated using indicators outlined in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U.S. (USACE 2010).

2.3 Wetland Hydrology

Wetland hydrology is indicated by site conditions that demonstrate the periodic inundation or saturation to the soil surface for a sufficient duration during the total growing season. A “sufficient duration” during the growing season is defined as 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, ponding, or presence of a water table at 12 inches or less from the soil surface (USACE 1987). Hydrologic indicators include the presence of surface water, standing water in the test pit at a depth of 12 inches or less, saturation in the root zone, watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, drainage patterns within wetlands, oxidized rhizospheres surrounding living roots, and water stained leaves.

2.4 Wetland Classification and Rating

The methods to classify, rate, and assess the functions of the delineated wetlands are described below.

2.4.1 Wetland Classification

The wetlands in the study area were classified according to the USFWS classification system, which is based on an evaluation of attributes, such as vegetation class, hydrologic regime, salinity, and substrate (Cowardin et al. 1979). The wetlands were also classified according to the hydrogeomorphic system, which is based on an evaluation of attributes, such as the position of the wetland within the surrounding landscape, the source and location of water just before it enters the wetland, and the pattern of water movement in the wetland (Brinson 1993).

2.4.2 Wetland Ratings

The wetlands were assessed using theWashington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2014). This rating system has four wetland categories, with Category 1 wetlands exhibiting outstanding features and Category 4 wetlands exhibiting minimal attributes. The rating categories are used to identify permitted uses in the wetland and its buffer, to determine the width of buffers needed to protect the wetland from adjacent development, and to identify the mitigation ratios needed to compensate for potential impacts on wetlands.

2.5 Ordinary High Water Mark Determination

The OHWMwas determined based on Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al. 2016). The ordinary high water mark is defined as:

6 | Fish Technology Center

March 31, 2021

"That mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or at it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the Department of Ecology.”

3.0 RESULTS

The study area along the Abernathy Creek includes man made structures, uplands, floodplains, and two wetlands. Manmade structures include a water intake structure and a weir across the Abernathy Creek.

The Abernathy Creek includes one willow dominated island and narrow floodplains on either bank. Both floodplains are natural and are primarily wooded except for one residence adjacent to the weir (Figure 5).

Five sample plots were taken to identify two wetlands in the study area. One sample plot was placed in each wetland and three other sample plots were placed in upland areas. Data forms are included in Appendix A.

3.1 Wetland 1

Wetland 1 is a 0.04 acre riverine shrub scrub wetland within the Abernathy Creek (Figure 5). Data collected at sample point 3 (Appendix A) showed that all three field wetland indicators were present.

Wetland 1 is characterized by one shrub species Salix scouleriana (Scouler’s willow: FAC), and Tellima grandiflora (creeping buttercup: FACU) and Ranunculus repens (creeping buttercup: FAC). Typical vegetation is shown in Photograph B 1 and B 2 (Appendix B).

The wetland exists on a cobble/gravel bar in the middle of the Abernathy Creek. Due to the substrate, only 4 inches of soil could be evaluated before hitting cobble. The color of the soils was characterized as follows: 0 to 4 inches below the surface as very dark brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam. This circumstance fits within the problematic hydric soils, #3 Vegetated Sand and Gravel Bars within Floodplains. Since this wetland has hydrology and predominately hydric vegetation and is situated on a gravel/cobble bar within a floodplain, the soils can be considered hydric. Often in these depositional environments, the soils have not been able to develop the typical hydric soil indicators (USACE 2010).

Signs of hydrology found within the wetland were water marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, and water stained leaves.

3.1.1 Functions and Rating

Wetland 1 is a lower functioning wetland and scored 18 points on the rating form, which makes it a Category III (Appendix D). A description of Wetland 1’s water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions is provided below.

Water Quality Improvement. Wetland 1 has moderate potential to improve water quality. It impounds relatively no water due to its landscape position and due to its place away from impacted watersheds. It has little ability to improve water quality.

Fish Technology Center | 7

March 31, 2021

Hydrologic Functions. Wetland 1 also has low to moderate hydrologic functions due to small size and lack of flood storage abilities.

Habitat Functions. Wetland 1 does have some high habitat function due to the presence of its landscape potential and having priority habitats. However, due to its size, it still has low site potential.

3.2 Wetland 2

Wetland 2 is a 0.04 acre riverine emergent wetland just upstream of a weir along the Abernathy Creek (Figure 5). The riverine wetland is characterized by emergent species, including Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass: FACW), Carex obnupta (sough sedge: OBL), and several Alnus rubra (red alder: FAC). Reed canary grass, a debated native/non native invasive species, was limited to the area near the sample plot.

This was the only invasive species found in the wetlands. Typical vegetation is shown in Photograph B 3 and B 4 (Appendix B). The color of the wetland soils was characterized as follows: 0 to 7 inches below the surface of very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy silt underlain by bedrock. This is depleted matrix and a typical hydric soil. Signs of hydrology found within the wetland were surface water, saturation, water marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, water stained leaves, saturation on aerial imagery, geomorphic position, and a positive FAC neutral test.

3.2.1 Functions and Rating

Wetland 2 is a moderate functioning wetland and scored 18 points on the rating form, which makes it a Category III (Appendix D). A description of Wetland 2’s water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions is described below.

Water Quality Improvement. Wetland 2 has low to moderate potential to improve water quality. The wetland lacks depressions and stiff vegetation gives the wetland a low site potential. Due to its placement on the landscape, it does have moderate landscape potential and value. But due to its small size, it still has little ability to improve water quality.

Hydrologic Functions. Wetland 2 also has moderate hydrologic functions due to its small size and lack of flood storage abilities.

Habitat Functions. Wetland 2 has some high habitat function due to the presence of its landscape potential and having priority habitats. However, due to its size, it still has low site potential

3.3 Upland Areas

Most of the upland area is within a wooded corridor along the creek. This was primarily red alder, Acer macrophyllum (big leaf maple: FACU), Pseudotsuga menziesii (douglas fir) and Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry: FAC) woods. The rest of the study area includes the access drive to the weir and intake. One residence is just to west. This area was characterized by sporadic maple and alder trees with reed canary grass, Rubus ursinus (dewberry: FACU), Geranium lucidulum (shiny leaf geranium: UPL), Polystichum munitum (sword fern: FACU), Phleum pratense (timothy: FACU), Schedonorus pratensis (tall fescue: FACU) and other lawn grasses. Typical vegetation is shown in Photographs B 5 through B 7 (Appendix B).

8 | Fish Technology Center

March 31, 2021

The color of the soils was characterized by at least 10 inches of brown (10YR 4/4) loam. This is not a hydric soil and these areas had no signs of hydrology.

4.0 WATERWAYS

Within the project area, one waterway (Abernathy Creek) was delineated by finding the OHWM (Figure 5).

The Abernathy Creek flows through the middle of the study area (Photographs B 8 through B 12 in Appendix B). The OHWMwas delineated based on Anderson et al. (2016).

5.0 SUMMARY

Two wetlands, Wetlands 1 and 2, were delineated within the study area. Wetland 1 is a Category III riverine wetland. Wetland 2 is a Category III riverine wetland located just upstream from the weir. The Abernathy Creek is a fish bearing stream and was also delineated in the study area.

6.0 REFERENCES

Anderson P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson and E. Stokdale 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for

Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. (Publication # 16 06 029). Olympia, WA:

Washington Department of Ecology.

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP DE 4. U.S.

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. August 1993.

Cooke, Sarah S., ed. 1997. A Field Guide to the CommonWetland Plants of Western Washington and Northern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS 79/31, Washington, D.C.

Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist 1987. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Hruby, T. 2014.Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.

(Publication # 12 06 029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.

Lichvar, R.V. D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin 2016. National Wetland Plant List. 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016 30:1 17 Published 28 April 2016

Munsell 2000. Munsell Soil Chart – Washable edition. Munsell Color Company.

Washington Department of Fish andWildlife (WDFW) 2019. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) on the web. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/

Fish Technology Center | 9

March 31, 2021

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR 10 0. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USACE 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical report Y 87 1, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

D oc um en t P at h:

F

:\N ot eb oo ks \1

_A be rn at hy _F

TC

_I nt ak e_ D es ig n\ G

IS

\M

G

IS

\A be rn at hy _F ig 1_

Vi ci ni ty

.m xd

D at e:

2/ 9/

U se r N am e:

je an ol so n

Abernathy FTC Intake Longview, Washington

Vicinity Map

1541240-01 /

Figure

N

Project Site

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

3,800 0 3,8001,900 Feet

Longview

Seattle um en t P at h:

F

:\N ot eb oo ks \1

_A be rn at hy _F

TC

_I nt ak e_ D es ig n\ G

IS

\M

G

IS

\A be rn at hy _F ig 2_

So ils

.m xd

D at e:

/2 4/

U se r N am e:

je an ol so n

Abernathy FTC Intake Longview, Washington

1541240-01 /2

Figure

N

Project Site

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus

0 190 38095 Feet

Soils Map

Abernathy C reek R d

56 57

Legend Project Area

Mapunit Name 47 - Edgewick silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

56 - Gallup silt loam, 60 to 80 percent slopes

57 - Gallup silt loam, cold, 30 to 60 percent slopes um en t P at h:

F

:\N ot eb oo ks \1

_A be rn at hy _F

TC

_I nt ak e_ D es ig n\ G

IS

\M

G

IS

\A be rn at hy _F ig 3_

U

SG

S.

m xd D at e:

2/

9/

U se r N am e:

je an ol so n

Abernathy FTC Intake Longview, Washington

USGS Map

1541240-01 /

Figure

N

Project Site

Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

2,300 0 2,3001,150 Feet um en t P at h:

F

:\N ot eb oo ks \1

_A be rn at hy _F

TC

_I nt ak e_ D es ig n\ G

IS

\M

G

IS

\A be rn at hy _F ig 4_

N W

I.m xd

D at e:

2/ 9/

U se r N am e:

je an ol so n

Abernathy FTC Intake Longview, Washington

1541240-01 /

Figure

N

Project Site

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet

NWI Map

LEGEND

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine um en t P at h:

F

:\N ot eb oo ks \1

_A be rn at hy _F

TC

_I nt ak e_ D es ig n\ G

IS

\M

G

IS

\A be rn at hy _F ig 5_

W et la nd

O ve rv ie w.

m xd D at e:

/2

4/

U se r N am e:

je an ol so n

Ab er na th y

C re ek

SP5

SP4

SP3

SP2

SP1

Wetland 1 (0.04 acres)

Wetland 2 (0.01 acres)

Abernathy FTC Intake Longview, Washington

Wetland Overview

1541240-01 /

Figure

N

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

100 0 10050 Feet

Legend !. Sample Plot - Wetland

!. Sample Plot - Non-Wetland

OHWM - Abernathy Creek

Wetland

Project Area

Abernathy C reek R d

APPENDIX A

Wetland Delineation Forms

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 (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Remarks:

Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: )

1. (A) 2.

3. (B) 4.

= Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

3. OBL species x 1 =

4. FACW species x 2 =

5. FAC species x 3 =

= Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =

1. Column Totals: (A) (B)

4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

6. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

7. 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.0¹

8. 4 - 9.

10. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹

11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)

= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

Remarks:

1.

50 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40

Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

30.0 FACU

Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.543

2. Rubus ursinus 10 Y 20.0 FACU

Polystichum munitum 25 Y 50.0 FACU 175

3. Tellima grandiflora 15 Y

1 m radius 0 0

80 240 0 0

30 95 380

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

28.6%95 15 ft radius

1. Rubus spectabilis 30 Y 100.0 FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 Y 21.1 FACU

25 Y 26.3 FACU

Alnus rubra 50 Y 52.6 FAC

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute % Cover

Dom.

Sp.?

Relative % Cover

Indicator Status30 ft radius Number of Dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2Acer macrophyllum

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Hydric Soil Present?

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Walters 26, T9N, R4W terrace concave 0

LRR A, MLRA 1 46.23127223 -123.14827148

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Abernathy FTC Longview/Cowlitz 11/26/2019

USFWS WA SP1

Edgewick silt loam, 0-3 percent slopes upland

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form - Updated May 2017) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present?

Remarks:

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?

(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY

³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

cobble sandy loam

0-8 10YR 4/4 50

SOIL SP1

Depth (inches)

Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks

Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except

Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No Yes No

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form - Updated May 2017) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Remarks:

Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: )

1. (A) 2.

3. (B) 4.

= Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

3. OBL species x 1 =

4. FACW species x 2 =

5. FAC species x 3 =

= Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =

1. Column Totals: (A) (B)

4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

6. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

7. 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.0¹

8. 4 - 9.

10. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹

11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)

= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

Remarks:

102 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40

1.

Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Polysticum muticum 5 N 4.9 FACW

Dactylis glomerata 20 Y 19.6 FACU

19.6 FACU

Calystegia sepium 2 N 2.0 FAC

Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.039

2. Agrostis gigantea 5 N 4.9 FAC

Phalaris arundinacea 50 Y 49.0 FACW 127

3. Rubus ursinus 20 Y

1 m radius 0 0

12 36 0 0

15 60 240

Corylus cornuta 10 Y 66.7 FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

33.3%10 15 ft radius

1. Rubus armeniacus 5 Y 33.3 FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6

10 Y 100.0 FACU

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute % Cover

Dom.

Sp.?

Relative % Cover

Indicator Status30 ft radius Number of Dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2Acer macrophyllum

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Hydric Soil Present?

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Walters 26, T9N, R4W terrace concave 0

LRR A, MLRA 1 46.23147648 -123.14837214

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Abernathy FTC Longview/Cowlitz 11/26/2019

USFWS WA SP2

Edgewick silt loam, 0-3 percent slopes upland

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form - Updated May 2017) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present?

Remarks:

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?

(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

No surface hydrology observed. Area said to be over large pipe.

HYDROLOGY

³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

sandy loam some cobble0-20 10YR 4/4 50

SOIL SP2

Depth (inches)

Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks

Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except

Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No Yes No

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form - Updated May 2017) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Remarks:

Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: )

1. (A) 2.

3. (B) 4.

= Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

3. OBL species x 1 =

4. FACW species x 2 =

5. FAC species x 3 =

= Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =

1. Column Totals: (A) (B)

4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

6. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

7. 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.0¹

8. 4 - 9.

10. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹

11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)

= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

Remarks:

Wetland 1

78 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.15 ft radius

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

1.

Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Equisetum arvense 2 N 2.6 FAC

Agrostis stolonifera 1 N 1.3 FAC

6.4 FACU

Phalaris arundinacea 10 N 12.8 FACW

Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.135

2. Ranunculus repens 35 Y 44.9 FAC

Tellima grandiflora 25 Y 32.1 FACU 148

3. Polystichum munitum 5 N

1 m radius 0 0

108 324 0 0

70 30 120

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

66.7% 15 ft radius

1. Salix scouleriana 70 Y 100.0 FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3

Wetland 1

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute % Cover

Dom.

Sp.?

Relative % Cover

Indicator Status30 ft radius Number of Dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Hydric Soil Present?

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Walters 26, T9N, R4W terrace concave 0

LRR A, MLRA 1 46.23143263 -123.14810423

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Abernathy FTC Longview/Cowlitz 11/26/2019

USFWS WA SP3

Edgewick silt loam, 0-3 percent slopes

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form - Updated May 2017) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present?

Remarks:

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?

(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Problematic situation: (3) Cobble/gravel bar within a stream- floodplain with vegetation and hydrology.

HYDROLOGY

³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

solid cobble, unable to continue silty loam some gravel and cobble

4+

0-4 10YR 3/2 100

SOIL SP3

Depth (inches)

Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks

Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except

Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No Yes No

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form - Updated May 2017) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Remarks:

Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: )

1. (A) 2.

3. (B) 4.

= Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

3. OBL species x 1 =

4. FACW species x 2 =

5. FAC species x 3 =

= Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =

1. Column Totals: (A) (B)

4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

6. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

7. 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.0¹

8. 4 - 9.

10. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹

11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)

= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

Remarks:

1.

25 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.15 ft radius

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Polystichum munitum 5 Y 20.0 FACU

8.0 UPL

Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.147

2. Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y 60.0 FACW

Calystegia sepium 3 N 12.0 FAC 95

3. Geranium lucidulum 2 N

1 m radius 2 10

53 159 0 0

10 25 100

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

50.0%60 15 ft radius

1. Rubus laciniatus 10 Y 100.0 FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4

10 N 16.7 FACU

Alnus rubra 50 Y 83.3 FAC

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute % Cover

Dom.

Sp.?

Relative % Cover

Indicator Status30 ft radius Number of Dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2Acer macrophyllum

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Hydric Soil Present?

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Walters 26, T9N, R4W terrace concave 0

LRR A, MLRA 1 46.23143263 -123.14810423

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Abernathy FTC Longview/Cowlitz 11/26/2019

USFWS WA SP4

Edgewick silt loam, 0-3 percent slopes

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form - Updated May 2017) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present?

Remarks:

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?

(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Problematic situation: Cobble/gravel bar within a stream- floodplain with vegetation and hydrology.

HYDROLOGY

³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Loam some gravel and cobble0-14 10YR 4/4 100

SOIL SP4

Depth (inches)

Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks

Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except

Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No Yes No

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form - Updated May 2017) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Remarks:

Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: )

1. (A) 2.

3. (B) 4.

= Total Cover (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

3. OBL species x 1 =

4. FACW species x 2 =

5. FAC species x 3 =

= Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =

1. Column Totals: (A) (B)

4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

6. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

7. 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.0¹

8. 4 - 9.

10. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹

11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)

= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

Remarks:

1.

83 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.15 ft radius

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Carex obnupta 35 Y 42.2 OBL

36.1 FACW

Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.187

2. Rumex crispus 3 N 3.6 FAC

Ranunculus repens 15 N 18.1 FAC 123

3. Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y

1 m radius 0 0

58 174 35 35

0 0

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

100.0%40 15 ft radius

1. Prevalence Index worksheet:

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3

40 Y 100.0 FAC

Wetland 2

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute % Cover

Dom.

Sp.?

Relative % Cover

Indicator Status30 ft radius Number of Dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3Alnus rubra

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Hydric Soil Present?

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Walters 26, T9N, R4W terrace concave 0

LRR A, MLRA 1 46.23143263 -123.14810423

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Abernathy FTC Longview/Cowlitz 11/26/2019

USFWS WA SP5

Edgewick silt loam, 0-3 percent slopes

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form - Updated May 2017) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of…