Loading...
Wetland Delineation Report 10-14-2010Graham Environmental Services, Inc. 1 Wetland Delineation Report ' Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota Prepared for: Lennar I October 14, 2010 t Background S1095 Westland Drive Spring Valley, WI 54767 Phone: 715 - 778 -5730 / 888 - 279 -2070 Fax: 715 - 778 -5867 / 888 - 279 -2069 ' Graham Environmental Services, Inc. (GES) was retained by Lennar to complete a site evaluation for jurisdictional wetlands on a parcel located in part of the NE' /o Section 24, T1 16N, R23W, City of Chanhassen, Carver County. The site lies immediately north of Lyman Boulevard and is south of Hwy. 212 and west of Highway 101 (Figure 1). As shown on the U.S.G.S. Quadrangle map (Figure 2), the topography of the site is ' generally rolling with the exception of the low, flat area containing a wetland in the southeastern part of the site. ' On October 11, 2010, GES conducted an evaluation of the site and delineated one wetland within the project boundaries as shown on a recent aerial photograph in Figure 3. Methodologies The site was assessed for wetlands using the on -site methods contained in the "Routine Determinations" section of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Wetlands Delineation Manuaf' (Technical Report Y -87 -1, ' 1987), as well as "Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Midwest Region" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008).. This is the methodology currently used to determine wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and by Local Government Units under the Wetland Conservation Act. GES classified the wetland under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Cowardin system, Circular 39 and Eggers and Reed methodologies. Soil colors described herein follow Munsell Soil Color Charts. Hydric soil properties described follow Field Indicators of Hydric ' Soils in the United States (Untied States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydr' I , . ..aJ)w t � ' Wetland A Wetland A is a relatively large wetland complex located in the southeastern part of the site. The wetland is bounded by moderate slopes ' on all sides. The upland /wetland boundary was investigated along a single transect on the southwest boundary. ' Dominant vegetation in the wetland includes reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Upland vegetation is dominated by basswood (Tilia americana), red oak (Quercus rubra), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and gooseberry (Ribes setosum). Soils were evaluated by digging soil pits along a transect perpendicular to Wetland Delineation Report Chanhassen Site October 14, 2010 i' Page 2 of 4 mottles over N 2/0 loamy muck over 10YR 2/1 loam. Upland soils are Soils in the United States, Version 6.0 G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for ' Hydric Soils). I' Results the upland. The lone wetland on the site is discussed below. ' Wetland A Wetland A is a relatively large wetland complex located in the southeastern part of the site. The wetland is bounded by moderate slopes ' on all sides. The upland /wetland boundary was investigated along a single transect on the southwest boundary. ' Dominant vegetation in the wetland includes reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Upland vegetation is dominated by basswood (Tilia americana), red oak (Quercus rubra), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and gooseberry (Ribes setosum). Soils were evaluated by digging soil pits along a transect perpendicular to The jurisdictional boundary was established where there is a change in plant communities, hydrology indicators are absent in the upland and a relatively abrupt change in topography occurs. The National Wetlands Inventory map (Figure 4) is generally consistent with our wetland delineation and maps most of the wetland as semi - permanantly flooded palustrine emergent (PEMF) which equates to Type 4 deep marsh under the Circular 39 classification and Deep Marsh (1213) under the Eggers and Reed system. We would classify the wetland as ' seasonally flooded palustrine deciduous forested (PF01 C) (Type 1 II the wetland /upland boundary and examining the profile's texture, color, and redoximorphic characteristics. (See sampling points labeled " Taansect" in Figure 3). Soils in the wetland pit are described as 2.5Y i' 2.5/1 loam overburden /slopewash with common 2.5Y 4/4 and 2.5Y 4/2 mottles over N 2/0 loamy muck over 10YR 2/1 loam. Upland soils are described as 10YR 2/1 loam over 10YR 4/1 sandy loam with no redoximorphic features. Hydrology indicators in the wetland included surface water, saturation, I' dry- season water table, geomorphic position and the FAC- neutral test. Only one secondary hydrology indicator (FAC - neutral) was observed in the upland. The jurisdictional boundary was established where there is a change in plant communities, hydrology indicators are absent in the upland and a relatively abrupt change in topography occurs. The National Wetlands Inventory map (Figure 4) is generally consistent with our wetland delineation and maps most of the wetland as semi - permanantly flooded palustrine emergent (PEMF) which equates to Type 4 deep marsh under the Circular 39 classification and Deep Marsh (1213) under the Eggers and Reed system. We would classify the wetland as ' seasonally flooded palustrine deciduous forested (PF01 C) (Type 1 II Wetland Delineation Report Chanhassen Site October 14, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Lowland Hardwoods per Circular 39 and Floodplain Forest -3A per Eggers /Reed) and PEMF. ' The Carver County Soil Survey (Figure 5) shows the soils in the vicinity of the wetland to be Klossner and Muskego soils, ponded (MP). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Inventory r (Figure 6) maps the wetland as Protected Wetland #216W. Other Areas Evaluated ' Two other areas on the site were evaluated to determine their jurisdictional status. The first is a patch of reed canary grass in the northeastern portion of the site and is referred to as "Area A" in Figure 3. ' Besides reed canary grass, this area also has a small amount of bull thistle (Cirsum vulgare)(1 % areal coverage). Soils are dark but do not meet any hydric soil indicators. Also, the site does not meet the hydrology criteria since ince ne secondary indicator FAC- neutral test is Y rY ( ) resent. P Area B is a concrete block -lined terminus of a drainage system that drains ' water from ponds off -site to the northeast. There are a few cattails growing up through the concrete block; however, this is clearly a man- made drainage system that is constructed along a hillslope that is much ' higher topographically than the delineated wetland. Aerial photographs that were taken prior to this feature being constructed (such as the one included in Figure 3) show that the swale and the erosion control block ' were only recently constructed. ' Regulatory Jurisdiction Minnesota DNR Public Waters The Minnesota DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands inventory (Figure 6) ' maps the delineated wetland as a protected wetland. Any activities planned below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of this basin I' should receive prior approval from the Minnesota DNR, unless the DNR delegates its regulatory authority to the WCA LGU which it may do. Further, the Minnesota DNR is represented on the Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel and, as such, would have input regarding any WCA actions on the on -site wetland. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act The delineated wetland is subject to the Wetland Conservation Act Rules Chapter 8420. Under these rules, an approved replacement plan is required for activities that would fill or drain wetlands. If any draining or ' filling regulated activities are proposed for the wetland, WCA approval must first be obtained. 7 ' Wetland Delineation Report Chanhassen Site October 14, 2010 Page 4 of 4 Federal Regulatory Jurisdiction The wetland appears to have a surficial hydrologic connection to the Minnesota River. Assuming this is the case, the basin is within the jurisdictional reach of the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. We would recommend obtaining a jurisdictional finding from the Corps prior to commencement of any activities near the wetlands. If the Corps has jurisdiction and any filling of the wetland is proposed, a Department of the Army permit would be required from the Corps. Delineation Concurrence Concurrence with our findings should be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (if they assert jurisdiction) and City of Prior Lake /Scott SWCD before any earthwork is undertaken which could affect the delineated wetland. The information contained herein represents our findings during wetland delineation activities conducted on September 3, 2010 at the referenced site. Respectfully submitted, Graham Enviro ental Services, Inc. Mike Graham Professional Wetland Scientist No. 365 Minnesota Wetland Delineator Certified No. 1179 Enclosures U 20L1 m 6w ft -: i:I�,d 141 TM CUYII JL Lyman Elud �ry4` rn eFf�9 SunnYV� a Trl Geerfact TH &0 u 8andrmae 8andma e v Community C7 Pa'x mapquel A N Not to Scale b GU h w hi 4+ -r ry w Lake 02010 NUpQuest Portions ©2010 N" E Q , Int Figure 1. Site Location Map \� Lennar — Chanhassen Site E S Chanhassen, Minnesota GES Project No. 2010.028 Graham Environmental Services, Inc. 43 ' o o� J._ i 9� A N Not to Scale , �\ \\ D E S Graham Environmental Services, Inc. Figure 2. U.S.G.S. Shakopee Quadrangle Lennar — Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota GES Project No. 2010.028 N Not to Scale Aft Figure 3. Aerial Photo with Approximate Wetland Boundaries G Lennar Chanhassen Site E Chanhassen, Minnesota S\ GES Project No. 2010.028 Graha Environmental Services, Inc. Oct 14, 2010 Wetlands _..;a Freshwater En—oni - Frasrrwater FOreste*Shwt - Estuarine and Marine Deerwaier ..._ Estuanne and Marine ® Freshwater Pond _ Late - Rlvenne ® Otner Status '... Digital Stan Non- D.gdat No Data N Not to Scale G 6 E 3 k s Graham Environmental Services, Inc. Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory Lennar — Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota GES Project No- 2010.028 Thippl ooaw b w hash/ fatrMha art,. 1 w no" veasb ..1. n m l v. Wn.M.- N scene -or aunllbarr orM earncab rmrnm and arp. an nhha sat elaWO W sae M eeeaWae nln M I,•;rr aehaat OuM en an Mfirbi eapp.rma at User Remarks: /\ N Not to Scale Le end CW Cordova - Webster complex EX Essexville sandy loam GL Glencoe clay loam HM Hamel loam KB Kilkenny- Lester loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes KB2 Lester - Kilkenny loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded KC Lester- Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes KC2 Lester - Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded KID Lester- Kilkenny loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes KD2 Lester - Kilkenny loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded KF Lester - Kilkenny loams, 25 to 40 percent slopes MK Houghton and Muskego soils MP Klossner and Muskego soils, ponded PM Klossner muck TB Terri] loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes W Water YB Rasset- Lester - Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes YC Rasset-Lester-Kil ken ny complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes YD Rasset-Lester-Kil ken ny complex, 12 to 18 percent slopes YE Rasset- Lester - Kilkenny complex, 18 to 25 percent slopes E \ Graham Envi ronmental Services, Inc. Figure 5. Carver County Soil Survey Lennar — Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota GES Project No. 2010.028 Approximate Site Boundaries f N A\ N Not to Scale E J \ Graham Environmental Services, Inc. u Figure 6. MDNR Protected Waters Inventory Map Lennar — Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota GES Project No. 2010.028 F ,I. - . - T - L` { ' . - r r a ' i '■ - IL �.� ,',�� ' i . 1 ■ 7 i.l ' �r' J 'r. ■ r- -1 r &:: L r Lr . i 1 9 d a:: 7 . r r tia f F 9 1 :' Jr- q. i t �r• ;a ' ' r IF - 9 '• i L' •. L• L , i ti i' . ti Figure 6. MDNR Protected Waters Inventory Map Lennar — Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota GES Project No. 2010.028 Looking west from wetland into forested upland near transect S N Graham Environmental Services, Inc. Figure 7. Ground Photo Lennar — Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota GES Project No. 2010.028 Appendix A WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site: CitylCounty: C GV - V e,Y Sampling Date: ( O 1 1 1 7,ul O ApplicanttOwner: State: M N Sampling Point: A Invesligator(s): \Z2 \\ d�o''z" -` PSS Cw p Section, Township, Range: N l: V l S2-c- Z4 T \((o !J n23w Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): G\e!OiewLrr\ Local relief (concave, convex, none): UvlLAVP_ Slope (%): O Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: MP y.,. \oSSY\e,r C'^a Musyeao - Po`^a - NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydric Soil Present? Yes A No Number of Dominant Species \ Is the Sampled Area X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No 2. within within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: a \JaSr Q- Y��"c GTE No fi\^�- es i�. SLt► \ \.xJ WV\t n �pah of old 8111%1.4-1 \A" \gee,^ ve+Mo�tc� r+,mk;.�►� a d;re�� c kwi w��1n fY, v u) Conv,tt_N;uh - �b V-s" )u A\. ?Em$ it PPul_Z VFC:I= TATIPIN - I lea criantifir namac of nlanfe -7k +1"s 3 CJ Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Sggcies? Status Number of Dominant Species \ 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 1 11 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 1 00 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) C.J =Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Saoling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) 1 • Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x2= FAC species x3= FACU species x4= 4. 5 5 V = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. PhcAc.r�s wruy oc p,S ✓ FAcw 2 ?0\4c 0^v— SQc Q 'tu $ U (3L. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 Po \y s Otto L.. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ t - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 4 GCAC. fI J \CO..,avc� 5 FILL 5 6 ? data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) t3. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 9. 10. 1 pp 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 5 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation X I 2 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes No Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Rw.cri b.xyllno�.�e, Gr.-c1 1VA cicx US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: A _ ` Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % T Loo' Texture Remarks 0-(4 2.6 2 5 � 1 2.6 `( V 1 I 8'to � _ t-a "- P e W mx% (o -t'+ t4 �/o � .cr,.,,t Mv- 1 4 -23 ! toyt 2 /1 True Aquatic Plants (1314) X Dry- Season Water Table (C2) 'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked San Grains. 'Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6) A Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Stratified Layers (AS) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) X Redox Dark Surface (F6) Surface Water Present? Yes No X _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (178) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Saturation Present? Yes X No unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): includes capillary fringe Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): area Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aaoly) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) X Surface Water (Al) _ Water - Stained Leaves (69) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) Drainage Patterns (610) 7j Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) X Dry- Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (61) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (Cg) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _X FAC- Neutral Test (05) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Gauge or Well Data (D9) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): ­V ti } 5 Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): %'- e3 V v ` Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): A t 5" ^ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No includes capillary fringe Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: S..*�c..Qw F CrA7NZ\ area US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region ProjecUSite: CitylCounty: C_r - Sampling Date: t L " 11 1 Zu r O Applicant/Owner: State: M� Sampling Point: A -Z Investigator(s): K•elL N br vzx,.` PSS CWtD Section, Township, Range: WE Stc. z4 711,6 RZ3W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): W%�\ sv,�& Local relief (concave, convex, none): \NVQ - C That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Slope ( %): 1. - R k 7o Lat: Long: Oalum: 3. Soil Map Unit Name: -1 6E - k` XZ 1 NWI classification: Species Across All Strata: (B) Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) 4. Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No Are Vegetation I'J Soil tl , or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No -X— Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X within a wetland? Yes No — A Remarks: UP�Av� VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. 30 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species , 1, T: N i'c. o,"eYi (-c- .,, 4 O y FAW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant 2 Q.�erC,us r.� rc�, 4u v F� 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 25'76 5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A!B) aO =Total Cover SaplingfShrub Stratum (Plot size: 3c) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. 1Z.V\r- "-V\J Ga tirAi U- 3U V PAL Total % Cover of Multioty by: OBL species V x 1 = FACW species O x 2 = FAG species 30 x3= C �O FACU species E'y x 4 = 3ZO UPL species V x 5 = 2. R aloe S Se �uS� �.� 20 3 4. 5, 5y = Total Cover 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Column Totals: ) 1 (A) ( D (B) 1. 3 } 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 5 6 ? _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 9. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10. O S = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic 1. V Or l'i ` t V; C, < S FFyt vJ 2 Vegetation Present? Yes No S = Total Cover Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 'Ar'�+�1to.kur Aavu per toe Sih -PAVt e3v:t�a�tt I US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point, A- � 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) °off —Type' Loc Texture Remarks o + �o�YZZ / _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) 1 Aquatic Fauna (613) Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ 'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Dark Surface (57) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) X Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Depth (inches): %`*(b 3 O " "^ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Remarks: ` Orky °r\C SettT�c�G� �r+.1aYQ�J�y ��� rrJr t7�oSe , HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that awls) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (All) _ Water - Stained Leaves (139) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Fauna (613) Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Saturation (A3) _ True Aquatic Plants (814) X Dry- Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (61) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC- Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Gauge or Well Data (09) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): %`*(b 3 O " "^ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x includes cap illary fringe Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: ` Orky °r\C SettT�c�G� �r+.1aYQ�J�y ��� rrJr t7�oSe , I US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Version 2.0