Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOld Harbor Executive Summary 2011Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Renewable Energy Fund Grant# 2195431 ( ( Executive Summary Field Survey Reports Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Prepared for: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 With funding from: Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant #2195431 Prepared by: Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. 2607 Fairbanks Street, Suite B Anchorage, AK 99503 June 2011 Executive Summary Introduction AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Executive Summary for Field Survey Reports Page2 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), the electric utility provider in Old Harbor, Alaska, with funding from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), is seeking to develop a hydroelectric resource near the community of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island. The project is needed to stabilize energy costs and to provide a long-term and sustainable energy source in the community. Between January and May of 2010, in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydroelectric project licensing guidance, and in close coordination with regulatory agencies and Old Harbor community members, AVEC developed a Revised Proposed Study Plan for the project. The field activities detailed below, including a fish habitat and spawning survey, wetland delineation, a cultural resources survey, and an eagle nest survey, were completed in the 2010 field season according to the study plan. Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Fieldwork was conducted between August 23 and August 28, 2010 and October 15 and October 16, 2010 to determine fish presence, and assess fish habitats in the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project area. A foot survey of Lagoon Creek was performed, and fish presence, type, number, and habitat characteristics were recorded. Fish traps were set in waterbodies associated with the project area and the fish caught were identified and recorded. Flow and water quality measurements were taken throughout the stream system. The Swimming Pond was found to support Dolly Varden and stickleback and the Lagoon Creek system is productive rearing habitat for Coho salmon. It does not appear that there is a significant surface water nexus between the Swimming Pond and Lagoon Creek. The southern end of the Swimming Pond has what appears to be an intermittent outlet however the outlet is not well understood. It is unclear if this intermittent outlet makes a surface water connection between Lagoon Creek and the Swimming Pond during periods of high precipitation and spring runoff. Wetland Delineation Fieldwork was conducted between August 23 and August 28, 2010 to characterize and map wetland and upland habitats within the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project area and determine the functional capability of identified wetland habitats. The wetland delineation mapping took place along the entire hydroelectric project area, including the penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace area and the area southeast of the tailrace. Mapping calculations show that 54.43 acres or 72% of the project area is classified and mapped as upland habitat. Areas classified as wetland totaled 10.42 acres or 13.72% of the project area. Analysis of the mapping calculations shows the project area has a low AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Executive Summary for Field Survey Reports Page3 relative frequency of wetland habitats. The wetlands are typically 0.1-1.0 acre with the exception of a few that are slightly greater than 1.0 acres. All wetlands examined for functional capacity in the project area scored high to moderate Functional Capacity Index {FCI) scores in all eight models making them a robust contributor to the overall pristine landscape. Cultural Resources Survey A cultural resources survey of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project area was conducted between August 18 and August 19, 2010 to identify and evaluate archaeological and historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE). Two cultural resources professionals walked the project alignment where cultural resources would be expected to occur, including the area around the tailrace, powerhouse, and access road below the powerhouse, and conducted surface and subsurface testing. No significant cultural resources were noted or discovered within the proposed project area. Based on the results of field observations, there is no reason to believe that the proposed development within the Project APE warrants additional archaeological field survey. Bald Eagle Nest Survey A helicopter survey of the project area was conducted on June 4, 2010 to identify, characterize, and map bald eagle nests. Two nests were identified, approximately 4,300 feet and 1,900 feet away from the project area. The nests were active; adult eagles were observed on each nest at the time of the survey. These nests may have been previously observed and recorded. Other nests identified in past surveys were not observed during this survey. Attachments Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Wetland Delineation Report (including Appendices A, B, and C) Wetland Delineation Report Appendix D Wetland Delineation Report Appendix E Cultural Resources Survey Report Bald Eagle Nest Survey Report Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Prepared for: Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. 2607 Fairbanks Street, Suite B Anchorage, AK 99503 and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 With funding from: Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant #2195431 Prepared by: Christopher L. Love, PWS June 2011 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Fi sh Habitat and Spawning Surv ey Report Prepared By : Christopher L. Love , PWS AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 11 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Fisheries Introduction Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), the electric utility provider in Old Harbor, Alaska, with funding from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), is seeking to develop a hydroelectric resource near the community of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island. The project is needed to stabilize energy costs and to provide a long-term and sustainable energy source in the community. Project Components The proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project consists of: • An estimated dependable capacity of 130 kilowatts (kW). The peak installed-capacity will primarily depend on economics and the projected increase in demand. AVEC has chosen to permit the project with a peak capacity of300 kW. • A water intake area at the Mountain Creek tributary of Barling Bay Creek, including a 4-foot cutoff (diversion) wall that will not create any significant impoundment of water. • An 8,900 feet (approximate) penstock. • A single 300-kW Pelton turbine with a hydraulic capacity of7 cubic feet per second (cfs) coupled directly to a 480-volt, 3-phase generator. • A 600 square-foot (approximate) powerhouse at the turbine's tailrace. • Water discharge from the tailrace into a lake, or channeled across the lowlands to a nearby stream with final discharge at Lagoon Creek. • A 1.25-mile (approximate), 7.2 kV three-phase overhead power line. • A 3-mile (approximate) access road. AVEC is seeking a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (PERC) Hydroelectric Project License under the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). With substantial agency input, AVEC developed a Proposed and Revised Study Plan that describes the methodology for this and other field studies conducted for the project. This study characterizes aquatic habitats and completes a spawning survey in Lagoon Creek, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Anadromous Waters Catalog No. 258-52-10015 (Lagoon Creek Tributary). It also determines presence/absence of anadromous fish in the Swimming Pond and two unnamed ponds north of the project area. The parameters of the study identify anadromous fish presence/absence, identifies specimens to species, qualitatively describe aquatic habitats, and establish baseline water quality data. The findings of this study will help determine potential impacts from the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (OHHE). Existing Information According to the State of Alaska Catalog of Anadromous Streams, Lagoon Creek (258-52- 10015) and Lagoon Creek Tributary (258-52-10015-2004) support spawning Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum ( 0. keta), and pink (0. gorbuscha) salmon (ADF&G 2009). The National Marine Fisheries Service Essential Fish Habitat lists the areas identified above as Essential Habitat for all species of salmon. At the time of the field survey Lagoon Creek (258- AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 12 52-100 15) is not listed as Section 303( d) impaired waterbodies by the State of Alaska (ADEC 2010). Prior to this study, AVEC performed extensive studies of the fishery resources as part of the previous licensing process. The two areas of study were Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek. Three reports were provided by AVEC's fisheries consultant, Lonnie White (White 1996, 1996a, 1998), pertaining specifically to assessment of resources and impacts in those two drainages. In the report by White (1998), the spring fed feeder streams with consistent flow, like the Lagoon Creek Tributary, attracted spawning salmon, whereas the streams that occasionally went dry, like the main branch of Lagoon Creek, were devoid of spawning salmon. Project Area The waterbodies included in the presence/absence study were two ponds north of the study area in the Big Creek watershed, the waterbody known as the Swimming Pond, and Lagoon Creek (Figure 1 ). The fish habitat study was focused on the reach of Lagoon Creek from its inception south of the Swimming Pond to the mouth. Methods Analysis of Lagoon Creek included channel characteristics, baseline water quality data, and qualitative presents/absence surveys for anadromous fish through short term fish trapping and a spawning survey. Physical measures included stream discharge, channel width, average depth, substrate particle size, corrected velocity, stream feature type, in-stream woody debris (IWD), riparian vegetation, and estimated stream channel shade. Water quality data was collected using a YSI 556 multiprobe and included temperature, DO%, DO mg/L, and pH when available. The YSI probe was completely submerged in the stream or pond and allowed to stabilize. Stabilization would typically take up to ten minutes. To avoid delay in project data collection the probe would often be turned on and placed in the water while other work was done in tandem. When possible the probe was allowed to remain on and in the water while moving to a new site. This allowed the probe to continue to take measurements and reduced stabilization times. Twenty two cross sectional profiles were measured at locations along Lagoon Creek. Channel widths, depths, velocity (three cross sections), and feature type were measured on straight channel sections, at ordinary high water (vegetation line), and separated longitudinally by approximately 150 feet where practical. AVEC's Old Ha; v~· Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 13 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 14 Discharge was measured at three locations on Lagoon Creek using cross sectional profiles. Depth and stream channel were measured and put into 1/101h feet units. Velocity was measured at 0.8 and 0.2 depth with a Marsh McBirney Flowmate model2000 (MMB). The Marsh McBirney is designed for low flow shallow systems as was characteristic in Lagoon Creek. Three sites were preselected for taking discharge. The First, OHHEDSCH002, was near the headwaters of Lagoon Creek. The second discharge measurement, OHHEDSCHOO 1, was in the middle section below the beaver dam. The third, OHHEDSCH003, was taken at the pump house close to the mouth of Lagoon Creek. Cross Sectional Area (ft2) *Average Stream Velocity (ft/sec) = DSCH (cfs) Three other velocities were taken during the August field effort using timed surface observations. A predetermined distance of 50' or 25 ', depending on stream dynamics, was measured using a standardized tape. A floating object was then placed on the water surface and timed until it reached the end of the tape. This was repeated three times for each site. The velocity was then multiplied by a correction value to compensate for substrate. Correction values are 0.8 for coarse gravel and 0.9 for mud and sand. Velocity (ftlsec) =(Distance (ft) I Timeavg)*(Correction Value) In stream Woody Debris (IWD), substrate, riparian vegetation, and% shade were collected while traversing the stream channel between cross sectional data points. The presence/absence of adult spawning salmon was observed by visually surveying waterbodies and short-term fish trapping. IWD was collected by tallying dead woody debris in the stream channel greater than 1" in diameter and > 1' in length. Substrate particle size was determined while traversing the stream by measuring a random sample at each new stream feature and at the cross sectional profiles with a standardized measuring stick. Substrate was categorized based on size in inches as silt (very fine), sand (.04-.08), gravel (.08-2.5), cobble (2.5-10.1), and boulder (10.1-80). Riparian vegetation and % shade were determined using ocular estimates of percent cover. The fish trapping effort was a qualitative study and is not designed for nor implies population dynamics of any of the observed waterbodies. The fish trapping study was only a presence/absence study looking for juvenile anadromous fish species and no other measurements were taken on trapped specimens. Fish trapping was conducted upstream and downstream from the beaver dam on Lagoon Creek, in the Swimming Pond and at two ponds adjacent to the northern end of the project area in the Big Creek watershed. Fish were captured and removed from the waterbodies in minnow traps. Six traps were baited with commercially cured salmon roe and placed within slow moving pool habitats of Lagoon Creek, and off the shore in the remaining waterbodies. After all trapping sets were completed and given an adequate amount of time to soak; fish from each set were identified to species, counted, and returned to the stream or pond. AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 15 Spawning surveys for adult salmon were conducted in August and October 2010. In August we observed the entire length of Lagoon Creek from its inception south ofthe swimming pond to the mouth were it meets the brackish water of the estuary. In October, all but a small section of Lagoon Creek was surveyed due to increased bear activity. In each case, observers donned polarized glasses and traversed the shore and stream channel looking for the presence of adult salmon. Specifically, observers looked in deep water pools, riffles and along cut banks. If any adult salmon were observed estimated, number and species were recorded. Resu Its The section of Lagoon Creek above the beaver damn (Figure 2) is a relatively short(< 0.5 mile), low energy low flow system categorized by low energy pools. The stream channel is not well defined in the upper section. The riparian vegetation is predominantly sedge meadow, blue joint herbaceous, and willow scrub shrub. The predominate substrate in the pools are typically organic mud, silt and sands. We did not observe, at any time, zero flow in the upper section of Lagoon Creek. The upper section becomes ponded as it approaches a large beaver damn mid section. It is obvious that the recent beaver activity mid section on Lagoon Creek is affecting the flow regime of the stream. Whether or not these effects are positive or negative to the spawning or rearing of anadromous fish cannot be determined at this time. The section of Lagoon Creek below the beaver damn is a relatively short(< 0.5 mile), stable, low energy, meandering stream, categorized by pools and riffles. The predominate substrate in the riffles was medium gravels and cobble. Pools are typically silt and sands. We did not observe at any time zero flow on Lagoon Creek. However it is obvious that the recent beaver activity mid section on Lagoon Creek (Figure 3) is affecting the flow regime of the stream. Whether or not these effects are positive or negative to the spawning or rearing of anadromous fish cannot be determined at this time. The average width of the Lagoon Creek is 26.5' and the average depth is 0.89'. Average velocity is 1.43 ft/sec (Table 1 ). IWD was abundant in the sections of stream where the riparian vegetation was predominately alder/willow/poplar (Figure 4) and low towards the mouth where riparian vegetation was predominately persistent herbaceous vegetation. Average shade cover followed the same tread as IWD in that it was higher in the upper sections where woody vegetation was the predominate riparian vegetation and lower towards the mouth. Average estimated shade was 33% with the highest shade being recorded in the midsection of the stream. AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 16 Figure 2: Headwaters of Lagoon Creek Figure 3: Beav e r Dam on Lagoon Creek AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 7 Figure 4: Typical Riparian Vegetation Middle Sect ion Lagoon Creek AVEC's Gtu narbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page IS T b l I OHHEL a e ago on C k C h ree anne IM easurements an d F ' ld D Je at a C ha nn e l Width Sa mpl e Po int Date GP S (ft) OHH ES SXOO I 8/26/20 10 N57 13.395 Wl 53 18 .15 13.20 OHH ES SX002 8/26/2010 N57 13.372 W I 53 18.14 73.80 OHH ES SX003 8/26/20 10 N57 13.354 W l 53 18.16 29.4 0 OHH ES SX004 8/26/20 10 N57 13.339 W I 53 18.17 24.70 N57 13.323 WI 53 18.16 OHH ESSXOOS 8/26/20 10 2 1.0 0 OHH E SSX006 8/26/20 10 N57 13.323 Wl53 18.17 24.40 OHH E SSX007 8/26/201 0 N57 13.3 14 Wl53 18.18 26 .3 0 OHH ES SX008 8/26/2010 N 57 13.29 1 Wl5 3 18.17 2 5 .20 OHH ES SX009 8/26/20 10 N57 13.277 Wl5 3 18.16 2 5 .70 OHH ESSXO I O 8/26/2010 N57 13.266 W I 53 18.17 36.00 OHH ESS XO ll 8/26/20 10 N57 13 .252 W I 53 18.22 72.60 OHH ESSX OI2 8/26/20 10 N57 13 .230 W I 53 18 .19 22.90 OHH ESSXOI 3 8/26/20 10 N57 13.2 10 WI 53 18.20 24 .30 N57 13.186 WI 53 18 .23 OHH ESSX OI4 8/26/201 0 25.2 0 N57 13.095 Wl 53 18.13 OHH E~SXO I S 8/26/20 10 28.90 N57 13.039 Wl 53 18.00 OHH ESSXO I 6 8/26/20 10 2 1.70 N57 13 .002 W l 53 17.92 OHH ESSXO I 7 8/26/20 10 20.1 0 N57 12.982 WI 53 17.97 OHH ESS XOI 8 8/26/20 10 17 .80 N57 12.924 Wl 53 17 .95 OHH ES SX 01 9 8/26/201 0 26 .70 OHH E N 57 13 '4 3.8"W 1531 8'll. DS C HOO I 10/15 /2010 8 8.8 0 OHH E DS CH002 I 0/16/20 l 0 N57 13'43.8"Wl53 18'11. 14 .30 OHH E N57 13'05.6"W 15 3 18'07. DS C H00 3 I 0/16/20 I 0 8 28.60 Aver age 26 .50 De pth Correc ted In Stream Es t. Sh ade Averag Ve loc it y St ream W oody De bri s %Strea m e (ft) (ft/sec) S u bst rate Feat ure > I " Di a mete r Rip a ri an Yeg Cover 0 .4 7 1.37 Grave l/Co bbl e Riffl e 2 A ld er/W ill ow 20 0 .4 3 Grave l/Co bbl e R iffl e 12 A ld e r/W i I low 70 0.60 Gravel/S a nd Poo l 23 A ld e r!Wi I low 85 0.89 G ravel/Co bbl e Ri ffle 18 A ld e r/Wi ll ow 85 0.88 Sa nd /G rave l Run 34 A ld e r/Will ow 85 0.72 Gravel/Sa nd Run 8 A ld e r/Will ow 20 1.50 Sand /Grave l Pool 2 1 A lder/Wi I low 20 1.20 Grave l/Sand Poo l 24 Po pl a r/Will ow 35 1.00 G ravel/Cob bl e Riffl e 12 Po pl ar/Wi ll ow 35 0.50 1.85 Grave l/Cob bl e R iffl e 12 Pop lar/Wi ll ow 20 0.76 G ravel/Sa nd Poo l 15 Poplar/Wi ll ow 15 0.77 G rave l Run 26 Po pl a r/Wi I low 15 0.68 3 .15 G rave l Riffl e 30 Po pl a r/Wi ll ow 40 0 .83 Cobbl e/Gra ve l Riffl e 24 Po p la r/Will ow 50 1.90 Sand /G rave l Poo l 10 Pop lar/W i I low 4 0 Pe r i te nt 0.83 0 .71 Sand/Gravel Poo l 8 Emergent <10 Pe rsistent 0.86 G ravel Ru n 3 Eme rgent <10 Per isten t 0 .4 7 Grave l Riffl e 0 Eme rgent <10 Pe rsis tent 2.60 Gravel/Sa nd Pool 2 E merge nt <10 0.2 8 1.29 G rave l Riffl e A ld er/Will ow 20 0.3 1 0 .06 S ilt/Sa nd Pool Will ow 15 1.08 0.17 Sand/G rave l Ru n Wi ll ow 10 0.89 1.43 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 19 Discharge measurements were taken at three locations along Lagoon Creek (Figure 5). The discharge near the inception of Lagoon Creek, OHHE DSCH002 , was low (Table 2). Based on our field observations it appears that this area is a ground water discharge zone. The hydrodynamics of the stream near the inception are thought to be primarily groundwater derived but woul d also include sheet flow and precipitation inputs. Lagoon Creek is thought to be a perennial stream even though low flows were observed in the beginning stretches. Figure 5: Discharge Being Collected Near the Headwaters of Lagoon Creek The second discharge measurement was taken below the beaver dam mid se ction of the stream (Figure 6). Discharge was greater at this location. The influence of the beaver dam and the storage capacity of the subsequent pond cannot be determined at this time. The third and final discharge measurement was taken at the pump house nea r the mouth of Lagoon Creek (Figure 7). This locatio n is below any tributaries to Lagoon Creek and as a result the discharge near the mouth is approximatel y double that of the mid section reaches of the stream (Table 2). AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 110 Figure 6 : Discharge Bein g Taken Downstream of the Beaver Dam Middle Section Lagoon Creek Figure 7: Discharge Being Taken at the Pump Hou se Lower Section Lagoon Creek Ta bl AVEC's Old Harbor Hydro e lectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page Jll e 2: OHHE Lagoon Cree k Di sc har ge Meas urement s Depth Cross Sectiona l Area Velocity Average DSC H Sample Point GPS Stream Width (ft) Average (ft) (ft2) (ftlsec) (ft3 /sec) OHHE DSCH002 OHHE DSCHOOl OHHE DSCH003 N57 13'43.8" Wl53 18' 11.8" 14.3 0.3 125 4.4 6875 0.06125 N57 13'2 1.3" Wl53 18' 10.2" 8.8 0.28 125 2.475 1.285 57 13'05.6" WI 53 18' 07.8" 28 .6 1.0 8 125 30.92375 0.171363636 Baseline water quality data was taken durin g the October field trip at each fi sh trap site and discharge site for a total of 10 data sets. The baseline data was recorded in a field data bo ok and followed the protocol outlined above. Over all trends were similar among sa mpl e sites and amon g the different water bodies (Figure 3). We were not able to collect pH at eac h s ite due to low water temperatures affecting the YSI meter and the two that were recorded appear low and sho uld not be considered as definite . Temperature and DO indicate suitable conditions for rearin g sa lmon . Eve n in low energy water with shallow depth s <I ' DO and temperature remained adequate . tgure 3: OHHE ase me Wa ter Qua tt y Data B r r 0.2737 11 3.180375 5.2992 06 Adults Spawning Location Water Bod y Date Temp DO % DO m_gL_L _QH Observed Lagoon Beaver Pond Creek I 0/15 /2010 4.42 84.6 10 .82 N Lagoon OHHEDSCH 001 Creek 10/15 /2010 5.00 87.0 II. I 0 N Swimming OHHEFT009 Pond I 0/16/2010 4.99 95.5 12 .1 8 N Swimmin g OHHEFTOIO Pond I 0/16/20 I 0 5.03 90 .6 11 .52 N Swimming OHHEFTOII Pond I 0/16/20 I 0 4.99 93.5 12 .02 N Lagoon OHHEFTOI2 Creek I 0/16 /2010 4.27 89.7 11.70 N La goo n OHHEFTOI3 Creek I 0/16 /2010 4 .7 1 77 .5 9.97 N Lagoon OHHEFTOI4 Creek I 0/16/2010 4.72 87.9 11 .29 N Lagoon OHHE DS CH003 Creek I 0/16/2010 5.52 88.7 11.18 6.15 N La goo n OHHEWQOOI Creek 10/16/2010 5.63 89.9 11.29 6.12 N Average 4.93 88.5 11.3 1 6.1 4 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 112 Fish trapping took place during the August and October field efforts. The purpose of the fish trap study was to determine presence/absence of anadromous fish. No other physical measurements were collected on the trapped specimens and no assumption of population dynamics should be inferred . Lagoon Creek and its tributary were previously cataloged as anadromous by ADF&G. The Swimming Pond and the two ponds north of the project area (Figure 8) were not cataloged as anadromou s waters as of the date of the study. Our fish trapping results show that the entire stretch of Lagoon creek, from its inception to the mouth , is anadromous (Table 4). The two ponds north of the project area , in the Big Creek watershed , were also found to be supporting anadromous fish. The Swimming Pond w as not found to be supporting anadromous fish . Figure8: Fish Trapping on the Northern Pond in the Bi g Creek Watershed AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 113 Figure9: Identifying Specimens at the OHH EFTO 13 on La goon Creek. Spawning surveys we re conducted during the August and October field efforts. Field biologist traversed the entire length of La goon Creek in an effort to vi suall y identify spawning anadromous fish . Presence/absence of adult spawning salmon was also noted while observi ng the Swimming Pond. No active adult spawning salmon were observed in La goon Creek or the Swimming Pond . Remains of adult salmon were observed within 400' of the mouth , along the shore of Lagoo n Creek. The remains were highly decomposed and hard to identify due to bears feeding on the carca ses. Left intact were primarily jaw and gill plate structures and appeared to be chum salmon . An estimated 150 carcasses were observed near the mouth. No actively spawning salmon were observed in the stream near the mouth . No other carcasses were observed on any other stretches of Lagoon Creek, the Beaver Pond or the Swimming Pond. AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project ERC Project P-13727 'abitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 114 Table 4: OHHE Anadromous Fish Survey Trap Date Set Date Pulled OHHEFT001 8/26/2010 8/26/2010 OHHEFT002 8/26/2010 8/26/2010 OHHEFT003 8/26/2010 8/26/2010 OHHEFT004 8/26/2010 8/26/2010 OHHEFT005 8/26/2010 8/26/2010 OHHEFT006 8/26/2010 8/26/2010 OHHEFT007 8/27/2010 8/27/2010 OHHEFT008 8/27/2010 8/27/2010 OHHEFT009 10/15/2010 10/16/2010 OHHEFT010 10/15/2010 10/16/2010 OHHEFT011 10/15/2010 10/16/2010 OHHEFT012 10/15/2010 10/16/2010 OHHEFT013 10/15/2010 10/16/2010 OHHEFT014 10/15/2010 10/16/2010 GPS N57 13.983 W153 18.296 N57 13.907 W153 18.266 N57 13.730 W153 18.197 N57 13.557 W153 18.161 N57 13.517 W153 18.201 N57 13.420 W153 18.177 N57 14.069 W153 18.069 N57 14.087 W153 17.789 N57 13' 58.2" W153 18' 17.9" N57 13' 58.9" W153 18' 13.0" N57 13' 55.5" W153 18' 17.2" N57 13' 43.5" W153 18' 11.3" N57 13' 24.7" W153 18' 11.0" N57 13' 23.2" W153 18' 09.3" *Key: Sb= Stickle Back, Co= Coho, Dv =Dolly Varden Time Set 0851 0857 0922 0952 1002 1022 0852 0923 1301 1310 1316 1348 1439 1442 Adults Time Depth Spawning Pulled (ft) Species* Observed 1505 3 26 Sb N 1512 4 32 Sb N 1522 2.5 10 Co N 1537 4.5 31 Co N 1541 3 37 Co, 6 Dv N 1557 4.5 18 Co,23 Dv N 1659 3 2 Co, 1 Dv N 1712 3 14 Co, 5 Dv, 10 Sb N 0958 4 14 Sb, 1 Dv N 1005 1 16 Sb N 1015 2 19 Sb N 1037 3.5 0 N 1107 2 38 Co, I Dv N 1126 2 28 Co, 6 Dv N AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 115 Cone I usion The purpose of this study was to collect baseline data which wil l be use by agency personnel in determining mitigation of impacts from the OH HE project. This study is limited in that it does not have the benefit of long term observations such as trends in flow regime , depth , and water chemistry. Two conclusions can be drawn from this study based on the information that was collected. The Lagoon Creek system is productive rearing habitat for Coho salmon and changes in the current flow regime may affect the system's abi lity to retain its unique habitat structure. Second , our investigation showed that the Swimming Pond is not supporting anadromous fish and that it does not appear there is a significant surface water nexus between it and Lagoon Creek. It would be expected that if there were a significant surface water nexus , at anytime during the year , juvenile Coho would be present in the Swimming Pond. The southern end of the Swimming Pond has what appears to be an intermittent outlet (Figure I 0); however the outlet is not well understood . It is unclear if this intermittent outlet makes a surface water connection between Lagoon Creek and the Swimming Pond during periods of high precipitation and spring runoff. Figure 10: Intermittent Outlet Channel on Southern End ofthe Swimmin g Pond. Red Line Indicates Intermittent Channel. Looking at historical aerial photography (Figure I) one can see the Swimming Pond floods during the spring. Even with the appearance of an intermittent outlet the overflow discharge from the Swimming Pond appears to drain to the Southwest and does not make the connecti on to Lagoon Creek. Conversely , the close proximity of the two waterbodies and the evident drawdown ofthe Swimming Pond each summer cannot be ignored. It is thought, based on our observations, th at the connection between the two waterbodies is through ground water. However this conc lusion is mad e based on lim ited surface observations . ' i ( AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 116 References Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). February 24, 2010. Alaska's Draft 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Alaska Department ofFish and Game (ADF&G). 2009. Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Anadromous Waters Catalog. http://www.sf.sdfg.state.ak.us/SARR/ A WC/index.cfm/F A/main.overview National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2009. Essential Fish Habitat Mapping. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/efh/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared by the USFWS Region 7. White, Lome. 1996. Memorandum: Old Harbor Fisheries Work August 9, 1996. Prepared August 13, 1996. White, Lome, 1996a. Memorandum: Old Harbor Fisheries Work September 3, 1996 and September 23 1996, BriefReport. Prepared October 8, 1996. White, Lome. 1998. Memorandum: Old Harbor Fisheries Work. Prepared October 1998. I \._ AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page J17 Appendix A Field Data Forms AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 118 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 119 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 20 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 21 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 22 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13 72 7 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 23 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 24 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 25 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 26 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 27 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 28 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawnin g Survey Report Page I 29 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 30 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 31 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 132 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page J33 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 134 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 35 - AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 36 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 37 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 38 ~~ cor._ DOmc/l ... ~ lllrfJth "' Yl AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 39 lemJI 00. DOI!Wl £tf I Ebt DlrtWh Vl vz ' AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 140 DOIIW\ ... So D50t ,., O:u H~ ~ V1 Ill AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 141 0 t~ 00% OOI'IWA Dt4 V2 _ AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 142 L ou Dtottl Yl Y2 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 143 ..,., .r ~ AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 144 'ftorro 001. DO~ '" ona OtiM VI ~ i AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 145 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 146 , .... DCMii t:IOnvll 11ft II ~ AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 147 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 148 am Dft:l!l\ 'II \') I AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page 149 fmtp ·CIO!' Q0-.,1\ '" I I 511 ~ D:SQt .. o) AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 50 ffft'P CIOK. DO.., cH D.5t Depdl Vt ~ I AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 51 ~ ~ D50t ... ., AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 52 ~. AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 53 .VJ. AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 54 11o ti'Jr.C) 00. DOftlll/t. PH AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 55 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 56 Tii'!IIIO ·0001' 00~ PH I I AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 57 , JO:tJC DO.I DOnwll DH ~ ... ,. q~ 1l ,., So 05CH Oka ' "'L I ~.0 " -"1 ...... _.., <(L" .4' ,, " '7A( <.,If;( .. ~ ~ Vl VJ t:> () 0 1).~. ,,. •0,101 ~I, .u ,,~· (I ~ ·~ -~ ,I( .,.,,'J."f ··~' ,."t,.C. ~.I t 1 ):) b.'!. ·411' "1 -~ 0 , I) AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 58 TttYW (10ft OONIL di ..... ,. 1f,f. . '.-s.,... IX$I ~.~D "'"" I J • .~. . ~4/. r« . ., Oi$O V1 VJ (.) n 0 "" o .~ L'J.rf> .~ tt .. JD AAfM to J>.4'l ~"'• dt ·'-#A' " '" . " I'J IJ AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Page I 59 lnw DCMCo OOmtll ~ ~,(n ~,. __!_ -"' '~•t.. "" Nu=tm DISCH Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Prepared for: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 With funding from: Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant #2195431 Prepared by: Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. 2607 Fairbanks Street, Suite B Anchorage, AK 99503 June 2011 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 June 2011 Fisheries fieldwork, to determine fish presence and assess fish habitats in the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project area, was conducted between August 23-28 and October 15-16 of 2010. A draft field report was prepared in November 2010. In November 2010 agencies were provided with this draft field report and asked for their comments. On January 14, 2011 comments were received from Gary Wheeler, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge Manager Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. On January 24, 2011 comments were received from Jason Mouw, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Biologist. Below are Alaska Village AVEC's responses to these comments. No other comments were received. Comment Comment AVEC Response From Gary Wheeler, However, we have the While the fisheries study did focus USFWS impression that the fisheries on anadromous fish, the study also Refuge crew felt like we were only investigated presence/absence of Manager interested in anadromous fish. all fish in the project area. Table 4 Kodiak To the contrary, we are on page 14 of the report shows all National interested in conserving all native the species that were captured in Wildlife fish and wildlife. Consequently, minnow traps during the survey Refuge the report should have concluded effort. This data shows that both what fish species were found in stickleback and Dolly Varden are the Swimming Pond, and not present in the Swimming Pond. simply that the Swimming Pond The presence of Dolly Varden in does not support anadromous the Swimming Pond will be species. Secondly, if stickleback reported throughout the Federal is the only species found in the Energy Regulatory Commission Swimming Pond, then the (FERC) licensing process. consultants did not come fully equipped to sample all species. When Deputy Refuge Manager Kent Sundseth and I were at the project site on June 4, 2010, a large fish, probably a Dolly Varden, surfaced in the Swimming Pond. We trust that Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 this species will be mentioned in the National Environmental Policy Act document. What was the distribution of Minnow trap sites are shown on minnow-trapping sites within the Figure 1, identified by the full distribution of fish data abbreviation OHHEFT {Old Harbor points? Hydroelectric Fish Trap). For reference, the headwaters of Lagoon Creek are located in the vicinity of OHHEFT003 and the beaverdam is located in the vicinity of OHHEFT013 and OHHESSXl. A version of Figure 1 that has higher resolution than the one embedded in the report is attached to this document. This higher resolution figure makes it easier to see the data. We'll need to once again defer to Fish trapping was conducted from our local area biologists, but the the headwaters of Lagoon Creek to timing of fish surveys appears to just downstream of the beaver be well-timed. However, in order dam, in the Swimming Pond, and to perform a full review of the in two ponds adjacent to the adequacy of these surveys, we northern end of the project area in would like to know more about the Big Creek watershed. Please where and within which habitat see Figure 1 for the specific types, other than pools, baited distribution of the traps. Habitat minnow traps were placed. types were examined in the field. For detailed information on the habitat types where the traps were set in along Lagoon Creek, please see pages 5-6 of the report. Please also provide a little better The off shore water bodies description of the off-shore water referenced in the report are the bodies referenced in the fisheries Swimming Pond and two other report. ponds in the Big Creek drainage, outside the Lagoon Creek drainage. The Swimming Pond is Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 shown on the cover of the report and the northern pond in Big Creek drainage is shown in Figure 8. These open water ponds have mud bottoms and are about 4-12 feet deep. The Swimming Pond is surrounded by depressional and lacustrine fringe wetlands, as described in the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Wetlands Delineation Report. The two other ponds were not described in detail because they were outside of the Lagoon Creek drainage and project area. We are also concerned about the The number of fish traps was not fact that only six baited minnow specified in the Study Plan trap locations were used. approved for this project. As stated in the Study Plan, trap placement was chosen to determine the presence/absence of fish within the waterbodies of the project area. We believe that the trapping effort adequately addresses whether and what species are found in the project area. Information on the Table 4 details the aquatic habitat representativeness of these where the traps were placed. As locations to the project-affected shown in the table, numerous aquatic habitats will be needed varieties of representational to assess the number and habitats were sampled. placement of traps. Also, were these trapping sites Trap locations were similar among the same among seasons, how seasons. Eight locations were long were the traps left to soak, surveyed in August and six and what was the mesh size of locations were surveyed in the traps? October (in October the two ponds in the Big Creek watershed were Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 not resurveyed because they were not in the project area). Please see Figure 1 for exact trap locations. Please see table 4 for the amount of time traps were left to soak. Round minnow traps made of X inch galvanized steel mesh with a 1 inch opening were used. A separate map, or maps would AVEC is not for profit organization be helpful, and may be needed to serving poor rural communities. illustrate the location of The field effort for this project was discharge measurements, the supported by a grant and the location of the beaver dam and funds are very limited. To keep the distributions of fish by costs low, this report does not species. contain numerous maps and figures. The beaver dam is located in the vicinity of OHHEFT013 and OHHESSX1 and the headwaters of Lagoon Creek are located in the vicinity of OHHEFT003. The distributions of fish {e.g. For locations of creek channel coho and dolly varden) appear to measurements, discharge be discontinuous, or clumped. measurements, and fish General habitat associations with distribution please reference these aggregations would help Figure 1 with the IDs listed in assess habitat use under the Tables 1, 2, and 4, respectively. current hydrologic regime. Would it be possible to perform The approved Study Plan did not hydrographic/differential surveys include hydrographic/differential to assess how increases in flow to surveys. the "swimming pond" might influence the ephemeral nature As stated on page 9, the discharge of surface-water connectivity near the beginning {inception) of with the inception of the Lagoon Lagoon Creek, OHHEDSCH002, was Creek tributary? The stated low {Table 2}. Based on field hydraulic capacity of the turbine observations, it appears that this is 7 cfs, which would increase the area is a ground water discharge ( / ' \. Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 discharge of the project stream zone. The hydrodynamics of the by ~26 times, as measured at the stream near the inception are point of inception and by ~1.3 thought to be primarily times at the mouth of Lagoon groundwater derived but would Creek, if the project were to also include sheet flow and operate at full capacity. Though precipitation inputs. Lagoon Creek operation at full capacity may be is though to be a perennial stream unlikely, there is potential for a even though low flows were major hydrologic regime shift to observed in beginning stretches. occur. This needs to be a future point of discussion through the AVEC will work with agencies on remainder of the FERC process in the design of the tailrace and order to give full consideration to outlet of the pond as we move the effects to existing aquatic and forward in the FERC licensing wetland habitats from proposed process. project operation. This should include consideration of the observed substrate particle size distribution, how this distribution was assessed and whether or not predictions can be made about changes in substrate as a result of increased discharge. We would like to caution that While this fisheries study used two only two field surveys were field surveys that focused on completed, and that the full presence/absence of fish, as distribution of both spawning mentioned on page 2 of the and rearing fish is still quite report, prior to this study AVEC uncertain. The presence of coho performed extensive studies of the juveniles, for example, indicates fishery resources as part of the that spawning is occurring, yet previous licensing process. spawning was not observed. The aggregation of what appeared to We agree with the likelihood that be chum carcasses just below the spawning is occurring, and will confluence of Lagoon Creek and move forward with the the project tributary also assumption that a hydrologic indicates that perhaps this connection may provide access to tributary is important to the Swimming Pond for spawning spawning populations. Also, the adults and rearing juveniles. lack of fish observations in the Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist ( AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 swimming pool is an observation that should not be used to support a final conclusion of anadromy within this pool. During high runoff years, a hydrologic connection may provide access to spawning adults and rearing juveniles. Finally, a YSI meter was used in The YSI meter was calibrated by the field for "spot" TTT Environmental before it was measurements of water quality. taken into the field. The buffers Can you speak to the calibration and standards used to calibrate of these instruments? the meter were fresh and have a shelf life of approximately one week to ten days and the meter was used well within that time period. Also, it is our understanding that The data loggers have not yet been continuous temperature loggers retrieved. Temperature loggers were placed within various should be collected during the reaches of the project water summer of 2011. body to assess seasonal thermal regimes. Are these data reported, or have these loggers not yet been retrieved? Proposed O ld Harbor Hydroelectric Project Fisheries Map Figure 1.0 Legend • 2010 Fish Data Points Proposed Penstock Proposed Overhead Electric Lines from Powerhouse to Moutain View Drive --Proposed Tailrace GIL Proposed Road from Powerhouse to Moutain View Dr. --Proposed Access Road from Powerhouse to Penstock CJ Proposed Intake • Proposed Powerhouse ( ' ' \____. Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Prepared for: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7 497 With funding from: Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant #2195431 Prepared by: Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. 2607 Fairbanks Street, Suite B Anchorage, AK 99503 . June 2011 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 June 2011 Fisheries fieldwork, to determine fish presence and assess fish habitats in the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project area, was conducted between August 23-28 and October 15-16 of 2010. A draft field report was prepared in November 2010. In November 2010 agencies were provided with this draft field report and asked for their comments. On January 14, 2011 comments were received from Gary Wheeler, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge Manager Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. On January 24, 2011 comments were received from Jason Mouw, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Biologist. Below are Alaska Village AVEC's responses to these comments. No other comments were received. Comment Comment AVEC Response From Gary Wheeler, However, we have the While the fisheries study did focus USFWS impression that the fisheries on anadromous fish, the study also Refuge crew felt like we were only investigated presence/absence of Manager interested in anadromous fish. all fish in the project area. Table 4 Kodiak To the contrary, we are on page 14 of the report shows all National interested in conserving all native the species that were captured in Wildlife fish and wildlife. Consequently, minnow traps during the survey Refuge the report should have concluded effort. This data shows that both what fish species were found in stickleback and Dolly Varden are the Swimming Pond, and not present in the Swimming Pond. simply that the Swimming Pond The presence of Dolly Varden in does not support anadromous the Swimming Pond will be species. Secondly, if stickleback reported throughout the Federal is the only species found in the Energy Regulatory Commission Swimming Pond, then the (FERC) licensing process. consultants did not come fully equipped to sample all species. When Deputy Refuge Manager Kent Sundseth and I were at the project site on June 4, 2010, a large fish, probably a Dolly Varden, surfaced in the Swimming Pond. We trust that Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 this species will be mentioned in the National Environmental Policy Act document. What was the distribution of Minnow trap sites are shown on minnow-trapping sites within the Figure 1, identified by the full distribution of fish data abbreviation OHHEFT (Old Harbor points? Hydroelectric Fish Trap). For reference, the headwaters of Lagoon Creek are located in the vicinity of OHHEFT003 and the beaver dam is located in the vicinity of OHHEFT013 and OHHESSXl. A version of Figure 1 that has higher resolution than the one embedded in the report is attached to this document. This higher resolution figure makes it easier to see the data. We'll need to once again defer to Fish trapping was conducted from our local area biologists, but the the headwaters of Lagoon Creek to timing of fish surveys appears to just downstream of the beaver be well-timed. However, in order dam, in the Swimming Pond, and to perform a full review of the in two ponds adjacent to the adequacy of these surveys, we northern end of the project area in would like to know more about the Big Creek watershed. Please where and within which habitat see Figure 1 for the specific types, other than pools, baited distribution of the traps. Habitat minnow traps were placed. types were examined in the field. For detailed information on the habitat types where the traps were set in along Lagoon Creek, please see pages S-6 of the report. Please also provide a little better The off shore water bodies description of the off-shore water referenced in the report are the bodies referenced in the fisheries Swimming Pond and two other report. ponds in the Big Creek drainage, outside the Lagoon Creek drainage. The Swimming Pond is Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 shown on the cover of the report and the northern pond in Big Creek drainage is shown in Figure 8. These open water ponds have mud bottoms and are about 4-12 feet deep. The Swimming Pond is surrounded by depressional and lacustrine fringe wetlands, as described in the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Wetlands Delineation Report. The two other ponds were not described in detail because they were outside of the Lagoon Creek drainage and project area. We are also concerned about the The number offish traps was not fact that only six baited minnow specified in the Study Plan trap locations were used. approved for this project. As stated in the Study Plan, trap placement was chosen to determine the presence/absence of fish within the waterbodies of the project area. We believe that the trapping effort adequately addresses whether and what species are found in the project area. Information on the Table 4 details the aquatic habitat representativeness of these where the traps were placed. As locations to the project-affected shown in the table, numerous aquatic habitats will be needed varieties of representational to assess the number and habitats were sampled. placement of traps. Also, were these trapping sites Trap locations were similar among the same among seasons, how seasons. Eight locations were long were the traps left to soak, surveyed in August and six and what was the mesh size of locations were surveyed in the traps? October (in October the two ponds in the Big Creek watershed were Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 not resurveyed because they were not in the project area). Please see Figure 1 for exact trap locations. Please see table 4 for the amount of time traps were left to soak. Round minnow traps made of X inch galvanized steel mesh with a 1 inch opening were used. A separate map, or maps would AVEC is not for profit organization be helpful, and may be needed to serving poor rural communities. illustrate the location of The field effort for this project was discharge measurements, the supported by a grant and the location of the beaver dam and funds are very limited. To keep the distributions of fish by costs low, this report does not species. contain numerous maps and figures. The beaver dam is located in the vicinity of OHHEFT013 and OHHESSX1 and the headwaters of Lagoon Creek are located in the vicinity of OHHEFT003. The distributions of fish (e.g. For locations of creek channel coho and dolly varden) appear to measurements, discharge be discontinuous, or clumped. measurements, and fish General habitat associations with distribution please reference these aggregations would help Figure 1 with the IDs listed in assess habitat use under the Tables 1, 2, and 4, respectively. current hydrologic regime. Would it be possible to perform The approved Study Plan did not hydrographic/differential surveys include hydrographic/differential to assess how increases in flow to surveys. the "swimming pond" might influence the ephemeral nature As stated on page 9, the discharge of surface-water connectivity near the beginning (inception) of with the inception of the Lagoon Lagoon Creek, OHHEDSCH002, was Creek tributary? The stated low (Table 2). Based on field hydraulic capacity of the turbine observations, it appears that this is 7 cfs, which would increase the area is a ground water discharge Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 discharge of the project stream zone. The hydrodynamics of the by ~26 times, as measured at the stream near the inception are point of inception and by ~1.3 thought to be primarily times at the mouth of Lagoon groundwater derived but would Creek, if the project were to also include sheet flow and operate at full capacity. Though precipitation inputs. Lagoon Creek operation at full capacity may be is though to be a perennial stream unlikely, there is potential for a even though low flows were major hydrologic regime shift to observed in beginning stretches. occur. This needs to be a future point of discussion through the AVEC will work with agencies on remainder of the FERC process in the design of the tailrace and order to give full consideration to outlet of the pond as we move the effects to existing aquatic and forward in the FERC licensing wetland habitats from proposed process. project operation. This should include consideration of the observed substrate particle size distribution, how this distribution was assessed and whether or not predictions can be made about changes in substrate as a result of increased discharge. We would like to caution that While this fisheries study used two only two field surveys were field surveys that focused on completed, and that the full presence/absence of fish, as distribution of both spawning mentioned on page 2 of the and rearing fish is still quite report, prior to this study AVEC uncertain. The presence of coho performed extensive studies of the juveniles, for example, indicates fishery resources as part of the that spawning is occurring, yet previous licensing process. spawning was not observed. The aggregation of what appeared to We agree with the likelihood that be chum carcasses just below the spawning is occurring, and will confluence of Lagoon Creek and move forward with the the project tributary also assumption that a hydrologic indicates that perhaps this connection may provide access to tributary is important to the Swimming Pond for spawning spawning populations. Also, the adults and rearing juveniles. lack of fish observations in the Jason Mouw, ADF&G Biologist AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Addendum to Fish Habitat and Spawning Survey Report June 2011 swimming pool is an observation that should not be used to support a final conclusion of anadromy within this pool. During high runoff years, a hydrologic connection may provide access to spawning adults and rearing juveniles. Finally, a YSI meter was used in The YSI meter was calibrated by the field for "spot" TTT Environmental before it was measurements of water quality. taken into the field. The buffers Can you speak to the calibration and standards used to calibrate of these instruments? the meter were fresh and have a shelf life of approximately one week to ten days and the meter was used well within that time period. Also, it is our understanding that The data loggers have not yet been continuous temperature loggers retrieved. Temperature loggers were placed within various should be collected during the reaches of the project water summer of 2011. body to assess seasonal thermal regimes. Are these data reported, or have these loggers notyetbeenretrieved? Proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Fisheries Map Fig ure 1.0 Legend • 2010 Fish Data Points Proposed Penstock • • Proposed Overhead Electric Lines from Powerhouse to Moutain View Drive --Proposed Tailrace C/L Proposed Road from Powerhouse to Moutain View Dr. Proposed Access Road from Powerhouse to Penstock 0 Proposed Intake • Proposed Powerhouse 3 c Wetland .Delineation Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Prepared for: Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. 2607 Fairbanks Street, Suite B Anchorage, AK 99503 and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 With funding from: Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant #2195431 Prepared by: Christopher L. Love, PWS June 2011 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Wetl and Delineation Report Prepared By: Christopher L. Love , PWS '- AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page 11 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Wetland Introduction Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), the electric utility provider in Old Harbor, Alaska, with funding from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), is seeking to develop a hydroelectric resource near the community of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island. The project is needed to stabilize energy costs and to provide a long-term and sustainable energy source in the community. Project Components The proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project consists of: • An estimated dependable capacity of 130 kilowatts (kW). The peak installed-capacity will primarily depend on economics and the projected increase in demand. AVEC has chosen to permit the project with a peak capacity of 300 kW. • A water intake area at the Mountain Creek tributary of Barling Bay Creek, including a 4-foot cutoff (diversion) wall that will not create any significant impoundment of water. • An 8,900 feet (approximate) penstock. • A single 300-kW Pelton turbine with a hydraulic capacity of 7 cubic feet per second (cfs) coupled directly to a 480-volt, 3-phase generator. • A 600 square-foot (approximate) powerhouse at the turbine's tailrace. • Water discharge from the tailrace into a lake, or channeled across the lowlands to a nearby stream with final discharge at Lagoon Creek. • A 1.25-mile (approximate), 7.2 kV three-phase overhead power line. • A 3-mile (approximate) access road. AVEC is seeking a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (PERC) Hydroelectric Project License under the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). With substantial agency input, AVEC developed a Proposed and Revised Study Plan that describes the methodology for this and other field studies conducted for the project. Through the use of existing information and field reconnaissance surveys, the following study characterizes wetland habitats and wetland functions for the entire project area (Figure 1). Outcomes from this project will be a determination of wetland and upland habitats within the proposed project area and a determination of functional capability of those identified wetland habitats. The purpose of the wetland delineation survey is to produce a resource inventory dataset of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project (OHHE) proposed pipeline, roadway, and tailrace area. This dataset will be used by agency personnel to gauge impacts to wetland habitats that fall within the project area and aid resource agency staff to better determine mitigation requirements. AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project PERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 2 Methods Resource data was collected through both aerial photographic interpretation and on-site data collection. Qualified field personnel traversed the priority areas and inventoried soil, topographic landform features, vegetative communities, and hydrologic features. A field reconnaissance survey of the OHHE project area was conducted between August 25th and August 28, 2010. Aerial photographs were used to determine site locations and boundaries. Field data was recorded on data forms that included parameters for Routine Wetland Determination (USACOE 1987). Magee Functional Assessment Wetland functional assessment methods are a dynamic tool used by regulators and scientists and have been implemented in multiple regions throughout the United State for wetland evaluation and protection. The Rapid Procedure for Assessing Wetland Functional Capacity (Magee 1998) was used to assess functional capacity of identified wetlands in the OHHE project area (Appendix A). This method is based on the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classification. The Magee methodology allows field biologists to use landscape and biological features to model wetland physiochemical and biotic processes (function) as a Functional Capacity Index (FCI). The importance of different wetland function varies among geographic regions and with local sociological value of biological resources supported by these functions. The Magee functional assessment is based upon ranking site parameters that are variables which affect wetland functions in eight different models resulting in a FCI score. Variables include soil permeability, vegetation cover, flood frequency, etc. Sums of site variables (or some other relationship) are used to model wetland function processes. Functional processes include flood retention, nutrient storage and export, and wildlife habitat. The sum or average among multiple wetland FCI scores is then used to provide an overall site assessment score. The importance of some functional processes is common among many different regions (i.e. flood retention), while other processes may differ among regions (wildlife habitat for moose vs. caribou). Vegetation Pedestrian surveys were conducted for the entire project area. During the surveys the different vegetation types were identified based on dominant plant species and vegetation structure. Boundaries of the plant communities were sketched on aerial photos and the positions were recorded using a Garmin® global positioning system receiver (GPS). At least one representative sample point location was established in each plant community type found within the project area. All of the dominant vascular plant species were identified to species level following AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 3 taxonomic designations in Hulten (1968), at each sample location (Appendix B). To the extent possible, sub-dominant vascular plant species were also identified. Plants were then assigned a wetland indicator status (Table 1) from the National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Results from the field surveys, including dominant species and vegetation structure, were used to assign the wetland plant communities a vegetation type according to 'The Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992). Wetland plant communities were classified to Level IV. TABLE 1: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Indicator Status Wetland Delineation and Classification Report Classification Obligate Wetland (OBL) Facultative Wetland (FACW) Facultative (FA C) Facultative Upland (FACU) Obligate Upland (UPL) No Indicator (NI) Source: Reed (1988). Percent Occurrence in Wetlands More than 99 67 to 99 34 to 66 I to 33 Less than I Insufficient data to determine indicator status Ocular estimates of percent cover were made for all strata, including cryptograms (mosses and lichens) within a 37-foot radius (1/10 acre) of the sample point. Vegetation height and structure were also noted. The 50/20 rule was used to determine dominance of hydrophytic vegetation for each sample plot. The rule states that for each stratum in the plant community, dominant species are the most abundant plant species that immediately exceed 50% of the total dominance measure for the stratum, plus any additional species that individually comprise 20% or more of the total dominance measure for the stratum (USACOE 1987). Soils and Landform Features The upper soil horizons at each sample point were examined by excavating a pit with a tile spade to a depth of 18-24 inches. The major genetic horizon (i.e., 0, E, Bs, 2C. .. ) were identified and measured within each of the soil pits. Moist soil colors for each horizon were determined using Munsell® soil color charts. Soil texture, presence of organic matter, coarse fragments, root depth and redoximorphic features (i.e. iron masses) were also noted for each horizon. Landform features such as hillside, ridge, bench, and toe-slope were determined in the field referencing the NRCS Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils (2002). AVEC's Old Ha Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 4 •jJ' + .... 03.C 02 2 13 3.C 0211 2 + I • 3 -t S 25 7 34 25 + 3.4 5 e 17 tS 25 2 Propoud Old Harbor Hydroolectrlc Project Overvl-Wetlands Map Figure1 .0 Lagend 20 10 Sols ti ce F e d Point s 2010 Solstice Wotlands ON · Ope n wate r U ·Up s U_10 • Upl with 10% D u_2s. Upta s wi th 25 % W · ands AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 5 Hydrology Each site was examined for evidence of wetland hydrology. Primary indicators included ponded water on the soil surface or the presence of free water or saturated soils within 12 inches of the soil surface in the excavated soil pits. Other primary indicators included defined drainage channels, swales and topographic basins. At sample locations where primary indicators were not apparent, other factors such as landscape position, topography, overall site drainage patterns, soils and dominant vegetation were taken into consideration when assessing if seasonal wetland hydrology may be present during at some point during the growing season. Uplands Uplands are areas that do not meet the USACOE criteria for wetland hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation. In some cases a plot will meet two of the criteria for wetland indicators but does not meet the criteria for the third. By definition the area is then considered an upland. For the purposes of large scale wetland delineations, such as OHHE, where an area is thought to meet two of the three criteria it may be mapped as U_10 or U_25. U_10 and U_25 are used to describe an area that does not meet the three criteria standard from the USACOE but could at some time in the year have small,< 1/10th acre, areas that meet all three wetland criteria. U_10 is used to describe an area that is upland but may have up to 10% wetland habitat, less than 1/10th of an acre, at some point in the year. U_25 is used to describe an area that is upland but may have up to 25% wetland habitat, less than 1/10th of an acre, at some point in the year. This mapping scheme is used on large scale areas where either the landscape is too complex or too challenging to acquire multiple data points. Wetlands Wetlands are defined as areas that are "inundated by surface water or groundwater with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (40 CFR 230.3 and CFR 238). Prior to entering the field, field crews estimated the presence of wetland habitats using existing aerial photography. Wetland delineations were performed using guidelines set in the 1987 USACOE wetland delineation manual. Wetland determinations were based on a three tier classification criteria including soils, vegetation, and hydrology indicators that would suggest periodic inundation. In order to be classified as a wetland all three parameters must indicate a wetland. AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 6 A wetlands determination was conducted at each data point using the USACOE Wetland Delineation Manual (USACOE 1987) and the USACOE AK-Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual2.0 (USACOE 2007). Data sheets for each data point can be viewed in Appendix E. Each wetland identified in the project area was labeled according to the Cowardin Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. In some cases representative wetlands data points were recorded. Representative points are used for mapping purposes and reflect areas that have similar characteristics to wetlands in the project area. Wetland areas and aquatic features including drainages, creeks, and open water were identified and hand sketched on aerial photographs during the field surveys. Small topographic depressions, swales and other potential wetland features less than 0.1 acre were identified to a reasonable degree. Mapping In the field, data point positions were recorded using handheld GPS units. Plot selection was determined by using aerial photography, aspect, measured distances from know points of reference, and on the ground field observations. Data point positions were integrated into the final mapping effort to show true positioning. Preliminary mapping of possible wetland/ upland boundaries were prepared by first delineating vegetation and land cover types on true color aerial photographs of the project area. Final mapping was completed using ortho-rectified color images. Acetate overlays were used to create delineated wetland boundaries along the project corridor. The acetate overlays were then scanned into digital overlays, entered into Arclnfo Geographical Information System (GIS), and digitally coded to give each a unique set of identifiers (Appendix C). Each map was prepared and maintained by Resources Data Inc. (RDI). Final digital maps were then prepared showing wetland boundaries as polygons in the GIS dataset (Figure 2-10). Upland and wetland acreages for the project area were calculated based off of the GIS special referencing (Table 1). Results The OHHE project area is a dynamic landscape mosaic of upland and wetland habitats, each driven by a unique set of hydrologic variables. Aerial photographs used for field reconnaissance were ortho-rectified, therefore any comments referencing mapping are based on spatial interpretation of GPS data. Any vegetation, wetland, or upland calculations are approximated by Arc View GIS software and are intended to provide a quantitative acreage calculation of aquatic and upland habitats associated with the OHHE project area. The northern aspect of the project area near the intake at Mountain Creek is dominated by alder shrub and alpine meadow uplands (Table 2). This area has characteristic abrupt steep sloping, AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 7 <=20%, hillsides. Well drained upland habitats with genetic A and B horizons >20" and with slopes <= 20% represent a majority of the project area included in mapping blocks 5-9 (Figures 2-6). In most cases when a wetland was encountered in mapping blocks 5-9, the transition from the upland sloping hillside to wetland habitat was abrupt. Most wetlands were found in bench depressions along the hillsides. Although these wetlands were found in depressions, the hydrologic driver is thought to be discharge from the surrounding hillsides and they were classified as Slope wetlands. Most wetlands were classified as PEM2 with the exception of two PSS2 (Table 3). The wetlands associated with mapping blocks 5-9 had FCI scores in the Moderate to High range with High being the most prevalent (Table 4). A unique hydrologic variable associated with the sloping hillside in the project area was the occurrence of several small first order streams systems. In some cases deep ravines were encountered during our investigation with running water but did not indicate wetland habitat. Mapping blocks 3 and 4 (Figure 7 and 8) represent the Swimming Pond and Tailrace sections of the project. The transition zone from upland hillside to the area around the Swimming Pond was abrupt but did not produce adequate hydrologic characteristics to support wetland classification (Table 2). Wetlands that were found in mapping block 3 and 4 were typically depressional and lacustrine fringe wetlands (Table 3). The majority of the depressional wetlands were classified PSS1 and scored Moderate to High FCI scores (Table 5). The remaining mapping blocks 1 and 2 (Figure 9 and 10) were virtually devoid of wetland habitats (Table 2). Wetlands that were identified were classified as PSS1 and PEM2 (Table 3) and scored Moderate to High FCI scores (Table 5). These wetlands were on the top of the ridgeline, small in overall size, and were typically Depressional. Mapping calculations show that 54.43 acres or 72% of the project area is classified and mapped as upland habitat. Areas classified as wetland totaled 10.42 acres or 13.72% of the project area (Table 1). AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 8 Table 1: Wetland Mapping Summary Mapping Unit Code Description Upland u Upland areas that do not meet the USACOE Criteria for Wetland Upland_lO u 10 Predominately uplands but may contain as much as 10 percent wetland inclusions in small pockets (<!/lOth acre). Typically found where ephemeral stream occur or where small depressions hold water. Upland_25 u 25 Predominately uplands but may contain as much as 25 percent wetland inclusions in small pockets (<1/lOth acre). Typically found where ephemeral stream occur or where small depressions hold water. Wetlands w Jurisdictional wetlands which show no indication of having Upland inclusions. Open Water ow Ponds, Lakes or Streams in the Project Area Total Percent of Acres Total 54.43 71.69% 5.91 7.78% 0.89 1.17% 10.42 13.72% 4.27 5.62% 75.92 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 9 Conclusion Analysis of the mapping calculations shows the OHHE project area has a low relative frequency of wetland habitats. The wetlands are typically 0.1-1.0 acre with the exception of a few that are slightly greater than 1.0 acres. It cannot be determined at this time if any of the wetlands are isolated. It is thought that due to the presence of small seeps, for most Depressional wetlands there is a groundwater nexus between adjacent wetlands creating a mosaic wetland complex. For Slope wetlands the nexus between surrounding wetlands is thought to be ground and surface water connections. Slope, Depressional, and Lacustrine Fringe wetlands scored consistently high (FCI >= 0.67) FCI scores for modification of groundwater, modification of water quality, abundance and diversity of vegetation and abundance and diversity of fauna. All wetlands examined for functional capacity in the project area scored High to Moderate FCI scores in all eight models making them a robust contributor to the overall pristine landscape. AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page 110 Table 2: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Upland Data Points Data Point Lat/Long E levation(ft) Wetland Status OHHE001 N57 14.468 W153 19.53 546ft u OHHE002 N57 14.480 W153 19.31 514ft u OHHE003 N57 14.771 W153 20.68 857ft u OHHE005 N57 14.730 W153 20.63 852ft u OHHE007 N57 14.682 W153 20.28 869ft u OHHE009 N57 14.630 W153 20.02 818ft u OHHE015 N57 14.417 W153 19.23 516ft u OHHE016 N57 14.360 W153 19.13 526ft u OHHE026 N57 14.056 W153 18.53 146ft u OHHE027 N57 14.025 W153 18.45 78ft u OHHE028 N57 13.997 W153 18.54 204ft u OHHE033 N57 13.936 W153 18.03 97ft u OHHE035 N57 13.922 W153 17.83 168ft u OHHE038 N57 13.795 W153 17.92 205ft u OHHE043 N57 13.596 W153 17.91 182ft u OHHE048 N57 14.079 W153 18.41 99ft u OHHE049 N57 14.071 W153 18.36 93ft u OHHE050 N57 14.080 W153 18.27 91 ft u OHHE051 N57 14.027 W153 18.16 104ft u OHHEREPUPO 10 N57 1.611 W153 19.857 809ft u OHHEREPUP013 N57 14.470 W153 19.63 563ft u OHHEREPUP014 N57 14.487 W153 19.59 574ft u OHHEREPUPO 17 N57 14.338 W153 19.02 531 ft u OHHEREPUP019 N57 14.229 W153 19.00 462ft u OHHEREPUP020 N57 14.201 W153 19.00 440ft u OHHEREPUP023 N57 14.141 W153 18.86 352ft u OHHEREPUP024 N57 14.091 W153 18.76 302ft u OHHEREPUP025 N57 14.055 W153 18.45 86ft u OHHEREPUP029 N57 14.007 W153 18.57 205ft u OHHEREPUP034 N57 13.933 W153 17.93 153 ft u Cowardin Class u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page Ill Table 2: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Upland Data Points (Continued) Data Point Lat/Long E levation(ft) Wetland Status OHHEREPUP037 N57 13.876 W153 17.883 194ft u OHHEREPUP040 N57 13.707 W153 17.920 181 ft u OHHEREPUP042 N57 13.653 W153 17.934 175ft u OHHEREPUP044 N57 13.542 W153 17.871 168ft u OHHEREPUP045 N57 13.467 W153 17.841 175ft u OHHEREPUP046 N57 13.414 W153 17.745 166ft u OHHEREPUP047 N57 13.392 W153 17.681 152ft u OHHEREPUP052 N57 13.976 W153 18.118 101 ft u OHHEREPUP057 N57 13.839 W153 18.216 65ft u OHHEREPUP060 N57 13.736 W153 18.260 60ft u OHHEREPUP061 N57 13.846 W153 18.312 65ft u OHHETR053 N57 13.974 W153 18.318 79ft u OHHETR054 N57 14.001 W153 18.320 78ft u OHHETR055 N57 14.016 W153 18.364 80ft u Cowardin Class u u u u u u u u u u u u u u AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page 112 Table 3: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Wetland Data Points Wetland Cowardin Data Point Lat/Long E levation(ft) Status Class OHHE004 N57 14.748 837ft w PEM2 W153 20.6 OHHE006 N57 14.734 875ft w PEM2 W153 20.4 OHHE008 N57 14.623 838ft w PEM2 W153 20.1 OHHE011 N57 14.560 683ft w PEM2 W153 19.8 OHHE012 N57 14.467 553ft w PSS1 W153 19.6 OHHE018 N57 14.266 468ft w PEM2 W153 19.0 OHHE021 N57 14.154 386ft w PSSl Wl53 18.9 >HHE030 N57 13.977 73ft w PSS1 W153 18.0 OHHE031 N57 13.978 90ft w PSSl W153 18.0 OHHE032 N57 13.955 86ft w PSS1 W153 18.0 OHHE036 N57 13.854 199ft w PSS1 Wl53 17.8 OHHE039 N57 13.736 175ft w PSS1 W153 17.9 OHHE058 N57 13.822 61 ft w PSS1 W153 18.1 OHHEEX056 N57 13.902 59ft w PEM2 W153 18.2 OHHEREPWT02 N57 14.175 395ft w PEM2 2 W153 18.9 OHHEREPWT04 N57 13.706 177ft w PSSl 1 W153 17.9 OHHEREPWT05 N57 13.757 57ft w PEM2 n W153 18.2 Vierek Veg Class HGM FCI Comments IIIA(3)j Slope 0.76 =High IIIA(3)j Slope 0.71 =High IIIA(3)j Slope 0.72 =High IIIA(3)j Slope 0.62= Moderate IIC(2)d Slope 0.68 =High IIIA(2)b Slope 0.62= Moderate IID(2)c Slope 0.69 =High IIC(2)f Slope NA Outside Project Area IIC(2)i Depressional 0.67 =High Outside Project Area IIC(2)i Slope 0.60= Moderate IIC(2)d Depressional 0.66= Moderate IIC(2)i Depressional 0.65 = Moderate IIC(2)i Depressional 0.69 =High IIIA(3)j Lacustrine 0.68 =High IIIA(3)j Slope NA Rep Point no F(x) Assessment IIC2i Depressional NA Rep Point no F(x) Assessment IIIA(3)j Depressional NA Rep Point no F(x) Assessment AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page 113 Table 4: 0 ld Harbor Hydroelectric Slope Summary Functional Assessment Scores SUMMAR Y Plot 4 FC I Modification of Groundwater Discharge 1.00 FCI Modification of Groundwater Recharge XXX FC/ Storm & Flood wa ter Storage 0.52 FCI Modification of Stream Flo w 0.6 7 FCI Modification of Water Quality 0.80 FCI Export of Detritus 0.67 F C I Contribution to Abundance & Diversity of Veg 0.87 FCI Contribution to Abundance & Diversity of Wetland Fauna 0.79 Total of FCI 's 5.31 Number of FCI 's 7.00 Overall FCI Score 0.76 FCI of .67 -1.0 = High , FC I of 0 .34-0.66 = Moderate , FC I of 0.0 -0 .33 = Low Table 5: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Depressional and Lacustrine Fringe Summary Functional Assessment Scores ~ SUMMAR Y Plot FCI Modification of Ground wa ter Discharge FCI Modification of Ground wa ter Rechar.qe FCI Storm & Floodwater Storage FCI Modification of Stream Flo w F C I Modification of Water Quality F C I Export of Detritus FCI Contribution to Abundance & Diversity of Veg FCI Contribution to Abundance & Diversity of Wetland Fauna Total of FCI 's Number of FCI 's Overall FCI Score FC I of .67 -1.0 =High , FC I of 0 .34-0.66 =Moderate , FC I of 0.0-0.33 = Low 6 0.73 XXX 0.43 0.67 0.80 0.67 0.87 0.79 4.95 7.00 0.71 31 1.00 0.00 0.78 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.47 0.69 5.38 8.00 0.67 8 II 12 18 21 32 0.73 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.62 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.73 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.80 0.80 0.8 7 0.87 1.00 0.60 0.87 0.87 0.79 0.76 0.76 0.73 0.76 0.70 5.0 5 4.3 5 4.75 4.32 4.84 4.23 7.0 0 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.72 0.62 0.68 0.62 0.69 0.60 36 39 58 56 LF 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.78 0.52 0.44 0.67 0.50 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.22 0.72 0.72 0.61 0.75 0.72 0.72 0.83 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.81 0.7 5 0.78 0.72 5.30 5.17 5.49 4.76 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 0.66 0.65 0.69 0.68 AVEC's Old Ha ____ Hydroelectric Project FERC Proj e ct P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page 114 Proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric 20 10 Solstice Wetlands Fig u re 2 Legend 2010 Solstice F' d Points WetPolys 2010 Solstice WeUands ON. Ope water U· Upl ands U_10 • Upla s wit 10% 0 U_25 • Uplands wit 25% w. s SACI_Study_Bo IIIY_Y1 AVEC's Old Ha ~ ~-· Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page 115 ·n•uuc~,.••u Old Harbor Hyd roelectric 2010 Solstice Wetlands Figu re 3 Legend 2010 Solstice Field Points WetPolys 2010 Solstice Wetlands ON· Open v. ter U-Upla s U_10 • Upla s willl10% ands 0 U_25 • Uplar>as . 25% !lands W-!lands SACI_Study _Bo!Rlary_ v1 AVEC's Old Ha Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page 116 Proposed O ld Harbor Hydroelectric 2010 Solstice Wetlands Figure 4 Legend tl ands tlands AVEC's Old Ha. ~~· Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 17 Proposed O ld Harbor Hyd roelectric 2010 Solstice Wetlands Figure 5 Legend 2010 Solstice Feld POints WetPolys 2010 Solstice Wetlands ON· Ope lef U -U al>ds U 10 • U a s " 10% a s D u:2s-Upla s wi 25% lla s W -lla s SACI_Study _Bound ary_v1 AVEC's Old Ha 1 Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page 1 18 Proposed Old Harbor Hyd roelectric 2010 Sols tice Wetlands Figure 6 Legend C 2010 Solstice Field Poi s WetPolys 2010 Solstic.e Wetlands ON· Ope er U-U ands U_1 0 • Uplands wit 10% lA !lands D u_2s . Uplands wit 25% tllll'ds W -s SACI_Study_Boundary_v1 AVEC's Old Ha1 uu• Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 19 Proposed O ld Harbor Hydroelectric 2010 Solstice Wetlands Fig u re 7 Legend 2010 Solstice F ld Pomts WetPotys 2010 Solstice WeUands s SACI _Study _Boundary_ v 1 AVEC's Old Ha Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 20 posed Old Harbor Hydroelectric 2010 Solstice Wetlands Figure 8 Legend c 2010 Solstice Fie ld Poims WetPolys 2010 Solstice Wetlands ON·Ope ter U·Upla s U_10 • Upla s · 10% tlar<!s 0 U_25 • Uplands with 25% W tla s W· !lands SAC I_Study _Bo und ary_ v1 AVEC's Old Haroor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 21 posed Old Harbor Hydroelectric 2010 Solstice Wetlands Figure 9 Legend s SACI_Siudy _Boundary_v1 "" !lands tlands AVEC's Old Ha, uv1 Hydroel e ctric Project FERC Proj e ct P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 22 d O ld Harbor Hydroelectric 20 10 Solstice Wetlands Figure 10 Legend d Pomts 10% and$ 25% and s ary_v1 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 23 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. I 979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pub. FWS/OBS-79/3 I, Washington D.C. Huiten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press. Stanford California. Magee, Dennis and G.G. Hollands. 1998. A Rapid Procedure for Assessing Wetland Functional Capacity. Normandeau Associates. Bedford, NH. Schoeneberg, P.J., Wysocki, D.A., Benham, E.C., and Broderson, W.O., 2002. Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils Version 2.0. Natural Resource Conservation Service, national Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. Reed, Jr., Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bioi. Rep. 88 (24). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Washington D.C. u.s. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0). Washington D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared by the USFWS Region 7. 4 ,' ' ' ( AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 24 Appendix A Functional Assessment Matrices AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 25 Appendix A : Old Ha rb or Hydroelect r ic Slope Funct ional Assessment Scores Mo dif ic ation of Ground Water Di sc harge 4 Indicators of Disfunction Lnlet/Outlet Class (perennial inle t/no outlet) Nested Piezometer Data (recharge condition) Relationsh ip to Regional Piezometric Surface (wet land above) Direct Indicators of Function Presence of Springs & Seeps (present) 15 .00 Nested Piezometer Data (discharge condition) X Re lationship to Regional Piezometric Surface (wetland below) X In let/Out let Class (no inlet/perennia l o ut let) X Primary Variables Microre lief of Wet land Surface 0 .00 Inlet/Outlet Class 0.00 pH 0 .00 Surficia l Geo logic Deposit Under Wetland 0 .00 Wet land Water Regime 0.00 Soil Type 0.00 To tal Score 15 .00 FCI To tal Score 15 .00 FCI Modifica tion of Groundwa ter Discha rge 1.00 Is the Wet land fl uctuating betw een recharge & discharge? If so, reduce the sco re by one half. FC I of .67-1.0 =High , FC I of0.34-0 .66 =Moderate, FC I of0 .0 -0 .33 =Low 6 0.00 X X X 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 11 .00 15 .00 0.73 8 II 12 18 21 32 0.00 0.00 15 .00 15 .00 15 .00 0.00 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 2.00 2 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 11.00 11 .00 15.00 15.0 0 15.00 7.00 15 .00 15.00 15 .00 15.00 15.00 15 .00 0.73 0.73 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 0.47 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectri c Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functiona l Assessment Report Page J 26 Appendix A: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Slope Functional Assessment Scores (Continued) Storm and Flood-Water Storage Plot 4 Direct Indicators of Function Inl et/Outlet Class (No outlet) 0.00 Primary Variables Inlet/Outlet Class 1.00 De gree of Outlet Restriction 0.00 Basin Topographic Gradient 3.00 Wetland Water Regime 1.00 Surface Water Level Fluctuation of the Wetland 0.00 Ratio of Wetland Area to Watershed Area 1.00 Microrelief of Wetland S urface 1.00 Freq ue ncy of Overbank Floodin g 0 .00 Vegetation Den sity /Dom ina nce 3.00 Dea d Woody Material 1.00 Total Score 11 .00 FCI Total Score 21 .00 FCI Storm & Flood wa ter Storage 0.52 FC I of .67-1.0 =Hi gh, FCI of0.34-0 .66 =Mod erate, FCI of 0.0-0.33 = Low Modification of Stream Flo w Plot 4 Indicators of Disfunction Inl et/O utl et C la ss (no outlet) 0.00 Primary Variables Stonn & Floodwater Score 2 .00 Groundwater Discharge Score 3 .00 Total Score 6.00 FCI Total Score 9.00 0.67 FCI of .67-1 .0 =Hi gh, FCI of0 .34-0.66 =Moderate, FCl of 0.0-0.33 = Low 6 8 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3 .00 1.00 1.00 9.00 11 .00 21.00 21 .00 0.43 0.52 6 8 0.00 0.00 2.00 2 .00 3.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 9.00 9.00 0.67 0.67 II 12 18 2 1 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3 .00 3 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 3.00 3 .00 3.00 3 .00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 .00 11.00 11.00 11.00 13 .00 14 .00 21.00 21 .00 21 .00 21 .00 21 .00 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.62 0.67 II 12 18 2 1 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2 .00 3 .00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3 .00 2.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 27 Appendix A: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Slope Functional Assessment Scores (Continued) Modification of Water Quality Plot 4 Direct Indicators of Function Evidence of Sedimentation X Primary Variables Wetland Land Use 3 .00 Degree of Outlet Restriction 0.00 Inlet/Outlet Type 1.00 Dominant Wetland Type 2.00 Cover Distribution 3.00 Soil Type 3.00 Total Score 12 .00 FCI Total Score 15 .00 FCI Modification of Water Quality 0.80 FCI of .67-1.0 = Hi g h , FCI of 0.34-0.66 = Moderate , FCI of 0.0-0.33 = Low Export of Detritus Plot 4 Indi cators of Disfuncti on Inlet/Outlet C la ss (No outlet) Primary Variables Wetland Land Use 2.00 Degree of Outlet Restriction 0.00 Inlet/Outlet Class 3.00 Wetland Water Regime 1.00 Vegetation Density/Dominance 3.00 Soil Type 1.00 Total Score 10.00 FCI Total Score 15.00 FCI Export of Detritus 0.67 FCI of .67-1.0 =High , FCI of0.34-0.66 =Moderate, FCI of 0.0-0.33 = Low 6 X 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 15.00 0.80 6 2.00 0 .00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 10 .00 15.00 0.67 8 II 12 18 21 32 X X X X X X 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3 .00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 12 .0 0 12.00 12.00 12.00 12 .00 11 .00 15.00 15 .00 15.00 15 .00 15.00 15 .00 0.80 0 .80 0.80 0.80 0 .80 0.73 8 II 12 18 2 1 32 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 10 .00 10.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 12 .00 15.00 15 .00 15.00 15 .00 15 .00 15 .00 0.67 0 .67 0.67 0.67 0.80 0.80 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional As sessme nt Report Page I 28 Appendix A: 0 ld Harbor Hydroelectric Slope Functional Assessment Scores (Continued) Contribution to Abundance & Diversity of Ve_qetation Plot Indicators of Disfunction No Vegetation Primary Variables Plant Species Divers ity Vegetation Den sity/Dominance Wetland Juxta po s ition Total Score FCI Total Score F C I Contribution to Abundance & Diversity of Veg FCJ of .67-1.0 =High, FCI of 0.34-0.66 =Moderate, FCJ of 0.0-0.33 = Low Contribution to Abundance & Diversity of Wetland Fauna Plot Primary Variables Watershed Land Use Wetland Land Use Wetland Water Regi me Microre li ef of Wetland Surface Number of Wetland Types Re lative Proporti ons Vegetation Inters pers ion Number of Layers a nd Percent Cover Perce nt Cover Inter sp e rsion of Vegetation Cover & Open Water Size Wetland Juxtapos iti on Total Score FCI Total Score FCI Contribution to Abundance & Di versity of Wetland Fauna FCI of .67-1.0 = High , FCI of 0.34-0.66 =Moderate , FCI of 0.0-0.33 = Low 4 6 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 13 .00 13 .00 15 .00 15 .00 0.87 0.87 4 6 3.00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0 .00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 26.00 26 .00 33.00 33 .00 0.7 9 0.79 8 II 12 18 21 32 3 .00 3.00 5 .00 1.00 3.00 3 .00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.0 0 5.00 5.00 5 .00 5.00 5.00 3.00 5 .00 5.00 13 .00 13 .00 15 .00 9.00 13.00 13.00 15 .00 15.00 15 .00 15 .00 15 .00 15.00 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.60 0.87 0.87 8 II 12 18 2 1 32 3.00 3.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3 .00 3.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 26 .00 25.00 25.00 24 .00 25 .00 23.00 33 .00 33.00 33.00 33 .00 33 .00 33.00 0.79 0.76 0.76 0.73 0.76 0.70 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 W etland Deli n eation a n d Functional Assessment Report Page I 29 Append ix A: Old Harbo r Hydroelectric Depress i on al and Lacustrine Fr inge Funct ional Assessment Scores Modif icati on of Ground Wat er Di scharge Plo t Indicators of Disfunction In let/O ut let C lass (perennia l inlet/no outlet) Nested Piezometer Data (recharge conditio n) Re latio ns h ip to Regiona l Piezometric S urface (wetland above) Direct Indicators of Function Presence of Springs & Seeps (present) Nested Piezometer Data (discharge condition) Relationship to Reg ional Piezometric Surface (wet land below) Inlet/O ut let C lass (no in let/perennial o ut let) Prim ary Variables Microrel ief of Wet la nd Surface Inlet/Outlet C lass pH Surficial Geologic Deposit Under Wet land Wetland Water Regime Soil Type Total Score FCI Total Sc ore FCI Modific ation of Groundwa ter Disc ha rge Is the Wetland fluctuating between recharge & discharge? If so, reduce the score by one half. FCL of .67-1.0 =High, FCI of0 .3 4-0.66 =Moderate, FCl ofO.O - 0 .33 =Low 56 31 36 39 58 LF 18 .00 18 .00 18.00 2 .00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 18 .00 18 .00 18.00 8.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 AV EC's Old Harb or Hy d roelect ric Project FERC Pro ject P-1 3 727 Wetla nd Delin eation a n d Functio n a l Assess m en t Rep ort Page I 3 0 Appendix A: 0 ld Harbor Hydroelectr ic Depressional and Lacustrine Fringe Functional Assessment Scores (Cont i nued ) Modif icat ion of Gr ound Wate r Recharge Plot Indicators of Disfunction Inl et/Outl et C lass (no inl et/pe r o ut let; in te r inl et/pe renni a l o ut let) Nested Pi ezo meter Data (di sc ha rge condi t io n) Re lati o ns hi p to Regiona l Pi ezometri c S urface (wetl a n d a bove) Prese nce of See ps a nd S pr ings (prese nt) Direct Indicators of Function Inl et/Outl et C lass (pe re nn ia l inl et/no o utl et) Nested Pi ezo mete r Data (rec harge co ndi t io n) Re lation s hip to Reg io na l Pi ezometri c S ur face (wetl and be lo w) Primary Variables M ic ro re li ef of Wetla nd S ur face Inl et/Outl et C lass pH S urficia l Geo logic Depos it Un d er We tl a nd S urface Wa te r Leve l Flu ctuat io n ofthe Wetl a nd W etl and W ater R egim e So il Ty pe Total Score FCI Total Sco re FCI Storm & Flood water Storage FC I of .67 -1.0 =Hi g h , FC I of 0 .3 4-0 .66 =Mod e ra te, FC I of 0 .0-0 .3 3 = Low 31 36 39 58 56 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.0 0 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 14.00 21.00 21 .00 21 .00 21 .00 18 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.78 AVEC's Old Harb o r Hy droele ctric Project FERC Proj e ct P-1372 7 Wetl a nd Delin eation a nd Functiona l Assess ment Repo rt P age I 31 Appendix A: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Depressional and Lacustrine Fringe Functional Assessment Scores (Continued) Storm and Flood -Wate r Storage Plot Direct Indicators of Function Inle t/Outlet Class (No outlet) Primary Variables Inlet/Outlet Class Degree of Outlet Restri ction Basin Topographic Gradient Wetland Water Regime Surface Water Level Fluctuation of the Wetland Ratio of Wetland Area to Watershed Area Micro r elief of Wetland Surface Frequency of Overbank Flooding Vegetati on Density/Dom inance De ad Woody Material Total Score FCI Tot al Score FCI Storm & Flood wa te r Sto ra ge FCI of .61-1 .0 =High, FCI of0.34-0.66 =Moderate, FCI of 0.0-0.33 =Low Modification of Strea m Flo w Plot Indic ators of Disfunction Inle t/Outlet Class (no outlet) Prim ary Variables Storm & Floodwater Score Groundwater Discharge Score Total Score FCI Total Score FCI Modification of Stream Flow FCI of .61-1.0 =High, FCI of 0.34 -0.66 =Moderate, FCI of 0.0-0.33 = Lo w 31 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 2 1.00 27 00 0.78 3 1 3.00 3.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 36 39 58 56 L F 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 14.00 12.00 18.00 15.00 27 00 27 00 21 00 30.00 0.52 0.44 0.67 0.50 36 39 58 56 LF 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 2.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.22 AVEC's Old Harb or Hy droelectric Project FERC Pro jec t P-1 3 727 W etland De lin eat io n a nd Fun cti o n a l Assessmen t Report Page / 32 Appendix A: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Depressional and Lacustrine Fringe Functional Assessment Scores (Continued) Mod if i cation of Wate r Qua lity Plot Direct Indicators of Function Evid e n ce of Sedime ntatio n Primary Variables Wetland Lan d Use D egree of O ut let Restr iction In let/O ut let Type Dom in a nt Wetla nd Type Cover D istr ib ution So il Type Total Score FCI Total Score FCI Sto rm & Flood wa ter Stora ge FCI of .67-1.0 =High , FCI of0.34-0.66 =Moderate , FCI of 0 .0 -0.33 = Low Export of Det ri tus Plot Indicators of Disfunction Inl et/Outl et C lass (No o ut let) Primary Variables Wetlan d Land Use D egree of O ut let Restriction Inl et/Ou t let C lass Wetla nd Water Regim e Vegetat io n De ns it y/D o min ance Soi l Type Total Score FCI Total Score F C I Export of Detritus FCI of .67-1.0 =High , FCI of0.34-0.66 =Moderate , FCI of 0.0-0.33 = Low 31 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.0 0 13 .00 18 .00 0.7 2 31 2 .00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3 .00 3.00 13 .00 18 .00 0.72 36 39 58 56 LF 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2 .00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2 .00 1.00 13 .00 13 .00 11 .00 9.00 18.00 18 .00 18.00 12 .00 0.7 2 0.72 0 .61 0.75 36 39 58 56 L F 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3 .00 3.00 0.00 3.00 3 .00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3 .00 13 .00 13.00 15 .00 11.00 18 .00 18.00 18.00 12 .00 0.72 0.72 0 .83 0.92 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FER C Project P-13727 W etland De lineation and Fu n ctional Assessment Report Page I 33 Appendix A: Old Harbo r Hyd roelect ri c Depressional and Lacustr i ne Fri nge Func ti ona l Assessment Sco r es (Continued ) Con tribution to Abundance & Diversity of Vege tation Plot Indicators of Disfunction No Vegetation Primary Variables Plant Species Diversity Vegetation Density/Dominance Wetland Juxtaposition Total Sc ore FC/ Total Score FCI Co ntribu tion to Abu nda nce & Diversity of Ve.o FCI of .67-1.0 =High, FCI of0.34-0.66 =Moderate, FCI of 0.0-0.33 = Low Contrib ution to Abundance & Diversi ty of Wetland Fauna Plot Primary Variables Watershed Land Use Wetland Land Use Wet land Water Regime Microre liefofWetland Surface Number of Wetland Types Re lative Proportions Vegetation Interspersion Number of Layers and Percent Cover Percent Cover lnterspers ion of Vegetation Cover & Open Water Size Wetland Juxtaposition Total Sco re FCI Total Sco re FCI Con tribution to Ab un danc e & Diversityof We tland Fauna FCI of .67 -1.0 =H igh , FCI of0.34-0.66 =Moderate , FCI of 0.0-0.33 = Low 31 36 39 58 56 LF 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 5 .00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 5 .00 5 .00 5 .00 5.00 7.00 13.0 0 13.00 13 .00 13.00 15.00 15 .00 15 .00 15 .00 15.00 0.47 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 31 36 39 58 56 LF 3.00 3 .00 3 .00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2 .00 2 .00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 .00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2 .00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 25.00 29.00 27.00 28.00 26.0 0 36.0 0 36 .00 36.00 36 .00 36.00 0.69 0.81 0.75 0.78 0.72 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 34 Appendix B OHHE Plant Species List AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 35 · Appendix B: OHHE Plant Species List Species Code Common Achillea millifolium ACMI Yarrow Aconitum Delphinifolium ACDE Monkshood Alnus viridis crispa ALVIC Sticky alder Andromeda polifolia ANPO Bog rosemary Angelica Iucida ANLU Angelica Aster subspicatus ASSU Douglas Aster Athyrium filix-femina ATFI Lady fern Betula nana!glandulosa BENA Dwaf/bog birch Betula papyrifera BEPA Paper birch Calamagrostis canadensis CACAI Blue joint grass Campanule rotundifolia CARO Scotch Bellflower Cares spp. C.spp Carex aquatilis CAAQ Aquatic sedge Carex canescens CACA2 Hoary Sedge Carex loliacea CALO Carex lyngbyei CALY Carex magellanica CAMA Carex microchaeta CAMI Carex saxatilis CASA Comus canadensis COCA Dog wood/bunchberry Comus suecica cosu Bog Bunchberry Echinopanax horridum ECHO Devil's club Empetrum nigrum EMNI Crowberry Epilobium angusifolium EPAN Fire weed Epilobium hornemannii EPHOB/EPHOH Marsh willow herb Equisetum arvense EQAR Field horsetail Equisetum fluvitile EQFL Bog horsetail Eriophorum angustifolium ERAN Eriophorum vaginatum ERVA Gentiana glauca GEGL Geranium erianthum GEER Common geranium Gymnocarpium dryopteris GYDR Oak fern Hedysarum alpinum HEAL Heracleum Janatum HELA Cow Parsnip Iris setosa IRSE Iris Ledum decumbens LEPAD Dense leaf labrador tea Pleurozium schreberi PLSC Feather moss Poa palustris POP AI Fowl Bluegrass Polemonian pulcherrimum POPU Jacob's Ladder Populus balsamifera POBA Balsom popular/cottonwood Potentila palustris POPA2 Marsh Cinquefoil Potentilla fruticosa POFR Shurubby cinquefoil Rubus chamaemorus RUCH Cloud berry Indicator Status FACU FAC FAC OBL FAC FACW FAC FAC FACU FAC FAC OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL/NWI FACU/NWI FACW/NWI FACU NI FACU FAC FACU FACW FACU OBL OBL/NWI OBL/NWI NI NI FACU NI FACU FAC FACW NI FACW NI FACU OBL FACW FACW AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 36 Appendix B: OHHE Plant Species List (Continued) S_Q_ecies Code Common Indicator Status Rubus spectabilis RUSP Salmon Berry FAC Salix alaxensis SAAL Alaska Willow FAC Salix spp. S.spp Sambucus racemosa SARA Elderberry FACU Sanguisorba stipulata SAST Sitka Burnet FAC Sencio congestus SECO Marsh Ragwort NI Solidago lepida SOLE Golden Rod FACU Sorbus sitchensis SOSI Sitka Mountain Ash NI Sparganium angustifolium SPAN Narrow Leaved Bur Reed NI Spirea beauverdiana SPBE Alaska spirea FAC Streptopus amplexifolius STAM Watermelon berry FAC Vaccinium oxycoccos VAOX Small Bog Cranberry NI Vaccinium uliginosum VAUL Common blueberry FAC Vaccinium vitis-idea VAVI Low bush cranberry FAC Veratum viride VEVI False Hellebore FACU Vibemum edule VIED Highbush cranberry FACU Viola spp. VIOLA Violet NI 6 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 37 Appendix C OHHE Polygon Mapping Codes AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 38 Appendix C: OHHE Polygon Codes Vierek Wetland Coward in Veg Tile Polygon Status Class Class HGM FCI 9 1 u u 9 2 ow ow NA NA 9 3 u u 9 4 u 10 U/PEM2 IIIA(3)j Depressional 9 5 u u 9 6 w PEM2 IIIA(3)j Slope 0.76 =High 9 7 u u 9 8 u u 9 9 u u 9 10 u u 9 11 w PEM2 IIIA(3)j Slope 0.71 =High 9 12 u u 9 13 w PEM2 IIIA(3)j Slope 0.71 =High 9 14 u u 9 15 u u 9 16 u u 9 17 u u Vierek Wetland Coward in Veg Tile Polygon Status Class Class HGM 8 I u u 8 2 w PEM2 IIIA(3)j Slope 8 3 w PEM2 IIIA(3)j Slope 8 4 u u 8 5 u u 8 6 u u 8 7 u u 8 8 u u 8 9 u u 8 10 u u 8 II u u 8 12 w PEM2 IIIA(3)j Slope 0.72 =High 8 13 u u 8 14 w PEM2 IIIA(3)j Slope 0.72 =High 8 15 u u 8 16 u u 8 17 u u 8 18 u u 8 19 w PSSI IIC(2)f Slope 0.62 =Moderate Comments STREAM CHANNEL 10% INCLUSIONS Comments AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 39 Appendix C: OHHE Polygon Codes (Continued) Vierek Wetland Coward in Veg Tile Polygon Status Class Class HGM 7 1 u u 7 2 u u 7 3 u u 7 4 u u 7 5 u u 7 6 w PSS1 IIC(2)d Slope 0.68 =High 7 7 u u 7 8 u u 7 9 u u 7 10 u u 7 11 u u 7 12 u u Vierek Wetland Coward in Veg Tile Polygon Status Class Class HGM 6 1 u u 6 2 u u 6 3 u u 6 4 u u 6 5 u u 6 6 u u 6 7 u u 0.62= 6 8 w PEM2 IIIA(2)b Slope Moderate 6 9 u u 6 10 u u 6 11 u u 6 12 u u Comments Comments AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC ProjectP-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 40 ~ppen IX o ygon A d' C OHHEP 1 o es on mue C d (C f d) Vierek Wetland Coward in Veg Tile Polygon Status Class Class HGM 5 1 u u 5 2 w PSS2/EM2 IID(2)c Slope 0.69 =High 5 3 u u 5 4 u u 5 5 u u 5 6 u u 5 7 u 10 U/PSS1 IIC(2)d Slope 5 8 u u 5 9 u u 5 10 u u 5 11 u u 5 12 u u Vierek Wetland Cowardin Veg Tile Polygon Status Class Class HGM 4 1 u u 4 2 u u 4 3 u u 4 4 u u 4 5 u u 4 6 u 25 U/PSS1 IIC(2)d Slope 4 7 u u 4 8 u u Comments 10% INCLUSIONS Comments 25% INCLUSIONS AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 41 .ppen tx o ygon A d' C OHHEP 1 C d (C o es ontmue d) Vierek Wetland Cowardin Veg Tile Polygon Status Class Class HGM 3 1 u u 3 2 u 25 U/PSSl IIC(2)d Slope 3 3 u u 3 4 w PEM2 IIIA(3)j Lacustrine 0.68 =High 3 5 w PEM2 IIIA(3)j Lacustrine 0.68 =High 3 6 u u 3 7 u u 3 8 u u 3 9 u u 3 10 w PSS1/PEM2 IIIA(3)j Depressional 0.69 =High 3 11 u u 3 12 u u 3 13 w PSS1 IIC(2)i Slope 0.60 = Moderate 3 14 u u 3 15 w PSSl IIC(2)i Slope 3 16 u u 3 17 w PSSl IIC(2)d Depressional 0.66 =Moderate 3 18 u u 3 19 w PSS1 IIC(2)i Depressional 0.65 =Moderate Open 3 20 Water ow Vierek Wetland Coward in Veg Tile Polygon Status Class Class HGM 2 1 u u 2 2 w PSSIIPEM2 IIIA(3)j Depressional 0.69 =High 2 3 w PSSI IIC(2)i Depressional 0.65 = Moderate 2 4 u u 2 5 u u 2 6 u u 2 7 u u 2 8 u u 2 9 u u Vierek Wetland Cowardin Veg Tile Polygon Status Class Class HGM 1 1 u u 1 2 u u 1 3 u u 1 4 u u Comments 25% INCLUSIONS Comments Comments Out ofNew Project Area AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 42 AppendixD OHHE Photo Log Appendix D OHHE Wetland Photo Log Wetland Delineation Report Appendix D. Photo Log Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Prepared for: Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. 2607 Fairbanks Street, Suite B Anchorage, AK 99503 and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 With funding from: Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant #2195431 Prepared by: Christopher L. Love, PWS June 2011 OH061_Rep_Up_236 OHOOl Soil 58 -- OHOOl_ Veg_059 OHOOl_ Veg_060 OH002 Soil 061 --OH002_ Veg_062 OH002_ Veg_063 OH003 Soil 064 -- OH003_ Veg_065 OH003_ Veg_066 OH004 Soil 067 --OH004_ Veg_068 OH004_ Veg_069 OHOOS Soil 070 -- OHOOS_ Veg_071 OHOOS_ Veg_072 OH006 Soil 073 --OH006_ Veg_074 OH006_ Veg_075 OH007 Soil 076 - - OH007 _Veg_077 OH007 _ Veg_078 OH008 Soil 079 --OH008_ Veg_080 OH008 _ Veg _081 OH009 Soil 082 -- OH009_Veg _083 OH009 _Veg _084 OH010_Rep_UP_085 OHOlO_Rep_UP _086 OHOll Soil 087 --OHOll_ Veg_088 OHOll_ Veg_089 OH012 Soil 090 -- OH012_ Veg_091 OH012_ Veg_092 0 :r: 0 f--lo ~ I ::::0 ro "'0 I c "'0 I 0 1.0 V1 0 :r: 0 f--lo ~ I ::::0 ro "'0 I c "'0 I 0 1.0 0') 0 :r: 0 f--lo w I ::::0 ro "'0 I c "'0 I 0 1.0 w 0 :r: 0 f--lo w I ::::0 ro "0 I c "'0 I 0 1.0 ~ OHOlS Soil 099 --OHOlS_ Veg_lOO OHOlS_ Veg_101 OH016 Soil 102 -- -:::t 0 ~ I t:l.O ~I ~ ~ 0 I 0 ~ 0 ~ I 0.. ::J I 0.. QJ cr:::: I ,........ ~ 0 I 0 1.1) 0 ~ I 0.. ::J I 0.. QJ cr:::: I ,........ ~ 0 I 0 0 't"""'i 't"""'i J ~I 00 't"""'i 0 I 0 0) 0 't"""'i 0 V) I I 00 't"""'i 0 I 0 N 't"""'i 't"""'i I c.. ::::> I c.. OJ c::r:: I 0) 't"""'i 0 I 0 't"""'i 't"""'i 't"""'i I tl.O OJ > I 00 't"""'i 0 I 0 OH019_Rep_Up_113 OH020_Rep_Up_114 OH020_Rep_Up_115 OH021 Soil 116 -- OH021 Soil 117 --OH021_ Veg_118 OH021_ Veg_119 OH022_Rep_Wt_120 OH022_Rep_wt_121 OH023_Rep_Up_122 OH023_Rep_Up_123 OH024_Rep_Up_124 \.0 N 'l"""'i I a. :::> I a. Q) 0::: I lJ') N 0 ::c 0 lJ') N 'l"""'i I a. :::> I a. Q) 0::: I o:;:t N 0 I 0 00 N 'l"""'i I 0 (/)I \.0 N 0 ::c 0 (""-.. N 'l"""'i I a. :::> I a. Q) 0::: I lJ') N 0 I 0 OH026_ Veg_129 OH026_ Veg _130 OH027 Soil 131 --OH027 _ Veg_132 OH027 _ Veg_133 OH028 Soil 134 -- OH028_ Veg_135 OH028_ Veg_136 OH029_Rep_Up_137 OH029_Rep_Up_138 OH030 Soil 145 OH030 Soil 146 - - -- OH030_ Veg_147 OH030_ Veg_148 OH031 Soil 149 OH031 Soil 150 ---- OH031_ Veg_151 OH031_ Veg_152 OH032 Soil 153 OH032 Soil 154 - --- OH032 _ Veg _lSS OH032 _ Veg_156 OH033 Soil 157 - - OH033_ Veg_158 OH033_ Veg_159 OH035 Soil 160 - - OH035_ Veg_161 OH035_ Veg_162 OH036 Soil 163 OH036 Soil 164 ---- OH036_ Veg_165 OH036_ Veg_166 00 1..0 '1"""'1 I a. ~ d Q) a:: I"'--I ('(') 0 I 0 0"1 1..0 '1"""'1 0 V) I 001 ('(') 0 I 0 OH038 _ Veg _171 OH039 Soil 172 -- OH039 Soil 173 --OH039_Veg_174 1..0 1"-M I 0.. :::> I 0.. Q) 0:: I 0 o:::t 0 I 0 1.{') 1"- M I b.O ~ I (j) ("(') 0 I 0 00 1"-M -+-' s I I 0.. Q) 0:: I 'l'""'i o:::t 0 I 0 1"-r--. 'l'""'i I 0.. :::> I 0.. Q) 0:: I 0 o:::t 0 I 0 OH041_Rep_ Wt_179 OH042_Rep_Up_180 OH042_Rep_Up_181 OH043 Soil 182 -- \.0 00 -M I a. :::> I a. <lJ c::r:::: I o::::t o::::t 0 I 0 L.() 00 -M I a. :::> I a. <lJ c::r:::: I o::::t o::::t 0 I 0 00 00 H I a. ::::> I a. Q) 0:: I LJ") ~ 0 :r: 0 1""-- 00 H I a. ::::> I a. Q) 0:: I LJ") o::::t 0 :r: 0 0 en H I a. ::::> I a. Q) 0:: I U) ~ 0 :r: 0 en 00 H I a. ::::> I a. Q) 0:: I U) o::::t 0 :r: 0 OH047_Rep_Up_191 OH047 _Rep_Up_192 OH048 Soil 200 --OH048_ Veg_201 OH048_ Veg_202 OH049 Soil 203 -- OH049 _ Veg_204 OH049 _ Veg_205 OHOSO Soil 206 - - OHOSO_ Veg_207 OHOSO_ Veg_208 OHOSl Soil 209 - - OHOSl_ Veg_210 OHOSl_ Veg_211 OH052_Rep_Up_212 OH052_Rep_Up_213 OH053 Soil 214 - - OH053_ Veg_215 OH053_ Veg_216 OH054 Soil 217 -- OH054_ Veg_218 OH054_ Veg_219 OHOSS Soil 220 - - OHOSS _ Veg_221 OHOSS_ Veg_222 OH056 Soil 223 - - OH056_ Veg_224 OH056_ Veg_225 OH057_Rep_Up_226 OH057 _Rep_Up_227 OH058 Soil 228 - - OH058_ Veg_229 t"""' ('() N -+-' s I I a. (1) c::r:: I (J') Ll) 0 I 0 0 ('() N I tlO ~I 00 Ll) 0 I 0 ('() ('() N I a. ::> I a. (1) c::r:: I 0 \.0 0 I 0 N ('() N -+-' s I I a. (1) c::r:: I (J') Ll) 0 I 0 Ll) ("'(') N I a. ::J I a. QJ 0::: I M \.0 0 :r: 0 o::::t ("'(') N I Q. ::::> I a. QJ 0::: I 0 \.0 0 :r: 0 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13727 Wetland Delineation and Functional Assessment Report Page I 43 Appendix E OHHE Scanned Data Sheets Appendix E OHHE Jurisdictional Wetland Data Forms I 2""6 \II GPS Lat: ('J p} 14 • Project: 0 ~ 1 f '- GPSLong: IN{(o"f,' I"/?;,\ ,1'' · tn:.- Eiev: 9/(p Site Code o0 \ Investigators C9-f:A-~ Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site ~ Vegetation Tree No Date: t(-z;!? & Watershed: 1.4-.'f""" en. "- Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 ('.lldll \.\ fP,I,... IS 9 2 .4 Ll!-11-') ~l'<t-'" 10 3 ,,~ ltr. Jl. Y.r.·t~ 5 11 4 {f(Ff-u F~. l.o 12 5 ~i'ru\'l u '?1'\l..\ .. •· c, 13 6~':lP 5 rrk lo 14 7lfS:..Lk .1-1-f-'f!l.V... lb 15 8 ~til:-.5 •Vt .C., 16 litter 1 litter 2 Soil lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: p.~ o:... ~~r""-elc. ...... """"" r~.,...h. Field JD Wet: (;\. Vf.VJ:-;; v~.,...;..,_..... v;-0\ . ..:... 5.:> 6!. ;.. ~ .. ~·b~ -:.;-l.:"'""i:') VierekVeg: ;;-~::. t:t'"f~ t.,lr:--~"'-T=<3% \'..!.\ :>f'~ ~\.o.-s ~~h..'orl~ Method 50/20 JVb Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: 1\) Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: ...V (\.) Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: y0 l Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments WaterMarks Drift lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect 1'10 ~ Direction 6 Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope {,70> 1\J Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation b'J.t,. ! Water Stained Leaves Landform 1\..{}.-''(.. Local Soils Survey Data Topography ),1<1\./ ~.,.....v_ Fac Neutral Test HGM Class II\) Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soli Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% D-t\ Oe - '-\-0 E. \0 if!-'0. 0/1-100 s-'1 A \0 ~ 7/1- '1-\'-\ p;, 1S'(I'--?1'-1 \l\..-\ ?J "B7. lO '( i'--z., I~ COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators _ __;_;1\r-J_Histosol( 16+) --+-Histic Epipedon (8-16) ---+--Sulfidic Odor ---i--Aquic Moisture Regime --+--Reducing Conditions HydrlcCOE Comments: 100 !Ol {~~ Plot Number: Do \ Field Drainage Class W \) Mottles and Other Redox Features Feature Type ·· Color Abundance Size -- 1\ ) Gleyed or low Chroma I High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand listed on local Hydric Soils list listed on National Hydric Soils Contrast Matrix coarse Texture Structure Roots Frag% f't'lf, "''V\/\ 0 h 5 M( M~(l 0 51 s~:>r--\..f {,"") 0 Sf ·17~ {{ ~:-,_, 0 <:>( sb~ ·1~1-6 Depth of Org Mat lj Depth to Permafrost._-'-';.. ... ! __ _ Major Rooting 17 _ SoiiTemp / Croyoturbatcd V\.1 Thixotropic 11\J Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric: Soils Present @ ,....· ~ .. , No1 No(SO) /Nri) Marginal Data Point with in a wetland Yes('£) Transitional Comments: y\t:.\"'11'0 C}'t.-yi\- v;q-s~v\'VI 'll?-~ foU-l\1 o• \"" 'l€l) Yes Yes I......No Marginal GPS Lat: l\J !71' 11.1 ' l "< • •t'' Project: 01 i t~,1V ~-[1 1"1> GPS long: ..v I;~ • 1'1' ,..,, D Elev: Si'-j Site Code 001.- lnvestigators V-fL ri Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site @ Vegetation Tree No Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species 1 (p'lrJ 11 r-.:!:> 9 foYr-- 2 lft.D'C. * Pv.. s 10 Cf\ef'. 3 I'.E.l':.ll-~ IV? IO 11 Rtr .. >f 4 ~I!JI s s=-w I~ 12 1{-fFf..- 51tH* \-1 f-U.. !{;, 13,M1f 6 Erlti\..J 1-! ~"" '1.1> 14j....t.J.:, 7{\~Pc'L-'rl 'i-'lA.. I) 15 .,,okdl SJ.;t H-1.. \1--{\JJ_ ID 16?\,n{' l1tter 1 Utter 2 Soli Percent of Dominant Species (OBl, FACW, FAC) Comments: Date: <t/2-3/tl> Watershed: [b< '=" c rcct- Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH \.\-'f'\-) 5 -A-c Zl5 1-1-'r U":> ).1 ~ fi) u. ~ s u vv... .5 ~ N!-.s l\. 'Y\A. ,.. .""> Uchen Moss NRCS Veg Type: Field JO Wet: \A. e/<..-..;;. ~ C.J<.t< Mr.rat~..._ Ck IJ..o -. C...-.~'"-"'-1... ro h,..d,r;..l\ '"" HSii'-:. .~~l"""'r•-""' ,o;'P"~~"""' VierekVeg: ncol3-: hC,;>fl n-' lc.~'>l.r •• ~\1 ,.._.... yo<t'. ~ ~·.:.-. ,_t..,~+.-n T=<3% ~~f.ll-;. SerGut<'-v' ~rr., .. rv._,.-. )f£l.fb !kf-..d"""' 1~ ..... ~ -:J~$T ;~s~'~:;;rr~~l:._ Method 50/20 Hydology f<>C"''-Soi<"'-.J" 'lv~ I~ At.-M:}_ ::. """""'' ~"'-...._~, J .. ~~ '1.--"' Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: N Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: I (\} Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: ) Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments WaterMarks Drift lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect JLJt.{ Direction 5 f:.. Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope Ji-'fl Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation c; 1"1_ I Water Stained leaves Landform ~.f!>-1 .... local Soils Survey Data Topography \1-'lly $!'fi'Yj Fac Neutral Test HGMCiass 1\l- 1-1: -\/3 Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % Feature Type C)-'1 A '7.7 '{ rz. 2.:Sj1-1m ~-'10 t? lo~¥-31!> COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators =+=Histosol( 16+) Histlc Epipedon (8-16) ---+-Sulfidic Odor ---+-Aquic Moisture Regime ---+-Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: 10~ f( c-\-v•t[ ~ fp! <;b 1\ /Q') '-ye{ Yes (p2 \0\b(l(V\ \IV') ~~~~ 'lrJe_,cj\" ''(~ t{y I I I Plot Number: C>\1 Hl'I OO'Z. Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Color Abundance Size Contrast Texture Structure t:;l sV~- ':>! 51?1-'~ Gleyed or Low Chroma Depth of Org Mat Coarse Roots Frag% Mf r'"' s·t. c.b vff 0 0 High Org Content Sand Depth to Permafrost {} Org Streaking Sand Major Rooting Listed on Local Hydric Soils list Soli Temp Listed on National Hydric Soils Croyoturbated Thixotropic No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland ,,, / // / Yes e. Transitional GPS lat: tv !07 14 .!.j(. ;~ GPS long: 1 '6 ""6° z.o Lj r .o Elev: Project: Site Code (X)'!? Investigators ~ \L_f-( Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site ~ Vegetation Tree No Date: l</J..lf / lo 1::.. Watershed: ~~-~""''o-w. ·r Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1,<;¥.-.IJ'"' I.C: r' l.!c 9 {J!J..Q ~ 'P rt, 2 •fr:..rr IL ~-.... 10 "S:<l.X:h ... s '\=-IS 3 ,.:;~tnu 19 'Y'-'.. ...... 11 PntlllA \.} ~\.A ~ 4 (',¢.(..('.-lJ/') !== .. >-1-12 :SEC'l'> ~ ;\i! c., 5 vo-~l~ Ill .VL 1-1-13_,·. 6 NA~, ,t, \-' 5 14 ~oPtA !-!--tv'£.. I(') 7 JI.[LP-" " 'l"'t.... \-!-15 8 A'ffi'-s ¥v... \k 16 L1tter 1 Utter 2 l1chen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBl, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: ?ft4t "' ')/;/, ~~~,..., ..... ""' "'-JllA :... r, . ..,';Cir,._ I" 1..-;-.i.,._ Field JO Wet: I.A.-\0 ~IZ.cD . j., c .. I:~,) • • VlerekVeg: -.,.v>t,.:O <.!>'-1~ ...... '2--/ y>ot'"'-= ?o)-e_..,.,~~~~~a.-1=< 3% Method 50/20 7-S~o Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: }?(_ Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Py I\) Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: \'\) Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments , \-l\) Water Marks ~--" t.-....... ~<'Lf~ rz... c...-......,_ I\) Drift Lines N Sediment Deposits 11\..brainage Patterns Aspect te-,<J Direction~ Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope L{h r O<id; ... Root Ch, ••• ;, u,,., ,. Elevation Water Stained leaves Landform ~'+"'"""" Local Soils Survey Data Topography ?':r") Fac Neutral Test HGM Class {..\ Soils Soli Survey Map Unit Name Soli Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % 0-z.. 'Di 2.-10 A 7.S if-3-/1 10-''LO ·A-/ c. v;'{~ ">II COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators IU Histosol( 16+) Hlstic Epipedon (8-16) Sulfidic Odor Aqulc Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions HydrlcCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: pic. \-v ve.~ leO Feature Type /W L1es Yes C. I? c;ovl;1... 1/e") rpro wee,+--~ Plot Number: {):)""'::; Field Drainage Class ?v.-w 0 Mottles and Other Redox Features Color Abundance Size Gleyed or Low Chroma Hlgh,Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand Listed on Local Hydric Soils list Listed on National Hydric Soils Contrast Matrix Coarse Texture Structure Roots Frag% r~ "~"' b $I Sp~ "'.f. •-'lm 10 .,, c.':) 'il sH-c~ lo ~ I'V\' J of. c~ Depth of Org Mat "Z- Depth to Permafrost_-'/~--- Major Rooting 16' SoiiTemp / · Croyoturbated /' Thixotropic No No(SO) Data Point with fn a wetland Yes No ~ mo) Marginal Marginal ~ ISl. 4 GPSLat: N 6=1-17''1'-l.l GPS Long: I~ tv 'Za ?"l ,':J Elev: ~"7-r-- Site Code oO'i, Investigators C)... ft. A· Project: 0 J+I-J £_. Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site Vegetation Tree No Date: •lj~l.f /]..1)10 Watershed: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1 f.H.~.~ s \"=-" 9 -;P4N j./-ft lVL ? 2 lil-.... e.li-.::::, ~...; /O 10ft/'ti'lA-lJ-/0 ~ 3 ~e,t;_ s ~ /o 11~frLO ),} 10 1'\\..L 4 tP.e-t. ~ t=-5 12 /1.,<) JC:,_ 5 '?!>MI !-.f-yvJ 7 13 6 c .. ru$n 1.1 .N!. tC-, 14 7 Fo.,.~ * ·.~ c; 15 8 :')iif,-t' \!.-p 16 Litter 1 litter 2 Soil lichen Moss '16 7l> 5f /i-(__ Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: 2;1'&~ ~ Sr-~-e..""'--bc._~,....rJ,~.......__ C ,.~ 1• ~ • .-.,. lolr"<-'-"' Field JD Wet: J f'E,M "L IO~,<:Q.: ~ (}~ Vierek Veg: 1/J/1·1.] .Sf/ll\J " 7>(-.r~..,r--"-.;,-.:,~¥~f.~I·"'WI. T=<3% ~ ()1>-!'IP ·.. f!~'v ""'->..)(.ii••·TC"" Method 50/20 Hydology "----"" Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water. L( 'I Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: tl.r.-'!-?4'"-' Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: D y Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Comments : l?<>c.L-<-'r-~ a'< ore.~ l~tcJ tJ WaterMarks rJ Drift lines ,.J Sediment Deposits y Drainage Patterns Aspect 140 Direction ~ Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope ? .J Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation '1:$"!, 1-AI Water Stained Leaves Landform 13 .,. ... c"'-[V Local Soils Survey Data Topography "f'~" ,J<? Fac Neutral Test HGM Class .Sj~ I Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Plot Number: ooLJ Field Drainage Class P[) Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % Feature Type Color Abundance Size Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% o-s r~r?-0 bi. Oe. COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators --f-~-Histosol( 16+) __ ..;..,..r_H•st•c Epipedon (8-16) ___ f\!;.::_Sulfidic Odor --~r/:_Aquic Moisture Regime ---A,,!-' Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: SO"~ '..0' 10lor;v. ve~) No No No No(SO) Marginal Marginal ( "-., __ _ / Depth of Org Mat .) '/+- Depth to Permafrost_...;N~;:---- Major Rooting h '' SoiiTemp / Croyoturbated / Thixotropic / Data Point with In a wetland ~No Transitional OtH\~ Plot Number: 001:. '-\ Mise Factors WL Water Regime ublic Ownership r;:rWet (Perm Flooded) Wildlife Mgnt 0 Dry {Temp Flooded/Sat) 1Sheries Mngt Surface Water Level Hist. Archological mi h(>S") Desig Protected Wl low(<S") Doc Hab for listed Sp None Reg Scarce Micro Relief of Wl Surface RecUse Area ~ronounced(>45cm) Subsistance Use Oeveloped(15-45cm) landscape Var. • Poor(<15cm) Size: None mall(<10ac) Overbank Flooding Freq ed(lO·lOO) ~Syr g(>lOOac) 2-Syr Ratio Wl toWS area 1· yr 0 fijgh(> 10%) none Q"Low(< 10%) §:Evi~:nce of Sed uvaquant soil d on Substrate Primary Veg Types None Forest/Evergreen Forest/Deciduous Scrb/Shrub deciduous S /Shrub Evergreen Emergent(Persistant Aquatic Be~ Herb w Moss Number Veg Types ven Mod Even(70·30) Highly Uneven VegDen/Dom Sparse(0-20%) low{20·40%) M (40·60%) High(60·80%) Very High(S0-100%) Veg Interspersion ~ Basin Gradient Dtow 0 fiigh(>2'Yo) Plant Spp. Diversity G3'Low(<2%) ~(0-10) Watershed land Use Outlet Restriction d(10-18) Nonpers § >50% §-:tricted h(>18) 25-50% restricted Cover Animal Food Plants Yo-25% outflow §:w Wlland Use Inlet/Outlet Class Med "gh(ag) Inlet Outlet High ed(Forestry) ~ne ~ None _ C~ Distribution ow(Open) er lntermittent~;.J.--Continous Soil Variables m Perenial Scattered Patches Water pH 1 or more Large patch o H20 Scattered Stems Hydrologic Varibles ~ow Perm lgh Perm Glacial Till cid<S.S Interspersion Cover/Open HZO rcum Neu(S.S-7.4) 2 5% cover and 25-75% open Water kaline(>7.4) Seeps or Springs 100% cover or Open Water Dead Woody Material ndant(>SO% Wlsurface) dcratc(25·50%) (0-25%) GPS Lat: 51" 1'-f l.j-;, 'tJ GPS Long: 1 t, ~ ~i) -;4 • \ Elev: \~~ Site Code ooS Project: b IH+E.. Investigators 0... j;fr ~ Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site u Vegetation Tree No Date:C(,j).t-f )?o1 v Watershed: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat Ind. Stat % Cover Ht/OBH Species Strat Ind. Stat % Cover Ht/OBH 1 141.-C.R s ~ <if(., 9 2_Aff_F. 1-1-fv.. II) 10 3~ 5 ~ ;.;lc; 11 4 VP!K. *" ~v.. ;).o· 12 5 ('J4r.\A-* ~ ,t; 13 6 11ro1 .... lt v-.K.. ; 14 7 "'>'TIt~ \Y. "-..,. 15 8 16 L1tter 1 L•tter 2 Soil Lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: l ·I:;C~r-...';:. Field JD Wet: 'A. <:i\AI"\ --~cc~t.t".:. .,., ... ~ ·Y· b VierekVeg: T=<3% Method 50/20 I" 7- Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: / Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit:~ ....; Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: / ~ SOI~ot<d ;o Upp" 12 ;"'"'" Comments WaterMarks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect ")-':>4 Direction ow Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope lr rv Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12" Elevation ~ ~) ! Water Stained Leaves Landform I.!'<~'':.(). f Local Soils Survey Data Topography ~ 1-q<'") Fac Neutral Test HGMCiass Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % O·S A 1.!3'(f!-?/1 S-1? l?t !O~v.. "?/:. 17~ 1.'1 e~ \OW ?{1-- COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators Histosol( 16+) Histlc Epipedon (8-16) Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime __ .....:.__Reducing Conditions HydricCOE '"" 1, Comments: ~\ 1":::. tf'\oi~1- Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vef!etation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: picwvet, 'JO ~il\ l\ G\\1 Tl-N · Plot Number: bO? Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Feature Type Color Abundance ___ .;..lv;;;;· _ Gleyed or low Chroma ----ll--High Org Content Sand Size ---+--Org Streaking Sand ---+'--Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ___ _,.l __ Listed on National Hydric Soils g.lA..~ Ylv~~ ~~-e~2_., Contrast Matrix Texture Coarse Structure Roots Frag% -;.\ sb\C-rof.." .. •'"'c 0 \5 .f-r? Depth of Org Mat U 0 0 Depth to Permafrost._..:/:;._ ___ _ Major Rooting 1 tj SoiiTemp ~ Croyoturbated ___- Thixotropic 9 ,·No) No (50) Data Point with In a wetland Yes~ Transitional ~ Marginal 0 Yes 0 Marginal Vel) \Je~ GPS lat: "11-It-! If~ ,V GPS Long: I ~'!I 1,-v ?'i>, I Project: 0 ~ tt t_ Elev: "'t,'iCj Site Code CJOI.< Investigators (). !!-~ Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site e No Date: ~/Z't/to Watershed: Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat Ind. Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 ~V-CH-~ \...W tC:,_ 9\1)f"l2:.. J ~w :; 2 rt-Lo !.} Qhl "3C, 10'?a r,:..-z. 1-l-n\..L /&:: 3 f'p ~fj\ I' 11\J!-/C... 11(1fiL-v 1-f. ol,t. /T) 4tCI~ s vm: .. ,(.. 12 ' 5 f'.Yrt..Pr u.. c: /I) 13 6 :::>If~,... \} ~ " 14 7 C141h~ It Obi ~ 15 8 (~IJ[ <. 1-if::. 16 -Utter 1 Litter 2 lichen Moss 5fnc... 1.; 7'.,. • Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: c.VI'4<~;;r...tV~p.~,.""'"' D.,ay·~ Field JD Wet: •.tJ l"~'"t.. Mlr<l, -.. ""'~""L-<1'? VierekVeg: lilA~~ £.M.N1-; t-'""'fc-1"""" ~·'!)''-"' T=<3% Orr t..y .. _ c. i<-!1\~byc:• Method 50/20 1 oiJ Hydology Field Observations ~" ~t~e~) Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: "'2-Z.. '' ~oil:-.l:Jnundated Depth to Saturated Soil: D '/ Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments .j:: '-'/ r--.. ?--(" f• L ~d:-<l Water Marks ~(C-1""'~.-z..l (._( ... VI Drift lines VI. Sediment Deposits Aspect ~ Direction 5 y Drainage Patterns Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 11..-'7::. t't Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation H<-f i w ... , ,,;~• "·~· Landform II<H$11c.. Local Soils Survey Data Topography ~l·f"") Fac Neutral Test HGM Class S tr'lflP ' Solis Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Horizon Ot Oe, Matrix Color and % ·-- COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators --'~-1--Hlstosol( 16+) __ T.t.;&"'--Histic Epipedon (8-16) __ .p;{lluJc...Sulfidic Odor __ ...r.I'\~J Aqulc Moisture Regime __ ..,:M::..l::.... Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Plot Number: ()0 {e Field Drainage Class r D Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Feature Type Color Abundance Size ---""1----Gicyed or Low Chroma __ ___,!.___High Org Content Sand ---+/ __ Org Streaking Sand --+--Listed on Local Hydric Soils List --+~-Listed on National Hydric Soils Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag % 0 Depth ofOrg Mat .24-1- Depth to Permafrost._.....:.;v-=,.--- Major Rooting 11\J SoiiTemp rt) Croyoturbated I Thixotropic I No No(SO) Data Point with in a wetland ~No v No No Marginal Marginal Transitional 7w-\\ wL-"\.1 / 1(\c\u~-~ l~ ~~ Do,~1 -l-~$;,..r;.7 C:!o..,~ ~/'~~ \L\ c;o,~ 'l~~ I <7 ~h'1'1v. 'fQ..~ Plot Number: i7J(o Mise Factors WL Water Regime blic Ownership ~et {Perm Flooded) Wildlife Mgnt [j ~~(Temp Flooded/Sat) Fisheries Mngt Surface Water Level Hist. Archological ~{>8") Desig Protected WL low{<8") Doc Hab for Listed Sp None Scarce Micro Relief of WL Surface :::J .Jec Use Area ~ Pronounced{>45cm) ~ Subsistance Use _JJ>~veloped{15·45cm) Landscape Var. 7r Poor(<15cm) Jze: None Small(<10ac) Overbank Flooding Freq Med(1G-100) ~>Syr g(>100ac) 2-5yr Ratio WL to WS area l?ZYr D~ High(> 10%) none one Primary Veg Types Forest/Evergreen Forest/Deciduous Scrb/Shrub deciduous S b/Shrub Evergreen Emergent(Perslstant Aquatic Bed Herb 0 Moss N mber Veg Types en od Even(70-30) ghlyUneven VegDen/Dom ~ Sparse(0-20%) Low{20-40%) Med(4G-60%) ·gh(GG-80%) ~ry High{BO·lOO%) 0 Low{< 10%) ~Jdence of Sed WL Position uvaquant soil Veg Interspersion ~ Conn. Up and Down d on Substrate Er:lr Conn.Above ed Conn. Below Basin Gradient w Other WL Near by 1:'2riiigh(>2%) Plant Spp. Diversity Isolated 0 Low(<2%) §-Ew(0-10) Watershed Land Use Outlet Restriction ed(l0-18) Nonpers 0% ~stricted gh(>18) -50% nrestricted ~er Animal Food Plants 25% o outflow 1_,;;q ~~~ WL Land Usc Inlet/Outlet Class !4 Med igh(ag) Inlet Outlet D High ed(Forestry} §None 5I-None Co.ver Distribution ow(Open) Inter lntermittent~ontinous Soli Variables Pem Perenial Scattered Patches None Water pH 1 or more Large patch Oi ~ H20 Scattered Stems Oe id<S.S merspersion Cover/Open H20 Oa rcum Neu(5.5-7.4} 25-75% cover and 25-75% open Water Min:Grav kaline(>7.4) >75% veg Min:Sand ~cps or Springs _ 25% veg Min:Silt one 100% cover or Open Water ydrologic Varibles cps Dead Woody Material ow Perm em Spring ~bundant{>50% WL surface) igh Perm t. Spring oderate(25-SO%} Glacial Till ow (0-25%) GPSLat: t:) ?-JJ( If o,"' GPS Long: t S ~ "Zo I f., -z Elev: "61. i Site Code 0::> ;:r Project: Date: <t,f2.'1 / 1 .:> Watershed: Investigators CJ.. f.f,-' ~ Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site (!Y No Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat Ind. Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1 ~£t;e.. ·~ /0 IV"!--9 t::nr\.lL s ,:.. 1..0 2fl.1\JLV. lJ I r; . ~ 10 1$L~'-' 'S?·'-~ r\11:.. 1.-b 3 ".JA-?1 Jl "? t) 1-11 c.r/1~ I \.\-P.'-'.. IC.. - 4 Vf;.VT ~ .c; t--r.... 12 (ll\d} \.\ ~ i'C,. 5 1//!.(){:_ U-/0 ?-13~~ s ~ r;- 6 :A!>!>(,... lL. .U) ~ .... ) 14 v'f?.,.L-~ t=-tn 7 I.J.<>l .... .·JJ.-. .; N'!.. 15/l l:,t. L \} 1\J~ !o 8 k-f'\1-~ /t) \=-!.A 16 Litter 1 Litter 2 Soil liChen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: lA ,}!-~"' "'lfr>'-tr ~ 'c~f~<!-L...~ VierekVeg: Gc c,l.. : r, t .... ~:"l--""'-'1 1 .... ~"-T=<3% Method 50/20 A!"\ Hydology \JJ Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: / Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: J1:" l ~~ ... , Depth to Saturated Soil: f)/ Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments Water Marks . Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect J--?o Direction I)> Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 1/ 7;> 1'-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation l[J.. tS.f I W•W St•In•d ... ~. Landform fl :'li~-:1 '-Local Soils Survey Data Topography "'~"""''/):-/ Fac Neutral Test HGMCfass Solis Soli Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % Feature Type ()-7_ {)-[, ~-II A 1 I? '(\Z. ?( 2-w ~-Z.'I B I o '(fl. "3/;, COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators N Hlstosol( 16+) . =====t= Hlstlc Epipedon (8·16) -==c Sulfidic Odor '"" Plot Number: 0 01- Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Color Abundance Size Gleyed or Low Chroma High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand Listed on local Hydric Soils Ust Contrast Matrix Coarse Texture Structure Roots Frag% :;\ '?P~ "'(."""" 0 \$ S' '-' "'-c.{: CW"\ v Depth of Org Mat ~ Depth to Permafrost. __ _,'/=----- Major Rooting II-/ . SoiiTemp· /" Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions HydricCOE I listed on National Hydric Soils ---'~,_;---Croyoturbated ./ / Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: f\C-hJ\'e.. ~ ~~ ~i\ c;;D Yes Yes 11 \'-!€ Yr~ Tb SIJ\l ve' No(SO) Marginal Marginal Thixotropic / Data Point with in a wetland Yes (3? Transltronal GPS lat: 0q' tLJ~-=1' ,"\ GPS Long: I ':I '1:, ")..I.) v<..h Elev: ((;?'6 Project: 0 [-1 ;1-~ ....... Date: <I./ 7-'i j 1o Watershed: · .• Site Code W-b Investigators cJ F-VI Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site e No Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 r.:-n~tl-1 I.J-yW 10 9~-..s ~ ;o 2 /':»,~ .f>< ~ .;;. /(.) 10Et'l~ 5 -;.. II!-, 3 fZ:tt,.UJ... s c-~ 15 11 V'lt" ... t-.<. ~ /l) 4 H-Ler.. -·, F, 12,~\Jfr \\-ObL It? 5~~ ~~ _s 13 CAt:< ll.. tJ'aL <;25 6 liNLV. !> 14 C.Jii.Stl \.}-tD 7'[!t5~ b 1Srfi-lD l.l ID s :;,:!:r c:, 16 1110 /~ Litter 1 Litter 2 Soli LIChen Moss 5Utt. <gf.. 1.> ~ Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW. FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: I.!.J "i"Sv"''z (3i!,v* o \>...;,...\.... 4.v ....._ VierekVeg: 'l\\A>"S ~.14~/t. c. ":..,.-An~ T=<3% Method 50/20 rou Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: S'' l'oo:.\o-{~ Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: '2.0'1 I•!J:-t 's Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: l>f/ y Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments .., Water Marks "' Drift Lines "' Sediment Deposits Y Drainage Patterns Aspect 1}1:> Direction 5 £_ Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 2-'7:-) o••••• Roo• "''""''' ;o """ 12' Elevation r6y../ Water Stained Leaves Landform <-:':>,"Gt-... f Local Soils Survey Data Topography ' lr-.;.·»-pl<i Fac Neutral Test HGM Class '\).,._r).n"M.~-e·J ./ J Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% D-1 Dr- rt· J'-1 De ..... COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators --1 · Histosol( 16+) __ • ..:."-,:;.··_Histic Eplpedon (8-16) =iSulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime ____ Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Plot Number: c;xYb Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Feature Type Color Abundance Size --.------..,__ ----'(}+-_Gieyed or low Chroma I High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand r-· ---- listed on Local Hydric Soils List ___ .,___listed on National Hydric Soils Contrast --- Matrix Coarse Texture Structure Roots Frag% .--.--1'\P,M"" v-k ..,4r Depth of Org Mat v Depth to Permafrost _ __;Nl"...;...;._. __ _ Major Rooting //11 SoiiTemp / Croyoturbated / _ .. Thixotropic / No No No No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland 1-t'Cs No LT7ansitional Plot Number: r::crJ Mise Factors WL Water Regime Primary Veg Types rnwet (Perm Flooded) LJ ~ry (Temp Flooded/Sat) Forest/Evergreen Fisheries Mngt Surface Water level Forest/Deciduous Hist. Archological lliigh(>S") S~rb/Shrub deciduous Desig Protected Wl Low(<S") Scrb/Shrub Evergreen Doc Hab for Listed Sp None Emergent(Persistant Nonpers Reg Scarce Micro Relief of Wl Surface Aquatic Bed ec Use Area ~ronounced(>4Scm) Herb 0 Moss Subsista_nce Use eveloped(l5·45cm) ~mberVegTypes Landscape Var. Poor(<lScm) ~ Even Size: None Mod Even(7Q-30) Small(<lOac) Overbank Flooding Freq Highly Uneven Med(1Q-100) ~5yr Veg Den/Dom Lg(>100ac) 2-Syr ~arse(0-20%) Ratio Wl to WS area vr ow(20-40%) [] _High(> 10%) none ed(4Q-60%) c;a'1 l,d High(60-80%) 0 Very High(80·100%) onn. Up and Down Sed on Substrate ~· VM~eghdlnterspersion Conn. Above onn. Below Basin Gradient ow ther Wl Near by 0 High(>2%) Plant Spp. Diversity elated [2f"Low(<2%) ~ow(0-10) Watershed land Use Outlet Restriction Med(1Q-18) § >SO% ~estricted High(>18) .... L2S-50% Unrestricted Cover Animal Food Plants A 0-25% No outflow Blow Wlland Use Inlet/Outlet Class Med High(ag) Inlet Outlet High Med(Forestry) §),None § None Cover Distribution low(Open) Inter lntermlttent[Continous Soil Variables Pern _.... Perenial Scattered Patches None Water pH 1 or more Large patch Oi ~o H20 Scattered Stems Oe cid<S.S Interspersion Cover/Open HZO Oa ircum Neu(5.5-7.4) ~/I ::ins% cover and 25-75% open Water Min:Grav Alkallne(>7.4) :7( >75% veg Min:Sand Seeps or Springs 25% veg Min:Silt ~None 100% cover or Open Water Hydrologic Varibles Seeps Dead Woody Material §'Low Perm Pern Spring § Abundant(>SO% WL surface) High Perm Int. Spring _j }llloderate(ZS-50%) Glacial Till 7. low (0·25%) Ptojoelll: CfJllllli'OMicr. lnvo-..tig:ltor. WETLAND DETER_ .... ~TION FORM D:>lo: 't /'2lf / ,l)df() Stato:--~<:,P-'":;;-;;---'-"'----- Cocm~-----------------------Do llOfmlll eir<:um!lt:lneos exl<t on Ula s.~c? ___ _ TOI\'IIS!Op, Rnngo, Se<:licn: ____________ _ Is N an atypical sltuntioll? Planl Communi~------------ Is the Qtl!ll n po!enlilll p:oblcm ama? Sampll>Prot: ___________ _ ~A!{~;::c' ,. ,,,,~~,~ ITctill~rir. ; Y) . . ' 1'27~;~,~~~-,-,~~ [:"':~J;f;~~ I~'\'~ ~~-I ,<~~;'}~~~t;;, .. MA ~":> ~ 'Co\ w. ':D ~ .s ~ tlr2.V1-t:: 1,.1.. 'F. I< :.....,-'11..-... tr ITo!al eovct:x% (20% .,..vl % 1~·, s!afu• .. I t<"bl,... r, ·' 1".-..r 14-.,_,., t; ;:::. FrL.r.fL ~t:. % cl dominanl speclcs tllal am OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC.): :7 ol L.{ : I 50% Commen!s: Hlslol Hlslic epipsdon Sulfidic odor Probnblo aquic moisluro rogimo Comments: ---Reducing c:ooditicns {!OS!) ___ HJg1l org.Jnle contenlswfaee layer ____ RC<lox cot\CQfllmtiolls (wfm 10j ___ Coru:reuons (w!ln 3". >-2mm) Dcp!h o1 sudace warcr. N · Depth to lroo water In pit: --r- Dep!h to Slltum!cd toll:-t- ___ Greyed ___ o~ strooklng ___ OI!JMic:pan ___ On hytlr!c tolls llst ETLAND DETERI.!INATl,oN . • _ • • Is this samp!o plot v.ilh!n a Wtllland? ___ ..o:f\,...) __ _ 'P'L 50i\ ~ ") "5~ VaD) ~ L\.. i \ \f~-u; Page 1 ( I ', WETLAND DETEF\ ITJONFORM Dnta: ___ ...!R.:O,,I-1 .t;~:..,~;-,11/'-'r.:.::l:>::_ ___ _ Project P: Cllcni/Owner. lmestlgator: oil Stale: ___________ _ County: ___________ _ Do nonnal Qrcumslancesi}Xist on 1ho silo? ___ _ TO'~nshlp, Rnnge,Scc1lon: ___________ _ IS II nn n:yp;c.w siltmllon? ~COmmuMY-___________ _ Is lho ruca n pctentlal problem area? Sampk>Plol: ___________ _ r,.,... ~~c ,; '>i''A~&J& ·::" · ~,;· ·,\~~·er.x.,.<=·~r ToraJCov~-~ . , Y) ·. \"Q_\'!1'-..._ -~.l. "'.f't<.<=- Mt.t:.l'!- Totlll Cover: X% {20%-Y) lOom, IS!aluS -C:::'7_ II\!-_ .~•l..lJ rJ4. c..T'I ~Y.l.-<;~ ,.,,..,. __ .,.... L'_~t'- f:'A_~I C., I?~ . 9' /Lf ;;)l"' %or clominMI species !halll!ll OBl, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC.): ol ';) ,Ji 1 ~ "'b 1~ ~mcnrs: CI(O'\ !-\ -z.;:, ID . Mllppod U1il Name: / Matches Pror.Jo? T8lt0tl0my: / Dmlnago Class: ' Depth Ho.UOO Ma:rixColor MOille~ ,. .Mollie Ab<ln<lancy;stzo, Contmst ; ' D·Z<J O; ~ listol ---A!..-Red~ cotlditlons (rest) Hislie cplpcdon I High orpanlc ccd.cnt surlnet> la)'er Sulf<foeodor --r Rcdoxconccnrrnllons (Win 101 Probable nquic moisture regime I Conctctlon:J (>\11113', >2mm) -r Comments: Dcplh ol surtnea water: __r,;:__ Depth to rreo v.-atcr in pit~ Depth ro snturntod soil:~ WETLAND DETERMINAilON _ Comments: ~rt-'b7 vrr- )'-t fiiC) ~1 ~\Jv7? H)'d<OPhYIIc VCQ!!Ullion?_\.1 __ Hydric Soil!!? \J Wc!lnod Hydrc!ogy'l_l_/_ --,- Page 1 "~ ' ~-: . . ~· ·~ "'•·-,·~~'"-' . . . ;'t:; !./· r>hl --~c:, 6 _lD ":> {:: '" 1-1-~ ,, !/) '2/\ \-!-t)bl. '" '?.D 1-!-nl. I C. r;) ~ I /01)% / , -·_ ' SOil JOX!uro j ___ Gioyod ___ Or()anic strca!Ung ___ Organic pan ___ on hydric$01l:llis1 ' ' Plot Number: C7 I I Mise Factors WL Water Regime Primary Veg Types Public Ownership p(Wet (Perm Flooded) Wildlife Mgnt D ~ry (Temp Flooded/Sat) Forest/Evergreen Fisheries Mngt Surface Water Level Forest/Deciduous Hist. Archological ~gh(>8") Scrb/Shrub deciduous Deslg Protected Wl low(<8") Scrb/Shrub Evergreen Doc Hab for Listed Sp None Emergent(Persistant Nonpers Reg Scarce Micro Relief of WL Surface Aquatic Bed Pronounced(>4Scm) Herb 0 Moss __ Subsistance Use Developed(15-4Scm) Number Veg Types Landscape Var. Poor(<lScm) ~en Size: None od Even(70·30) § Small(<lOac) Overbank Flooding Freq ghly Uneven Med(l0-100) ~Syr Veg Den/Dom Lg(>lOOac) 2-Syr Sparse(0-20%) Ratio WL to WS area -2yr low(20-40%) 0 Jligh(> 10%) none Med(40-60%) Gj L1 Hi h(60·80%) Very High(S0-100%) Veg Interspersion onn. Up and Down Sed on Substrate §[:High onn. Above Med onn. Below Basin Gradient Low ther Wl Near by BHigh(>2%) Plant Spp. Diversity elated Low(<2%) ~ow(0-10) Watershed Land Us\. Outlet Restriction Med(l0-18) >50% ~estric:ted Hfgh(>l8) 25·50% -nrestricted Cover Animal Food Plants 0-25% No outflow ~ow WL Land Use Inlet/Outlet Class Med High(ag) Inlet Outlet High Med(Forestry) BNone §_ None Cover Distribution Low(Open) Inter lntermittent~Continous Soil Variables !'"ern Perenial Scattered Patches Water pH l or more large patch · i ~o H20 Scattered Stems Hydrologic Variblcs Blow Perm High Perm Glacial Till cld<S.S _ f_!Jt.erspersion Cover/Open H20 rcum Neu(5.5-7.4) ~?.25-75% cover and 25-75% open Water kaline(>7.4) >75% veg Seeps or Springs 25% veg None 100% cover or Open Water eeps Dead Woody Material ern Spring ~bundant(>SO% Wlsurface) nt. Spring Moderate(25·50%) ow(0-25%) Proje<:! •: Clliml!Ownor. !Jlva<..llgo!or. WETLAND DETEI lTIONFORM D.:lto: __ ...l;1J'f-2=-4q 71 /c..:.t..::(),__ ___ _ S1ato: ___ 7_-L---'--------~lf. ___________________ __ Do not111a1 cittum!ltnnces ox!sl on tho site? ~1 To..nstlip, Rango, Section: ____________ _ Is liM ot,p;ca! situation? VI ~!Comm~ny. ________________ ___ 15 liMl ntca o. potcn!lnl p<ob!cm atea? .11 \ Snm¢oP~t __________________ ___ rt1>1> strnlum · ' ; • C<M:, ' ''.<.<_ ,c-:· '; CJS6tc!":: ".&~.( 'r: Total~tr. X~o(20%"'l') Dam: T~C~!!r X% (20% s Y) . .. •.• IIIL..f'. K. "' ""'~a /(~ -~G.&n. _.17~ ,. c. .. l"'~lfy-,j .q() -..:.. cl.!l. -::.,~~G,.,.. I C. .... ~ llZI. _,) '"' IS_hrub !!.It~ tum Cover Oom. !status /l,....,,q.. l!_otaJ Covor.X%(~" Y) "':.4-L.'\. ,'\ (Z .(' f.J. '"' ..-,:tJ~) q.,. ,. ""'-£.v.<;f' ~ 'Jf'I~C::. c:., E:f"\Al'f If") ,.. /', ...... '::>_ ,.. N'l'- ·~f.!AbX!· IC:., )( 1\n -~=-~ !i.:> ... ;;:.-~ /.,t"l 1) ~~~~:·' % ol dominanlspWe5 tllal 010 OBL. FAON, or FAC (cxclJding FAC~ ol " I ltV)% ') r_,1; 1'1 ~?::'"'-1-1 2.-<) 2.5>'.;> ('.J)V. ~ ('....-.-.,..";> 1 Commcnl:l: ~ ... -<c.' C."-. . l.!appcd Unil Nnmo: Ma:chcs Profile? Taxonomy: Drainago Class: Do;llll ~lorUon M"trtx Colo! _)Aonl<) eo:or / Mon!o ~izo, Con:mst SOil TeX!urc Go -I', .... :>'\ / / / ./ ...... -14 nr--. ./ / / / / / / / / / / L .. '-J Hisle! --~-1-Reducing conditions (lest) __ 11-_Glcycd =t2 Histic cp;pcdon _____ / High or~ eon!cnlsutfaee layer I e>tgan;c streaking =± Su!fldicodct _____ ! Redo• c:ooc:entrations (wflll 101 -r Organi<: pan Probable aqLiie mcislurc rcgimo ____ /_Conctolion:l (v.:lln 3", >2mm) ______ on h;'!llic soil$ list Comments: I Oxidized rhi2tlS~ In uppct '' Salurn!cd in uooot 12ln. "-;' 12 in. 1 >'l Wntot mMm I Wrucr-s!cincd leaves /1 Orilllinos I lcaJI soil SIJMl'/ dn~• I FAC nculml lost ' Dminaoo Cl<!llt!tn!l in wntlnnd3 I Othet ETLAND DET£RMINAnON Comments: Page 1 Plot Number: 0 17-- Misc Factors WL Water Regime Primary Veg Types Public Ownership ~et (Perm Flooded} None Wildlife Mgnt 0 O.ry (Temp Flooded/Sat} Forest/Evergreen Fisheries Mngt Surface Water Level Forest/Deciduous Hist. Archological ~· h(>S"J Scrb/Shrub deciduous Desig Protected WL Low(<S") _J Sg.b/Shrub Evergreen Doc Hab for Listed Sp None ~mergent(Persistant Nonpers egScarce Micro RellefofWLSurface Aquatic Bed Pronounced(>45cm} Herb 0 Moss Subsistance Use D eloped(15·45cm) _ ~ber Veg Types Landscape Var. Poor(<l5cm} §......rEven Size: None Mod Even(71J-30} Small(<10ac} Overbank Flooding Freq Highly Uneven Med(l0-100} ~Syr Veg Den/Dom Lg(>100ac) 2-Syr ~rse(0-20%} Ratio WL toWS area 1-yr v(20-40%) 0 High(> 10%} none ed(40·60%) 12:l'low(< 10%) Ev" ence of Sed h(G0-80%) None ry High(80-100%} ru~~~~:i:~d Down :~~~~u;u~s~:lte §-:Ve~lnterspersion onn.Above ed onn. Below Basin Gradient w ther WL Near by [3Hi'gh(>2%) Plant Spp. Diversity solated 0 Lo~/(<2%) §.:(IJ-10) Watershed Land Use Outlet Restriction (1Q-18) F-l >SO% ~tricted (>18} !--1_35.·50% restricted Cover Animal Food Plants L:::f IJ-25% outflow ETiow WL Land Usc Inlet/Outlet Class Med gh(ag) Inlet Outlet High ed(Forestry) ~one ~ None Co er Distribution w(Open) ter Intermittent Continous Soil Variables ern Perenial Scattered Patches ydrologic Varlbles ow Perm High Perm Glacial Till Water pH 1 or more Large patch H20 Scattered Stems 'd<S 5 Interspersion Cover/Open H20 rcum. Neu(S.5·7.4) 25-75% cover and 25-75% open Water kaline(>7.4) Seeps or Springs 100% cover or Open Water Dead Woody Material § Abundant(>SO% WL surface} Moderate(25·SO%) :::'.-Lo'w (Q-25%) GPstat:s-:r H :zs.o GPS long: I ? ;;, I '1 t) '<£, ProJect: 0 H !+ £.. Elev: Sib Site Code o I !7 Investigators (JI. }( A Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site @ No Date: 'tj?.5/ 10 Watershed: Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat Ind. Stat 'Yo Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat 'Yo Cover Ht/DBH 1 /l.L.t!,'(. s ~ ~:;/, 9 2 q_v.~ <.. r-1D?• 10 3 SiAV\ IJ.-~ ID 11 4/frFF IJ. Pu· 15 12 5 5!1Q~ ~ ~\...\.' I'D 13 6 t:I"C.I'r W-F-lo 14 7 15 8 16 Utter1 Litter 2 Soil Lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: "' ~Ill<.~ ;. .s .. , C,..e..,~ ...... ~ ~"'·O~"' VierekVeg: T=<3'Yo Method 50/20 76 )Q Hydology .' Field Observations Wetland Hydro:ogy Indicators Depth of Surface Water: ,6 Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit:/ "'-} Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: ;J I Saturated in Upper 12lnches Comments WaterMarks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect '-(0 Direction 1\J £:.. Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope {(p tJ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation !;';/G. I w. .. , ... , ••• '"""" Landform ,_,.;U:,:'J.:. Local Soils Survey Data Topography S '~"""..) Fac Neutral Test HGM Class \ \. Soils Plot Number: Soli Survey Map Unit Name Field Drainage Class 0 IS Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Coarse Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % Feature· Type Color Abundance Size Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% t\-1 A 1. 9 ir-. -;{I !0<1 <;\ Sb\< I"•~M":f~ 0 1-11{ BJ_ l.?'{rt ?/3 ,,., IS 5 cf cV\ 0 I•Hlp I?:J,. (0'{~ ?[L{ fOil (s J c.f GIVI 0 lS '(f!.. ~'{ f!.h' \s ' v{ CM 0 \~ ... ~!.{ "3 COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators --"'¥-) _Histosol( 16+) ==+=Gieyed or low Chroma Depth of Org Mat L ---+--Histic Epipedon (8·16) High Org Content Sand Depth to Permafrost __ "'"&Y __ _ Sulfidic Odor ----1--0rg Streaking Sand Major Rooting 1 f. ' Aqulc Moisture Regime I listed on local Hydric Soils list Soil Temp // ----if--__ ......__ Reducing Conditions ---+-/--Listed on National Hydric Soils Croyoturbated / ~--~H~y~d~ric~C~O~E~----------------------------------~Th_i~xo~t~ro~p~ic ____ ~-------~ Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Solis Present Comments: {\d-t!ft. %-qq tM) \~( ~ Yes Yes No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland Yes (§) Transitional GPS lat: 6o/ }1-{ Z. l • (.., GPS Long: 1 ~ ~ I '1 o"1-· '1 Project: O tf !+ \:::. Elev: I??,.(,. Site Code () 1 (p Investigators ~ fr:_k Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site GY Vegetation Tree No Date: <tj J.,S Jro Watershed: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 ~PMlJ \-\ r~ i~ 9 2 Cirfk \.} ~ 1...:> 10 3~u..~ ~ 'C--;;io. 11 4 Clt<-~\1.._ \-1 'C In 12 5 Vf:VL ~ CIA tC. 13 6 Co~fc t> ~"" ID 14 7ttNW \+ ~v... J<; 15 8 16 litter 1 litter 2 Sod Ucher. Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: ,,..d, >llfTY-t..-Field JD Wet: "' VierekVeg: T=<3% Method S0/20 "S?c,lfD Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: pi' Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: jY f ''"""'ted Depth to Saturated Soil: y Satl!rated in Upper 12 inches Comments WaterMarks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect ":>Z-Direction 1\) Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope -z_ t.-1, rv Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation 5v., I w ........ ,., , .. ,.. Landform !-1rl1 s<lc Local Solis Survey Data Topography ~lof~ Fac Neutral Test HGMCiass ~-.If;_.. r~--yu,. "/b 't>3?"1 Sulls Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% Feature Type 0-(, A 1. 7 Yr-~4/'t - !o---1? B.1. -rt?> '< v.--:;,{;,. --- \?~ltp ~z. (D'((?._ ~/!-f - ~~-2'1 B;, 7.YR ~iL{ --- Plot Number: 0 1 (o Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Color Abundance Size Contrast Texture -S\ ;.{ .f-s s\ Coarse Structure Roots Frag% 9ok. ,,.,f V.ol> 0 s.,\<:. « .p.,-. 0 j .q . 0 S..l?~ ..;ft.-0 COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators 3 Histosol(16+) ___ _,_A+-_Gieyedo•lcwChroma DepthofOrgMat ~ Histic Eplpedon (8-16) ____ 1+-_High Org Content Sand Depth to Permafrost 11 ilk Sulfidic Odor ----t-Org Streaking Sand Major Rooting _ .... u ... A'-'--- Aqulc Moisture Regime ----!--_Listed on local tiydrlc Soils List Soli Temp --+-'---- Reducing Conditions ____ ~_listed on National Hydric Soils Croyoturbated -+/ ___ _ r-----~H~y~d~rk~C~O~E~-------------------------------·--------·Th~ix~o.~tropic ( Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Yes Yes Yes No'~ ve'} \f\1 e -;\-· ve~ No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland Yes@) Transitional ., GPS tat: &?"? JJ../1(, .1) u Project: GPS long: I C..~ r'7 CO· Elev: '-/ & <-/, Site Code o 14 Date: <tJJ-S(~oriJ Watershed: Investigators 0L t:.fr E) Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site ~ No Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1 C.t.ct.\-1-l 'C 9,C.., 9 2 AT~S: J. tz. ?.o) 10 3 'RLA'<>P ~ ~ "50 11 4 Iff.! lfL s ~ 5 12 5 f..N!JJ... H I 13 6 .4-i.CI'l.... 5 \-h 14 7 15 8 16 Utter 1 lrtter 2 Soil Lrchen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBl, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: w f>GJ.rYI(_, VierekVeg: 1\\A-C..b T=<3% Method 50/20 lou Hydology 2>~(1=-e. ........ ~....< '? ...... ?'<"'" Y.o "'<;,"'" ~· .,..,,""" ~ ......... <!f'"-<..,._,.,...._\ ~ ......... ~ Field Observations Wetla:ld Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: 3'' Primar,.lndicator~: Depth to Free Water in Pit: I ,, 'i Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: o" '/ S9turated in Upper 12 inches Comments NWater Marks l'v Drift Unes NSedim~nt Deposits Y Drainage Patterns Aspect l't"l Direction S Second~ry Indicators: Percent Slope 3/'o N Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12" Elevation ~i I Water Stained leaves landform (!,~l.r". local Soils Survey Data Topography ~r.,,J. ,~cv,c.~~f.lr" Fac Neutral Test HGM Class I \ Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% Q-11-\ Oev ~~--~~ c. · COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators N Histosol( 16+) . ---''~-of _ Hlstic Eplpedon {8-16) ---"'~'.A-Sulfidic Odor ----'I''""Aqulc Moisture Regime ----'''-' Reducing Conditions 1 HydricCOE Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: fAntu * lC\ t;o\\ \ \\) ~ "9 [\ \ 5 ve:,~ Plot Number: 0 \ 'b Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redvl< Features FeatureType Color Abundance Size .....:....-.. *--- ____ 1\.J-'F-_Gieyed or Low Chroma ---~-High Org Content Sand ----t-Org Streaking Sand ----+-Listed on Local Hydric Soils List -----'-Listed on National Hydri: Soils Contrast Matrix Coarse Texture Structure Roots Frag% VVI~(V"'- Z.'i''l. Mj, 1o[. C. -- Depth of Org Mat It{ " _ _;;_.,.,.. __ Depth to Permafrost ll.fYI. Major l{ooting 1'-f" / Soli Temp Croyoturbated =-:z:--- Thixotroplc -;r-- No No No No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with In a wetland ~No Transitional GPS Lat: t:, "1'"" ILJ i)"\. ~ T GPSlong: /':>'b ~~ '::1.' Elev: ""~·t}., Project: 0 H ~f.:. Site Code 0~ l Investigators c,L. f!..Pr Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site 0I'i) No Date: ~/zw 10 Watershed: Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Spedes COE Strat Ind. Stat 'Yo Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat Ind. Stat 'Yo Cover Ht/OBH 1 c. ...... ~ lA-ID 9~ t:, 2 __E,-111.~-' -? \-· t{_'i) 10~ , lr!-(')I,.,L 2.0 3~-~"'-11 fo~ H P'W ~ 4 ~/). <;. 'i\1!:.. I C.. 12-t.v...W 7 s ldv ~v 1.-Y. t8bL -u:> 13 6 ,\J~Y-.5 1!\f'I-J{., 14 7 t~£-(.1-1-{ /7:1 15 8~)l. ID 16 Utter 1 latter 2 Uchen ·~ Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: fJ J ~ ,.;;,1;-z..._ Field JD Wet: w "?~V"V'l..- f(Nft>;;.. " r. '(" VierekVeg: llb'"2..e.,. .C'AC~?,..., c . .:~ .... e~~~..,,., T=<3% Method 50/20 t!rO Hydology Field Observations Wetianc! Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: ;; Priwary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: :. ;. " "-' inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: o' -y. Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments \\~. 4 \lt-V.~"'""'\ ,...) Water Marks /.}?., oYt"" ' r"' · ,r ... 1\Jl:lrift lines vV Sediment Deposits 'f Drainage Patterns Aspect 14p ... Direction Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 2. ') !I) oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation ')<tv yvWater Stained Leaves Landform 5t·.v'-"-{ vJ t,!,pi! .vlocal Soils Survey Data Topography f/..A ? t'.J Fac Neutral Test HGM Class Sl~ Solis Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist PlotNumber: OZ.! Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % Feature Type Color Abundance Size Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% 0[ Oe 9 7 ydric Soil Indicators Histosol( 16+) Histic Epipedon (8·16) Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: fic{-vve.c, it~ Gleyed or Low Chroma High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ___ _.__Listed on National Hydric Soils r.W 'w~ () d Depth of Org Mat 'Zt.( 1- Depth to Permafrost_--'"""'''""fl-':·:---- Major Rooting 11 II Soli Temp Croyoturbated Thixotropic I / No No No No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a. wetland @No sol\ iV'I ?i~ t;CI{\ \'\ \{t>~ S VG~ Transitional Plot Number: O'l, \ Mise Factors Wl Water Regime Primary Veg Types GJ ~t (Perm Flooded) None Wildlife Mgnt c;;:rDry (Temp Flooded/Sat) Forest/Evergreen Fisheries Mngt Surface Water Level Forest/Deciduous Hist. Archological ~lgh(>S") Scrb/Shrub deciduous Desig Protected WL Low(<S") rb/Shrub Evergreen Doc Hab for listed Sp one Emergent(Persistant Nonpers Reg Scarce Micro Relief of WL Surface Aquatic Bed . ronounced(>45cm) Herb 0 Moss ubslstance Use eveloped(l5-45cm) ~mber Veg Types landscape Var. or(<1Scm) en Size: one od Even(70·30) mall(<lOac) Overbank Flooding Freq ghly Uneven Med(lO·lOO) ~Syr Veg Den/Dom g(>lOOac) 2·Syr ~rse(0·20%) Ratio WL toWS area 1·2yr w(2Q.40%) · 0 HJgh(> 10%) one ed(4Q-60%) [3-'Low(< 10%) ~idence of Sed h(6D-80%) None ry Hlgh(BO·lOO%) L Position Fluvaquant soil Veg Interspersion onn. Up and Down Sed on Substrate §;,h · vnn. Above ed · 8. · ·conn. Below Basin Gradient w Other WL Near by 0 Hjgh(>2%) Plant Spp. Diversity ''"'"" Et'G>wt<>%} ~w(0-10} R ;~J!:hed Land use ~::~~~iction c!:~r~:a, Food Plants l:;l;25% l:J ~o outflow ~w _ WL Land Use Inlet/Outlet Class Med § High(ag) Inlet Outlet High Med(Forestry) ~ne §_ None Co er Distribution Low(Open) er Intermittent ontinous Soil Variables m Perenial Scattered Patches None Water pH 1 or more large patch 01 ~o H2o Scattered Stems· Oe cid<S 5 Interspersion Cover/Open HZO Oa ircum. Neu(S.5·7.4) ~75% cover and 25·75% open Water Min:Grav Alkaline(>7.4) 8 ~~% veg ~§~,v~lbloo ~;.:~~ ~=-$~;::.:} High Perm B ~n~. Spring etate(25·50%) Glacial Till (0·25%) <I ., GPS Lat: <j:l-I '1 0 S· Y GPSLong: I~:::, {~ ?1·'1 Project: 0 J.t, H-E.-- Elev: lt/{p r"' Site Code OJ.(., Investigators U-~f.lr Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site e Vegetation Tree No Date: 1;) ;}S f;;>o!~ WatersheH: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Spedes COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1 til ttl\. s F-(,.c., 9 2 I'Ll'\~¥ ~ p. :::rD 10 3 l)frvA \.!-r-lh 11 4 ME\=-)..\-I? !.A lh 12 52~ "" '\=-:; 13 6 C£.1Jot.· <., j:!·v.. 1-0 14 7 15 8 16 litter 1 litter 2 Soil lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL. FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: \.\. Vrerek Veg: T=<3% Method 50/20 loft? Y'a Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: r Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: I Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments WaterMarks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect 'V{po Direction ~ Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope t,.'tf> l Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation ll{ (. Water Stained Leaves Landform /~C/U;>t} (._ Local Soils Survey Data Topography /vloft. Fac Neutral Test HGMCiass s I -=. "2/3:·46 + 7.(3/(.t. Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % A \~~{/-1\\ ~ 1~Y\<-71'2---- COE 1987 Hydric Soli Indicators ----'~-1--Hlstosol( 16+) --+T_Histic Epipedon (8-16) I Sulfidic Odor --+-__ 1":-_Aqulc Moisture Regime ____ Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: fi~Vt~* Plot Number: Q "t-(0 Field Drainage Class ~ Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Feature Type Color Abundance Size - ---"Jiv"-+-__ Gieyed or Low Chroma ---f/ __ High Org Content Sand ---+/ __ Org Streaking Sand ---!/ ___ listed on Local Hydric Soils list __ _,\'--__ listed on National Hydric Soils Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% ~ \ IJ'o~ Mf >\\~>') U 0 l s 5 I>Nj -fc. -It-0 Depth of Org Mat Depth to Permafrost. _____ _ Major Rooting Soli Temp Croyoturbated Thixotropic Q No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland Yes Q Transitional Yes Yes. GPS Lat: ~ f Jl/ Dl • 'J GPS Long: 1 s-7 1 q ·;n·. \ Elev: "11>' Project () }Ht\i.- Site Code Od."'i- lnvestigators CQ.. f.-A- Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site ® No Date: <6/ ;;!:,ftO Watershed: Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1 (l.£:,(7~ -r rl).. 1.-? 9 2_1'_-fo.tA \~ \=--_<te> 10 3 ,(}4,J'i'. ~ 'r 1..D 11 4l.Wlr""f'l T ~lA. ,") 12 5 Pri.(.,'F.. t;. ~ /0 13 6 ~A-l'J \..!-~\..o -z..o 14 7 (.,'{(fi_ \J. '7 15 BAr~ !-+ /0 16 litter 1 litter 2 Soli lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: e., Field JD Wet: v... t~\'S.-=> . ~. f VierekVeg: ~ot,r' :;: <;>.~-~·'<· T=<3% C,'< cR; ~'1--"~(~-;.-..-. <-"iOf~-<"~ Method 50/20 5o (h Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: N Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water In Pit: l rJ Inundated Depth to Sall!rated S~l: l "'"""' ;, """ '"""'" Comments WaterMarks Drift lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect 11J Direction ~ Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope '/., {v Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation -:y4 I Water Stained leaves Landform 1"va&kl\'(..-local Soils Survey Data Topography o~ Fac Neutral Test HGMCiass • ,. -;.. .:::. ".:>: I ~:?ll \-1-::..SQ \ Soils Soil Survey .Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Horizon Matrix Color and % to~~ J;\~ 1.~ i?-"\It-\ COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators Histosol( 16+) Histlc Epipedon (8-16) SuJfldic Odor ---L Aqulc Moisture Regime --1--Reducing Conditions HydrlcCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Plot Number: 0 2..1· Field Drainage Class \...J 9 Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Feature Type Color Abundance Size --_.... --- - __ ..;.v1 __ Gieyed or Low Chroma __ 4 ___ High Ora Content Sand ---+--Org Streaking Sand ---++--Listed on lo:al Hyclrlc Soils list __ ___,_ __ listed on National Hydric Soils Contrast Texture ~s \s Coarse Structure Roots Frag % 1-l[kt;,1M 0 0 Depth of Org Mat 0 / Depth to Permafrost. _ ___,,.t;/-___,~ Major Rooting lit / SoiiTemp / Croyoturbated / Thixotropic Yes Yes Yes Data Point with In a wetland Yes.~ Transi~onal so\\ 'N ~~ "~) <;E ve~ GPS lat: '71' 1-;, GC., • ~b GPS long: 1 ?"?7 J-=6 '7"Z ,'1> Project: D !-} I}P-, Elev: ']...[)1-f Site Code 02..'-/:; Investigators d r1r' D Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site V Vegetation Tree No Date: L:£j-;£./p Watersilecf: --1 Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat Ind. Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 .... 14-.o.!A-"" ~ t,t:., 9 2 vi*1JC s ,C;> 10 3 ~lA~ .::, ~ ~D 11 4 M'PF \-!-~Lt ?.::> 12 5 4?t-.fz-~ -~~ 13 6 At11W... w ~,. i::: 14 -7 15 8 16 litter 1 litter 2 Sod liChen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: \A.. VierekVeg: T=<3% Method 50/20 51) r;J HyCtology Field Observations 1'-' Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: ! Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water In Pit: rv Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: ( S.tu~ted '" """ 12 '"''~ Comments WaterMarks Drift lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect t; Direction liD Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope ~,2.7.-Q~ ~·O)c. t,Y, o" ~~ 1\ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation ) Water Stained Leaves Landform Local Soils Survey Data Topography Fac Neutral Test HGM Class Solis Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Pr ~ Matrix Color and % \~ ~{L -;j\ /. r; y r-~I t; COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators Hlstosol( 16+) Hlstic Epipedon (8·16) Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime ---+.--Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: ?V1 o-\'0 -* Plot Number: 0 2-7J Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Feature Type Color Abundance Size - ---+I __ Gieyed or Low Chroma ----+\ __ High Org Content Sand I Org Streaking Sand ==:j:: listed on local Hydric Solis list --t-Listed on National Hydric Soils Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% 5\ Sl?'f-IVIfcw, 0 (s ~ t~ ~ IO(. J Depth of Org Mat Depth to Permafrost. _ ___,.r_,.--- Major Rooting ' 1 (p / SoiiTemp / Croyoturbated / Thixotropic / Yes Yes Yes @ ~ Data Point with In a wetland Yes ;::> Transitional Marginal Marginal Gt'S Lat: S 7-I 'S o'6 ,I,. GPS long: 1 ~ "!:> I ~ o 2-• '-t Elev: '13 P Project: 0 rf p. (:. Site Cod~ 0 ;, iJ Investigators (!) J::-,4 Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site @ No Date: "$I ).'r/to Watershed: Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1 5/dll..-s ~ In 9 ,. f:>-J.t> llbl lo 2 ll..tA.~'I' ~ ~ 1_(.: 10Cft?p?. ; 3 r,t:_{ht\ s F--i'o 11 Ctl;.;~ p. I •> 4 J.~or... s r /') 12 5 f:.MN,l:. 0 r-'!, 13 6 V!r;:;r.. ~ ~!. I~ 14 7 Bl-.1\.U ob 'JD 15 8 N?~f4-(:.h. I I( 16 Utter 1 Litter 2 L•chen Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: , y!l.l-~~\r'7 Field JD Wet: 'N %S.\ trr'? f; -: ~ .. H f ..,,_ VierekVeg: \\~"Z.tl T=<3% Method 50/20 1 o-<.) Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology lndicutors Depth of Surface Water: /if S/.l1 e. S,..sl>-~ Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water In Pit: 7 Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 Comments Aspect IS Direction IV Percent Slope 3.:0. Elevation 7'1 Landform 0..{~ Topography ;1.-.-....:t.~ HGM aass S(op--e. '"\ s so"<' \"'~ ~~~--~ .v Inundated y Saturated in Upper 12 inches "i Water Marks ~ D<lftL~" Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Secondary Indicators: """ I \~1 !a~j )4i S· V7:j Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Water Stained Leaves Local Soils Survey Data Fac Neutral Test I Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Plot Number: O"b{) Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% Feature Type Color Abundance Size Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% 0 ,~:.1 0~ COE 1987 Hydric Soli Indicators 'I Hlstosol{ 16+) ---!"~''-Histic Epipedon (8-lS) Sulfidic Odor Aqulc Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Solis Present Comments: ,,1 Gleyed or Low Chroma High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand Listed or. local Hydric Solis Ust l listed on National Hydric Soils -----'--- MllfW"' Depth of Org Mat Depth to Permarrost._.....:;"-'="'--- Major Rooting Soil Temp Croyoturbated Thixotropic No No N:l No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with In a wetland 1~No '-f~tional Plot Number: O $D Mise Factors WL Water Regime Primary Veg Types Public Ownership ~et (Perm Flooded) Wildlife Mgnt tJ (;~ (Temp Flooded/Sat) Forest/Evergreen Fisheries Mngt Surface Water Level Forest/Deciduous Hist. Archological ~ High(>S") Scrb/Shrub deciduous Desig Protected WL Low(<S") s rb/Shrub Evergreen Doc Hab for Usted Sp None Emergent(Persistant Nonpers eg Scarce Micro Relief of WL Surface Aquatic Bed Rec Use Area Pro unced(>45cm) Herb 0 Moss Subsistance Use Di!Veloped(1S-45cm) Num er Veg Types Landscape Var. Poor(<1Scm) Even Size: None Mod Even(70-30) Small(<10ac) OVerbank Flooding Freq Highly Uneven Med(10-100) >Syr Veg Den/Dom Lg(>lOOac) 2-Syr Sparse(0-20%) Ratio WL toWS area 1-Low(20-40%) D !ligh(> 10%) none Med(40-60%) c;::rlow(< 10%) ~dence of Sed H' (60-80%) ne Very High(S0-100%) Con~~~::~d Down u;:~u;::s~:t~ ff:Vee~dlntersperslon Conn. Above Other WL Near by h(>2%) Plant Spp. Diversity Conn. Below l:TEin Gradient w '"''""' w(<2%} 13-:(G-10} ~ ;~E:hed Land Use Ri~~:~::~iction fEo :~~~:at Food Plants ~5% tj ~~1outflow Low WL Land Use Inlet/Outlet Class Med gh(ag) Inlet Outlet High ed(Forestry) ~ne g · None . Cover Distribution ow(Open) ter lntermittenlli.Continous Soil Variables m Perenlal Scattered Patches Water pH 1 or more Large patch o H20 Scattered Stems Min:Silt Hydrologic Varibles low Perm High Perm Glacial Till cid<S.S . Interspersion COver/Open H20 ircum Neu(S.S.-7.4) w5-7S% cover and 25-75% open Water tkaline(>7.4) >75%veg Seeps or Springs 25% veg None 100% cover or Open Water Seeps Dead Woody Material Pem Spring aAbundant(>. SO% Wlsurface) nt. Spring Moderate(25·50%) . Low (0-25%) GPSLat: srI'~ Y6· r GPS Long: /5 '3 l<i.D"f ,{; Elev: 'fo Site Code o:-, \ Project: O }f!.f ~ Date: 9./?.,. ::;-j ""' Watershed: lnvestigatl)rs e9-~11-D Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site ~ No Township: Section: Vegetation Species COE Strat Ind. Stat %Cover 1 ?fJitL s. ~ '-To 2 flffF H-s 3 Clftn-\.t ~ 'Zo 4 ,':19~~ .... ~ .~ tO 5 ~D~tt I t+ fW /C. 6 !r.-.ol;..o \.1-11\J:l: //) 7 tf!r,'(' u.. r-/0 8 Y:i&'\f,-'< ~ c: litter 1 Lltter2 Tree Ht/DBH Species 9 €-.. fh.t 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Soil "JD Range: 01 r 1 COE :'\!.-~ Strat ( Ind. Stat %Cover -MrH ~j. '3GI I Lichen Moss Tree Ht/DBH Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: 'N · ~':. \ '{ofBI ~ '?•~,,.:l'i .... ~L~ VierekVeg: \\ c...-z.. 'L ~~~,., ..-.. t~-'7 w( vo:; -r .. ~.." •. .-<:r.:2. ._,j/'i:>"'"<::. eet \ T=<3% Method 50/20 /0'0 ?"l Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: D Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: t:b 11 "" Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: o'' y Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments ->/ ~ ::!' .. ;-!. lfp> r.~'"''J lr~vr;, '{ Water Marks ~1\{V' " Drift Lines ~ """'.!, 1"1 Sediment Deposits j Drainage Patterns Aspect Direction Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope f\ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12n Elevation '"' 0 '1 Water Stained Leaves Landform H~ ..,,.. . .:;;Jc/~ ' Local Soils Survey Data Topography fX~""'V?\(y\"" Fac Neutral Test HGM Class Q,.nr.~~ Soils Soil Su!Vey Map Unit Name Soli Profile Desc;iption: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % 0--to A (oy~P Z/1 10-[~ g,'J. 1.5 '(R '$/2-- l!o-2-c.f ~1.-to Yr.. ~l/ 'f COE 1987 Hydr:c Soil Indicators _ ___;.J\~_Hfslosol( 16+) __ _..f\,__Histfc Epipedo>n (8-16) '::J Sulfidic Odor __ ....;~f-Aqulc Moisture Regime ___ '1-+. · _Redudng COndition~ T HydrlcCOE ' \ Comments: De~~ .... Plot Number: (/7 \ Field Drainage Class fO Mottles and Other Redox Features Feature Type Color Abundance Size \<-Mf \0\2. ~~~ c M ---¥.+--Gieyed or Low :hroma ___ ....;t1r-_High.1Jrg Content Sand I Org Streaking Sand ----,1---Listell c>n lccal Hydric Soils Ust / Listed on National Hydric Soils Contrast d Matrix Coarse Texture Structure Roots Frag% ~\ 'NlfA~ rn_f CW\ 0 Is: j #kM 0 ·i-~ -0 3 Depth of Org Mat 0 Depth to Permafrost _ __,IJ.J=llr"---- Major Rooting 1 "?, SoUTemp / Croyoturbated /- Thixotropic Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Solis Present ((ve:) Yes Yes No No No No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland G0No Transitional Plot Number: 0-:> ( Mise Factors Wl Water Regime ublic Ownership 0 Wet (Perm Flooded} Wildlife Mgnt E::r"ory (Temp Flooded/Sat) Fisheries Mngt Surface Water Level Hist. Archological ~(gh(>S") Oesig Protected WL Low(<S") Doc Hab for Usted Sp ' None eg Scarce Micro Relief of WL Surface ~-.1 ~nounced(>4Scm) Subsistance Use A0eveloped(15-45cm) Landscape Var. Poor(<lScm) Size: None BSmall(<lOac) Overbank Flooding Freq Med(lO·lOO) ~Syr Lg(>100ac) 2-Syr Ratio Wl tows area 1-2yr 0 High(> 10%) none [a'l.ow(< 10%) ~vidence of Sed None WL Position Fluvaquant soil Sed on Substrate Primary Veg Types Forest/Evergreen rest/Deciduous Scrb/Shrub deciduous Scrb/Shrub Evergreen Emergent(Persistant Aquatic Bed Herb 0 Moss ~~::::,::~:es tf ~;:hly Uneven VegDen/Dom ~ Sparse(0·20%) Low(20-40%) J ..Med(40-60%) A' High(G0-80%) Very Hlgh(S0-100%) j:1 ~;g~lnterspersion Basin Gradient ~ 0 fiigh(>2%) ~nt Spp. Diversity Nonpers '"""' [3Low(<2%J l::J ::0-10) H ~~E:hed Land Use ~~~~=::lction Co::£!~:al Food Plants taf-25% tJ ~~outflow 0 ~w WL Land Use Inlet/Outlet Class ~o~ed (ag) Inlet Outlet L::J High (Forestry) ~one [f None Cover Distribution Soil Variables ern Perenial %scattered Patches (Open) nter lntermitten:a..J g!ntinous Hydrologic Varibles f:18-. Low Perm High Perm Glacial Till Water pH 1 or more large patch -_ .-. - No H20 Scattered Stems A · -<5.5 _ jlltersperslon Cover/Open H20 Circum Neu(S.S-7.4) ~:::;.,;;r 25-75% cover and 25-75% open Water Alkaline(>7.4) >75% veg Seeps or Springs 25% veg N e 100% cover or Open Water Seeps Dead Woody Material Pern Spring §-Abundant(>SO% Wl ~urface} Int. Spring ~oderate(25·SO%} Low (0-25%) ( ' GPS Lat: t; 7-I"!;> 5?.~ GPS Long: I~ b -I "6 o4/ ,'(· Elev: 4.1.. · Site Cqde o ~ 1-. · Investigators &., ~ f.- Project: t' i-Hl ~ Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site Vegetation Tree Date: 'if/ ?,7f' Watershed: No Township: "' Section: -Range:_ COE \{..)L. Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat ~nd Stat % Cover 1 5~AF" s \'=--:to 9 ~.dt..J !..U.. I 'l.-v 2 C.l¥14 1-J. ~ 1--'S 10 I 3 ~Jlf.i1' u \:1. 'Ul 11 4 ~ u. \'i.-IA /..lr• 12 5 ~PfrN \4-IC> 13 6 f'..Yo:L u. .S 14 7 CII.'S.f9.-.&:. 15 Tre~ Ht/DBH S:J o c. Sf'c.~ -. .... Lltter1 Utter2 Sod l&i: " 16 .. LIChen Moss jffltl. -t:~k ltCJ1o Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: hf' ...... t.J-.-.<>:.~. l)....r~ , • .,.-1-:.~ Field JD Wet: \-J ~~' t..r'-L ""Zl ., ...,....."" .-VierekVeg: .......,.w .,;h-~ T=<3% Method 50/20 6S 'io Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: / Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: -z.<>" A Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: o" y Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments 'I WaterMarks "' Drift Unes ll Sediment Deposits y Drainage Patterns Aspect I'L-Direction 1\J Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 'l.i~ ttl Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation </ r,. y Water Stained Leaves Landform f-,...vtv"t-Local Soils Survey Data Topography ~...-**t F!IC Neutral Test HGM Class c:.::..J o().lL. i / Solis Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors W.olst Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % ~--1 (1 ll'l~~~ll 1 ... \1 t'.t. \O'{ ~ 7 jz..... 11-1!-\ 0'2.. \0~\Z-'3j? COE 1987 HydriC' Soil Indicators __ .....,__Histosol( 16+) --""'"'~Histic Epipedon (8-16) __ -J.(I._Sulfidic Odor ____ Aqui~: Moisture Regime -----''1-' Reducing Conditions I HydricCOE Wetland Determination Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Plot Number: D'!>-z.. Field Drainage Class ";) w ~\) Mottlf'!s and Other R••dox Features Matrix Coarse Feature Type Color Abundance Size Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% s( rYW5 r.f·~Vt"'l (j ~l sl>~ .(t. {:w. 0 rff\f ~'{\t ~r L1 M~~~~ rflr~ -~r'i~ Is Sb~ cs Z.e> Depth of Org Mat d ___ Vr-_Gieyed or Low Chroma ___ T-"-i,rt..._High Org Content Sand ----+/_Org Streaking Sand Depth to Permafrost_--"-/ ___ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ___ ..,:__ .. isted on Natlona! Hydric Soils Major Rooting Soli Temp Croyoturbated Thixotropic No No No No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland ~.No Transitional r !·' ,, " Plot Number: o ~ l-.. Mise Factors WL Water Regime 0 ~et (Perm Flooded) Jldlife Mgnt G3"Dry {Temp.Ftooded/Sat) Fisheries Mngt Surfa.ce Water Level Hist. Archological ~lgh(>S") Deslg Protected WL Lo (<8") Doc Hab for Listed Sp None . ...!J Subsistance Use Landscape Var. Size: mall(<loac) Med(l0-100) g(>lOOac) Ratio WL toWS area 0 Higb(> 10%) ~w(<lO%) WLPositlon Micro Relief of WL Surface Pro ounced(>45cm) eveloped(15-4Scm) Poor(<lScm) None Overbank Flooding Freq >Syr 2-Syr 1·2 r Primary Veg Types Forest/Evergreen rest/Deciduous Scrb/Shrub deciduous Scrb/Shrub Evergreen Emergent(Persistant Aquatic Bed Herb 0 Moss ~Nue:berVeg Types od Even(70-30) ghlyUneven VegDen/Dom Sparse(0-20%) Low{20-40%) Med(40·60%) High(60-80%) Very High(S0-100%) l=li:lntersperslon Basin Gradient tJ ~~: G}1iigh(>2%) Plant Spp. Diversity Nonpers 0 Low(<2%) §1r0-10) H ;~E:hed Land use ~:~~~:lction c:v~;r~:at Food Plants l:j{'25% tJ ~~·outflow a:o Wl Land Use Inlet/Outlet Class . Med gh(ag) Inlet Outlet High ed(Forestry) ~one ~ None Cove Distribution w(Open) ter Intermittent Continous Soil Variables ern Perenial Scattered Patches Min:Silt H drologlc Varlbles wPerm ghPerm acial Till ~::~~H lnte persian Cover/Open H20 rcum Neu(S.S-7 .4) 25·75% cover and 25-75% open Water kaline(>7.4) >75% veg ~~::s or Springs ~~~r:~~ver or Open Water Seeps Dead Woody Material Pern Spring §~ndant(>50% Wl surface) Int. Spring Moderate{25-50%) Low(0-25%) GPS Lat: S :t-I'"'=> Sl; .'- GPS Long: 1 ':,-, 1<-& u 7.. , 7.- Eiev: '11-P+ Project: 0 1-J f!-(:._.. Site Code o 3::> Investigators 1!..1--r-14- Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site (!!!:; No Vegetation Tree Date: c;//-z... r /10 Watershe~: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat r. Cover Ht/DBH 1 til.. t'.ll.. s. r-(.~ 9 2~p s '{: 7~ 10 3 '1-};.q /). -:j \'1..-... l":o 11 4 MF!=-»-'2.'-.. 12 5 flttG'It ~ ID 13 6~1H2.~ s ?/..,.. I~ 14 7 15 8 16 Litter 1 L1tter2 Sod L1chen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: <;omments: Field JD Wet: 'A.. VierekVeg: T=<3% Method 50/20 ll~h"o ; s~ Hydologv field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: (':-Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: I 1 Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments WaterMarks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect 3fn, Direction vJ Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 1:1.-'1~ (\. Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation c.-r l Water Stained Leaves Landform !...1<"11-s~f Local Soils Survey Data Topography ~''lf'Vj Fac Neutral Test HGM Class \ ia Soils' Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % ·oA -.. ·~ ' '·'Ot \-Co A ?SYrz. ~~ 0---21.\ B (OYR. 7{ 7 COE 1987 Hydric Soli Indicators _ __:V':~Histosol( 16+) 1 Histlc Epipedon (8-16) Sulfidic Odor Comments: Aqulc Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Wetland Determination Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Plot Number: 0 3 -~ Field Drainage Class w D Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Feature Type Color Abundance Size ----· ----'/t=+-_Gieyed or Low Chroma ==+=High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand ---+-Usted on Local Hydric Soils list ---.f-l_llsted on National Hydric Soils I Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag % Depth ofOrg Mat f Depth to Permafrost._~~,.---- Major Rooting 1 y SoiiTemp 1 Croyoturbated / Thixotropic I Yes Yes Yes No{SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland Yes fa) Transiti~:£1 GPS Lat: f. f. \~ b? ,.:!. GPS Long: I & 3 17-'/"!,·<(. Elev: 1 ,~ Pro jett: ~H If f:. Site Code 035 Investigators C/ J:..J4 Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site @ No Date: ~(2.?/lt::. Watershed: Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat tnd Stat 96 Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat 'Yo Cover Ht/DBH 1~t ~ ~ 'bC.. 9 .4~17 ~ ID 2r-.~'i'A "' 'PlA z" 10 3 $1,/)L... s /t:., 11 4 11fFP. 1-J ?-\A. t: 12 s Ck.A u. F 1~ 13 6 tJEi;.tl. .l:f \"'1.t. JO 14 7 f:Mi'f ).l.. ~ 5 15 8"" 16 Utter 1 Utter2 Soli Lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species {OBL, FAON, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: '""' VlerekVeg: T=<3'Yo Method 50/20 Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of.Surface Water: (\} Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: I !":'Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: { saturntod io """ 12 -~ Comments WaterMarks Drift Unes Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns ASpect Ntl. Direction ~ (, Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope ~ 1': Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation IC'£ ~ WotO<Stoiood """"' Landform 1-/(l~d.c. Local Soils Survey Data Topography 51of">'J Fac Neutral Test HGMCiass ./ Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Plot Number: 03? Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% Feature Type color Abundance Size Contrast Texture Structure 0~ '2. 0~ - 'l,--!p A i. 5 Yr-J/2-s-t s.J.,.\c- &~2-~ B 'WI. lS Yll-'1/'-t zo"f. \O'(V-?/~-<;.( Sbf- COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators (Y Histosol( 16+) Depth of Org Mat Coarse Roots Frag% ,.... ..,J-~""' 0 cJ c....., v Hlstic Epipedon (8-16) Sulfidic Odor Gleyed or low Chroma High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand Depth to Permafrost _____ _ Comments: Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: \leO l 10 l HeZ- Listed on Local Hydric Soils Ust ___ _,,I-_ listed on National Hydric Soils Major Rooting Soil Temp Croyoturbated Thixotropic Yes Data Point with In a wetland Yes Yes so\\ t-J Vt~ N"' v'~ Marginal Marginal Yes Q Transitional GPS Lat: t; 1'" l :, ~ I · 1-Project: C) H If E. GPSLong: I 0~ 17 ~~,.S Elev: 111 Site Code 0 ;r., Investigators 0-1~ ~ Do Nonnal Circumstances Exist on the Site @ Vegetation /' Tree Date: ~ )7. ~I Ji:> Watershed: No Township: Section: Range: Species COE Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Tree Ht/DBH 1 (1-w~ ") ~w 1.f'\ 9 ":tf-{;;. /~ -2 C:/'11\JT <!I F 7.1;: 10 {';.<,'!:A-l.f ~w Z.b 3 . .;tAno ;r 1\lT. Jr-. 11 ( J'!LO ~ tb\. I I., 4 h'ff'''A.--11 ~ lo 12 ",;,/',fL. /0 5 ~I;.AA t.:.. 13 6 f'u~~ '" 14 7 E'D:>X' -r 15 8}. ~06.. J,-, 16 Utter 1 litter 2 Soil lichen Moss 51"At, Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: V\1 ~S\ VierekVeg: T=<3% Method S0/20 )!TO Hydology Field Observations Wetra,nd Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: '!:>'' \•tl:-t~ Primaiy Indicators: Depth to Free Water In Pit: ?.'I" f:.t<.~ Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: D" y Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments Yi Water Marks ~ Drift lines ~ Sediment Deposits Aspect 1,.<) Direction II.) y Drainage Patterns Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 2-;i;. 1' Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation 17 i I" Water Stained Leaves Landform D~trl!~rl.-\ ,.., Local Soils Survey Data Topography f.J • .-•"''J Fac Neutral Test HGM Class o~ ..o.r-t' .r,n)'V.~ Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Pint Number: Q')V Field Drainage Class fO Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% Feature Type Color Abundance Size Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag % o~ cj ih <l ~ /C, De. lc, t' o ..... COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators -~'r-1 _Histosol( 16+) __ .... lo..,_Histlc Epipedon (8-16) I Sulfidic Odor --+,----+--Aqulc Moisture Regime ___ I_ Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: __ .....:::Pi.,.:-_Gieyed or Low Chroma ----!i-.._High Org Content Sand ---+---Org Streaking Sand ---+--Listed on Local Hyc!ric Soils List _____ Listed on National Hydric· Soils f"' F f10'\ Depth of Org Mat ;2'1 ;.- Depth to Permafrost __ 1L"-fP.:..~--- Major Rooting 11 Soli Temp · Croyoturbated Thixotropic No No No No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland No Transitional PlotNumber: .o3Y Mise Factors WL water R!'!8ime 14t (Perm Flooded} Wildlife Mgnt t:J ~-~·(Temp Flooded/Sat) Fisheries Mngt Surface Water Level Hlst. Archologlcal ~i (>8"} Oesig Protected WL Low(<S") Doc Hab for Listed Sp None Scarce Micro Relief of WL Surface c Use Area ~ronounced(>45cm) eveloped(15-45cm) Landscape Var. oor(<15cm) s· · one a;l(<lOac) Overbank Flooding Freq d(lD-100) >Syr >lOOac) 2-Syr Ratio WL toWS area 1·2 D tjjgh(> 1o%1 [3'low(< 10%) Evi ce of Sed None Fluvaquant soil Sed on Substrate Basin Gradient 0 Higb(>2%) [3-low(<2%) Watershed Land Use Outlet Restriction 0% §!-tricted 50% Unrestricted 5% No outflow WL Land Use Inlet/Outlet Class Primary Veg Types None Forest/Evergreen Forest/Deciduous ;rb/Shrub deciduous Scrb/Shrub Evergreen Emergent(Persistant Aquatic Sed Herb 0 Moss Number Veg Types n Even i2'Mod Even(7D-30) 0 Highly Uneven VegDen/Dom Sparse(0-20%) Low(20-40%) Med 0·60%) High(G0-80%) Very Hlgh(80.100%) Veg Interspersion §:::l.-H'Igh Med Low Plant Spp. Diversity (0.10) d{10-18) h(>18) Nonpers C Animal Food Plants "gh{ag) Inlet Outlet ed(Forestry) §;.one E} None Low(Open) . In er In ermitten Soil Variables Pem Perenial e ydrologic Varibles ow Perm igh Perm facial Till ~ ~:~e;~H <5.5 ~um Neu(S.S-7.4) Alkaline(>7.4) Se~: or Springs eps m Spring . Spring 1 or more large patch Scattered Stems Interspersion cover/Open H20 ...--75% cover and 25-75% open Water 5%veg S%veg 00% cover or Open Water Dead Woody Material § Abundant(>SO% Wl surface) Moderate(25·50%) Low(0-25~) GPSLat: r,7-1"'!;. .1-fr,'t- GPS Long: I~"; rr SS.? Elev: -zo' Project: t> +ll-i S Site Code 0~<£. lnvestigato'rs ()/ !-P.- Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site f!i) No Date: <fjz:r-po Watershed: Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1.-...<;F/.). "i lf:, 9 2 vt...fr ::. f. 14 10 3 JtL'{'I!C. J.l Y:\A tiS 11 4 CI4Ut 1-1-~ c{'-, 12 5 ~1'.4-11.1 .!1 ?~ ,.1/0 13 6 t:?Ofry~ -t" '?ll '-£0 14 74UR. <:; Y--z_t> 15 8 t:e::l=e.. )..:\' ;(., 16 L1tter 1 L•tter 2 Soli Lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JO Wet: ""- VierekVeg: T=<3% Method 50/20 l-/ Lf ~0 Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: tv Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: I .-v Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: J Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments WaterMarks Drift lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect -;2.17.> Direction '-1.1 Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope ;,':> r. Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation '2-o? I w"" '""'"' '~"' landform 1-Hlkrlc Local Soils Survey Data Topography ~'or"J Fac Neutral Test HGM Class Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Co!or~ Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % o,.q A 1.t?~V-7lt- q-t1-{)1 \0~\2-?\~ lt.:· n l?z_ ID Y~ ?7("1 lV Y~ ~([; n.--1J1 0, COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators {'v Histosol( 16+) Histic Epipedon (8-16) · Sulfidic Odor Aqulc Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Hydric em: Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Pl_ot Number: D?~ Field Drainage Class V-1 D ·:> Mottles and Other Redox Features Feature Type Color· Abundance Size ~ -- __ ..:1/'-!-r-__ Gieyed or low Chroma -----11--High Org Co:~tent Sand -----1---0rg Streaking Sancl -----11--listed on Local Hydric Soils list -----1· ,---listed on National Hydric Soils Contrast Matrix Coarse Texture Structure Roots Frag% st slo \c. rllf tV( \Yl 0 S{ s b V--cl (/'VI 0 ~r ~~~ c-( &w. D (s lj Wl~ 0 Depth of Org Mat D Depth to PP.rmafrost._..::/":..._,,---- Major Rooting t -::r SoliTemp / Croyoturbated Thixotropic Yes Yes Yes No(SO) Marginal Marginal Oata Point with in a wetland Yes C!!J Transitional v / GPS Lat: S, 7-1:::, tt 4 · 'Z GPS Long: I <;;. 3 I 7-t; ?. I Elev: r 1' S Site Code o :, 'i Investigators Project: o f-l P E:. Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site Vegetation Tree No Dale: . ~/2-1- Watershed: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 ':Jfflf~ ~ 'C '" 9 <lU":.<~-;.. l!o .0 2 Otof.<l -r '\--\A /C., 10 I' A(l.6;.. ~. I<> 3 p,~ I P.-'? 11!';:0£/.. ~ 4 11/V/J.,.. -r 12~ <; FIN IS 5 UtA-u. f-;1~ 13 '. 6 '"};qif 1-1 ~ ~<:>. 14 '· 7 1'1~thJ.\\ "'~"' (;f 10 \-1-t? ~ 15 8 ~'If!--.. c; 16 L•tter 1 Utter 2 Lichen Moss .5Pk). TO -Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Com menU:: Field JD Wet: '1./J fSS\ VierekVeg: T=<3% b -=rtt~ Method 50/20 Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hytirology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: :.t ,, Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: -z-o'' 'I Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: l) 'f Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments y Water Marks 11 Drift Lines Y1 Sediment Deposits Y Drainage Patterns Aspect If)) Direction 5 Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 1,... (0'""'' Root C"'M'" ;o UPP" 12" Elevation i'fb Water Stained leaves Landform ;.~ Local Soils Survey Data Topography !>0,..,.,a-._ Fac Neutral Test HGM Class (.~~\ 100 H::.Joo Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soli Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % tJ--':1-0-v ~--1? {){/ I'J' prY !),... COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators __ ,14,_Histosol( 16+) ---"A..,_! Histlc Epipedon (8·16) Sulfidic Odor ---1+4-, Aquic Moisture Regime ---+(_Reducing Conditions ... J Hyd1 ic COE l Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: oz~~ Plot Number: ...... Fl!!ld Drainage Class '{' O Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Feature Type Color Abundance Size Gle\•ed or low Chroma High Org Content Sana Ora Streakin& Sand ----+--listed on local Hydric Solis List ---+-listed on National Hydric Soils Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag % .,v~(l""' p~i'1"'~"' Depth of Org Mat lit:ptn to Permafrost _____ _ Major Rooting 1 C., Soil Temp ~royctu;bated Thixotropic / / {) No No No No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland tv:} No l-lansitional s s Plot Number: 0 S 4 Mise Factors WL Water Regime ubllc Ownership ~et (Perm Flooded) Wildlife Mgnt 0 [;ry (Temp Flooded/Sat) Fisheries Mngt Surface Water Level , Hist Archological ff:High(>S") Desig Protected WL Low(<S") Doc Hab for Listed Sp None cUseArea Landscape Var. si ze: mall(<10ac) Med(lO·lOO) g(>lOOac) Micro Relief of WL Surface nounced(>45cm) _ eloped(15-45cm) r(<l5cm) ne Overbank Flooding Freq >5yr 2·5yr Primary Veg Types Forest/Evergreen F ~st/Deciduous Scrb/Shrub deciduous Scr /Shrub Evergreen Emergent(Persistant Aquatic Bed-.___.... Herb 0 Moss Number Veg Types Ev Mod Even(70·30) Highly Uneven VegDen/Dom Low(20-40%) Ratio WL toWS area 0 High(> 10%) G}1:0w(< 10%) ~ Sparse(0-20%) none Med(40-60%) Evidence of Sed -I H~h(60.80%) ~ne ....-K/ery High(SD-100%) ~~~~~;i:~d Down tj ;~u;:~u;u~~~lte §f:Vewghdlnterspersion Conn. Above Conn. Below Basin Gradient Other WL Near by (2JHigh(>2%) Plant Spp. Diversity Isolated 0 Low(<2%) J:'J~IO·lO) Nonpers Watershed Land Use Outlet Restriction [j ~;;:(10·18) R ~~~:0% ~:~:~~ed ~:~;:mal Food Plants ~5% lj ~~·outflow Low WL Land Use Inlet/Outlet Class Med h(ag) Inlet Outlet High d(Forestry) §;,ine ~ None Co r Distribution w(Open) er Intermittent Continous Soil Variables rn Perenial Scattered Patches ydrologic Varibles ow Perm igh Perm Glacial Till Wi::~~H Interspersion Cover/Open H20 ircum. Neu(5.5·7.4) 25· 5% cover and 25·75% open Water lkaline(>7.4) >75% veg s:e:: or Springs eeps ern Spring t. Spring 25%veg 100% cover or Open Water Dead Woody Material bundant(>50% Wl surface) Moderate(25·50%) ow(0·25%) -:_ -; 1 :. .. -. GPS Lat: <,-:;-0 3-'? I~ GPS long: 1 <, 7 I 7-5'-1 · "}. Project: 0 If}\-0 Elev: /~/; Site Code D'i "!> Investigators t 1 ft... I\--C:.:l Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site ~ Vegetation Tree No Date: ~/Z?­ Watershed: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat tnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 Y.fkN \:\ ~""' 1!:, 9 Iff C.:o s ~ c., 2 MPP * \-1...1., (.,() 10 3 t<f.:PY.l. -l r-'LD 11 4~r}t!J. \+-~ ·"";,. 12 5 1/'Av-r. s '? ?,D 13 6 «.v..W ~ ~ -...:, 14 7o,.dtl· ~ ~OS. yl\_ 10 15 81)6C'it'r .. c; 16 L1tter 1 L1tter 2 Sod Lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: t:: L\,.. Field JD Wet: 'A. \JJ.f;!v '1/-:~--::. VierekVeg: T=<3% Method 50/20 4t/ 7~ Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: ""' Primary indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: I (" Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: I Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments WaterMarks Drift Unes Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect ?~ Direction f\.J £ Secondary indicators: Percent Slope "Z. e> I' Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation ~~z.. I .-.~. I Wot" '"'""" '""" Landform (7..{),<-h>f fl{t(";,\ c Local Soils Survey Data Topography -;,t,ff") Fac Neutral Test HGMCiass Soils Soil Survey.Map Unit Name SIJ.il Profile Description: ·colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % Feature Type Q/? 1\ l.~ ~y_ Z,fj 12- Y.tO ~1. !.S ~t. 7)Lt 1XJ,1'L ~t/t ?_,r;y "7/:t '-- COE 1987 Hydric Soli Indicators r-Hlstosol( 16+) ---r~\ -Histlc Epipedon (8·16) \ Sulfidic Odor ::::I Aquic-Moisture Regime ----t-Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Yes Yes Yes Plot Number: . O'i 1; Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Color Abundance Size -"" - Gleyecl or low Chroma High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand ,__..- Listed on Local Hydric Snlls List Listed on National Hydric Soils - Contrast -- Matrix Coarse Texture Structure Roots Frag% 5( )~tc. flll.C,t'l til J.- \s s0{c:.. ()v\,LC -- 5( <)~ {) .. ,fj!. 38ft Sj. Depth ofOrg Mat --..!..!v'jlCJ.--- Depth to Permafrost._......,f---- Major Rooting =E= Soil Temp Croyoturbated Thixotropic \ ~ e No(SO) Data Point with in a weUand Yes No Marginal Transitional Marginal GPS Lat: 'iJ "1-J!f &{ '1-Project: 0 ;.l H E.- GPS Long: J'J 3 I'/ t,.'-'1 • '-/, Elev: 'il Site Code 0 1-f~ Date: co/], '6/1 C) Watershed': Investigators ('!,£ JLA-/v~ Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site ~ No Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1 Ef.l!t> JC> 2'S4Rt.-s ?t.... 40 3 5frllL ~ ~ :;~ 4~_ ... 1l-"1"" ?'-I.. Jl:> 5 ftN !.<.. ll ~t.. I!:;,. 6 ~~c ~-~ ~ 1'-t. . /0 7 r-,-'-1"'~ .... ~l'tSl~ -1 tv 8 t!.YrR-u-\:."\A.. lo Utter 1 L1tter 2 Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) Comments: Hydology Field Observations Depth of Surface Water: ~ Depth to Free Water In Pit: '/)/ Depth to Saturated Soil: y Comments \)~ t>k'.--~._{ t:v<J.-..<: ,p .s 'i'of""J (""'"\ .. ..>1'-1·, Aspect l ?Z. Direction :S £ Percent Slope ':) Elevation 'I' 'i Landform 'I cJt. :Y • f-< Topography .. A~.I ... ) HGM Class ~).--2.0"0 Ul\ r'ljtJ 1.,}7 '5f6 . (. 9 C~P. *" ~ I? 10~ \4-"Pl.. ,c, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Uchen Moss NRCS Veg Type: Field JD Wet: v... VierekVeg: T=<3% Method S0/20 LSo~ Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators: N Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Unes Sediment Deposits 'I Drainage Patterns Secondary Indicators: . · ( O.ldi•>d Root Chooo•k I• UPP" 12" Water Stained Leaves Local Soils Survey Data Fac Neutral Test 1-;.1) s=·SO -H-:::.ys 'Z-0 Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Plot Number: QLt8 . Field Drainage Class Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Coarse Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% Feature Type Color Abundance Size Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% A 7-SYP-7/t- B {OY~Z-'71/7 COE 1987 Hydric Soli Indicators -----"':.,..J_Histosol( 16+) ---l--Histlc Epipedon (8-16) ±Sulfidic Odor Comments: Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Yes ~ Gleyed or Low Chroma High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand I Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils I~ j r.,.f. "';.., Cl:. 0 Is J {+ f-~A 0 Depth of Org Mat /) . Depth to Permafrost. __ _./:__ __ _ Major Rooting Soli Temp Croyoturbated Thixotropic / 14' / / No (50) Marginal Marginal Data Point with In a wetland Yes@ Transitional GPS lat: S ?-/4 1.>4 · "S GPS long: 1 5 ;!> 1 <:t z 1 .7- Eiev: ~;, Site Code 04'1 Project: OH /-! ~ Date: fVs/1 u Watershed: Investigators cJ-. ~ 14-~ Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site ~ No Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH l~YJIH $ ~ &s 9 2 ~£fA-""!'" "i"lo.. 10 10 3 Urc.IJ. ~ c.. 7-S 11 4 1~ \lr ~ t!:> 12 5 l'tU~t'-1-\-"C-1.... IG 13 6 C~l=..t' /0 14 7 ~J~'f. <. ~rr 2t> 15 8 r::v> f}i\) II> 16 Utter 1 litter2 Soil lichen Percent of Dominant ~ecies (OBl, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: w,\1.1-.J ........ t~ + .. (<:.-,,_.. Field JD Wet: I.A. VlerekVeg: T=<3% Method 50/20 bS Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: f' Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: I y-. Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: I S.t"rnted In"'""''"""" Comments WaterMarks Drift lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect /~i) Direction t;£ Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope I '1~ rOxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation "'"!> I w .... , .. , ... te~ .. landform r.,,sl~~ local Soils Survey Data Topography .... J.-J.,.l.,.) Fac Neutral Test HGM Class Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon A Matrix Color and% 1.S~~ ;l-7 B l.O~\Z-7\11 COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators Comments: Hlstosol( 16+) Hlstlc Epipedon (8-16) Sulfidic Odor Aqulc Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions HydrlcCOE Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Feature Type ·:.,., ··.' ~ .... Plot Number: ~ ~ q Field Drainage Class <,J ~ Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Color Abundance Size Contrast Texture Is -----t.s - ·.-;- Structure sb\<- 9o f- Coarse Roots Frag% ""'~ 111,\..\ 0 t1dV'\t 0 Jl-Gleyed or low Chroma ---"-1--Depth of Org Mat lf ==t=High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand ----+--listed on Local Hydric Soils Ust ----+(--listed on National Hydric Soils Depth to Permafrost _ __,,..::/;.._ __ _ Major Rooting 1 i" Soil Temp Croyoturbated Thixotropic /.. / / G.P No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland Yes No Transitional Yes v GPS Lat: '? f' Jl-1 O'f. Q, GPS Long: 1 7""1. l'b 1 ~. ~ Elev: c,l Site Code tY;() Investigators C9 ~p- Project: o l-1-P. F... Date: 2/ :.'6/H> Watershed: Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site @) No Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat Ind. Stat % Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat Ind. Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1(.1o\;t>-or t'-1.1... ';, 9~ t; 2 7MI_ ~ F-7,.') 10 \/(!.If{" 10 3 t<..I:PI). -\-1...... I -1-D 1111~-M'C 10 4 NEIL. J.i-N-r, /C.,. 12 5 El'lll\l }+ ~l.o.. I; 13 6 CDC'/t ..!,. \-\,l. J!. 14 7 f.TJe,~ ·\).; ~ ..:35 15 8 t61'CR. ID 16 L1tter 1 L1tter 2 Soli LIChen Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: "" VierekVeg: T=<3% Method 50/20 ~51)(, Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: ;?/' Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: P' w Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: p ( '""""'"" """" 121od>" Comments WaterMarks fin: .... c-1.!... l-..o l.!-I!;P ;-.... ") rri"Y'_J Drift Unes I&.J>;~ 1!:1..(,;..~~ t.~o!-~~-c. v. V") i.,_~ Sediment Deposits n,. ~ ?.d ~t\ ~.L Drainage Patterns Aspect f ~"/ DirectionS Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope J?i .;v Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation "'I ) Water Stained Leaves Landform .!.. ~;· r: Local Soils Survey Data Topography /J-.-..Jy Fat Neutral Test HGMCiass Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soli Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth 0---5 s--It. 12..-11 Horizon Matrix Color and % A \DY~ ~(7- ¥71 1-?Ytz-7(;, f?t/G '1.? Y\2 7N COE 1987 Hydric Soli Indicators f.. I Histosol( 16+) __ ...,._/ Histic Eplpedon (8-16) __j_ Sulfidic Odor __L Aquic Moisture Regime I Reducing Conditions --+-HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Plot Number: 0 50 Field Drainage Class r.v D Mottles and Other Redox Features Feature Type Color Abundante Size -- ___ .... ,(}!f-_Gieyed or low Chroma __ _l__ High Or2 Content Sand __ -r_-+_Org Streaking Sand _____ listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ listed on N:Jtlonal Hydric Soils Contrast Matrix Texture s{ 15 IS Coarse Structure Roots Frag% sbV-,.,rw.· D ~ .rr .rw. o ~ -3_J 2o 'l.,t'j lot.:. '-' c; •f. Depth of Org Mat rlf Depth to Pcrmafrost. __ -:-v,· __ _ Major Rooting IJ SoiiTemp IIV Croyoturbated w Thl~otropic v Yes Yes Yes e (~~) No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with In a wetland Yes ~ Transitional GPS Lat: ':J"":f I '1 0\, lo GPSLong: ·1~~ J<{, JO.t, Elev: ) ott Site Code 0 S J Project: Investigators c, 1-/L-"A !v-:d Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site l;J Vegetation Tree No Date: ~}?. <1< Watershed: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 {Z,GRfr "\ "YI... t;,f, 9 ~ """" 'Pt..... &D 2 "(1)P.;~ '\ ~ ,, 10. 3 Vtc\11:.. ~ -~ "2.1""> 11 4 f.PMv ~ 12 5 "JMt-c.. ~ I~ 13 6 t.J-iCJ4- "'" , __ t.f(.., 14 7 (.,'((')\!._ yT y,_.._ Jci 15 8 1-v.s(J_ ~ 1-( 16 l1tter 1 Litter 2 -Sod Lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: v.... Vierek Veg: T=<3% Method 50/20 hV~ Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water. l Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit; r Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments WaterMarks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Aspect Direction Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope (L<A-rt-1/,~ ,.. Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation .... ~''""" I Water Stained Leaves Landform -$top--Local Soils Survey Data Topography fUw/-sc Fac Neutral Test HGM Class ) Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% 0,~ 1\ 1-? YR-3/1 ~-\2 1$:1. lo'(\2 \1.-\'~ '&z. "l-'7 '( [?.. COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators rJ Histosol( 16+) Histic Epipcdon {8·16) SulflrlicOdor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions HydrlcCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present .Comments: 7;>/U. Y/'-\ Plot Number: OS\ Field Drainage Class V-' ~ Mottles and Other !\t!dox Features Matrix Coarse Feature Type Color Abundance Size Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% ~I ~b~ 1\..(->.v-0 I :;( s.q,_ t.-~f~M 0 sl >k>\!-\0°/• S<) '• ;J Gleyed or low Chroma Depth of Org Mat ,,.) ===t== High Org Content Sand Depth to Permafrost v.J Org Streaking Sand Major Rooting b ) listed on Local Hydric Soils list Soli Temp Ml \ Listed on National Hydric Soils Croyoturbated ~-.) Thixotropic Jt../ ~, ~ ~ Yes Data Point with in a wetland Yes Yes h Marginal Transitional Yes No Marginal v . I - GPS Lat: ~ 7-6 J;;i'6 ,1-\ GPS Long: 1 ~ ~ ltb I 'l· \ Elev: -'1-""1 Project: D-1-1 1-l E Site Code'<f..0~3 Investigators C.. L Jt-A- Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site B No Vegetation Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species 1 ~rr-I '"""" ZD 9 ~'<'0~ 2 t' fd!(!. .U.· 1\J'J:.. lb 10(}y;,? 3 C.!.ICY'r 1-l-p., 7..i) 11 4 G;PA11) 1-\-9-t.. ~~ 12 5 fl!r;r w-Fe ,.., 13 6 ?1fl'1L-~ ? :£:, 14 7 e.,.C}J -1 15 s~~l:.. .< M t.fo 16 Lttter 1 Lttter 2 Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) Date: "f,J1-<l flO Watershed: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH """ 'Pt.. t:, /C.. Lichen Moss NRCS Veg Type: '1-:..-o s~ JUU ~:::. 0¢ Comments: Field JD Wet: """-"),f; ~' ~·...:- VierekVeg: Wu\ T=<3% Method 50/20 5o Hydology Fleld Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: (v Primary indicators: Depth to Free Water In Pit: ) f'u Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: I '"'"'ted In u ,,., 12 I'"'" Comments WaterMarks J.h.<,.,. Oup 'b...N. s...0. Or ... n-.-,._. f" · r Drift Lines 'Dry@ :.,...,.... "\. 1;1.., h. ,!.,q <L-1""' . (\ > .,~·!... Sediment Deposits ::;.,.....\ . o ~ wL H,Wq'f 1 Drainage Patterns Aspect I~ Direction s Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 2-5-I) J O>ddlted Root Chooool• io Uppe< 12" Elevation 7'1 Water Stained Leaves Landform -r P.:\Sr.,.f"C. Local Soils Survey Data Topography Fac Neutral Test HGM Class ( Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon a-0 A ~,..1£1 B.1 ll{ ---1~ \3z_ Matrix Color and % loy'~ 7{z_ (O Yrt-~{7 1o Yrz ~1 0 COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators __ _.r;+· _Histosol( 16+) =+Histic Epipedon (8-16) Sulfidic Odor Aqulc Moisture Regime ---+c-Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Plot Number: D S 'J, Field Drainage Class v!) Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Feature Type Color Abundance Size - ----lt~·:--Gieyed or Low Chroma ---+--High Org Content Sand ==+=Org Streaking Sand Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ___ ,__Listed on National ~ydric Soils I Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% - c;-{ fs s( 5b~ M(.. ·~fVl 0 r ~ Al,.fM 0 /Yl~ ? 01~ Depth of Org Mat /; Depth to Permafrost __ -:·~~-- Major Rooting '1 lj SoiJTemp / Croyotur:>ated / 1'hixotropic / Yes ~~ ~/ Yes ~ gsou Data Point with in a wetland Yes Marginal Marginal GPS tat: ST r( VO • I GPSLong: 1<:>"0 1~1"1.1- Eiev: H Project: 1J tf f, S Site Code,i1.0;t.j Investigators t-1 L.<...'/r' Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site Vegetation No Tree Date: "'>j'z. cj Watershed: Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat 'Yo Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 M:~fl. I \-"'4. 4'-. 9 2 t',f;_tP. t5 10 3 '6rlrf\J +l· \'--l.A ::,.:, 11 4~.h-..; ~ IO 12 s co~if 5 \=I.\ ~~ 13 6~ U-t:-::;~ 14 7 'rfEI-Pr 10 1S 8 Y'l..$/'_ &---/ 'E. 16 Utter 1 f litter 2 Soil Lichen Moss I='"EJ.trnor' 7~ Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: {A ~~I)\ VierekVeg: T=<3% 1... 5o Method S0/20 Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: 1 Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: f! Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: I '""rntodlo UpP" ,;"""' Comments Water Marks 'DJ' .. ,..-.>'(_ ~-lkr~ ~n...--~....,('c,J-:5 Drift lines 'rxy fJ'75 dAf"""'-~ Sediment Deposits y Drainage Patterns Aspect r:,z.. Direction 5 r::.. Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope 11~ J Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12" Elevation rl Water Stained Leaves Landform <)....,~ local Soils Survey Data Topography .,n; ... '.._~ '") Fac Neutral Test HGM Class Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % 0-~ A l.'j YP. ?/t. ~--\~ 1()1 jt) ~?--7{ 7 \LJ-7-q B); \Oi ~ ?/ CJ COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators ---.JL4--Histosol( 16+) _ __:1!--Histlc Epipedon (8·16) --1-1 _SulfidicOdor ---fl_Aqulc Moisture Regime ---1-/-Reducing Conditior.s HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Plot Number: Q lJ t1 Field Drainage Class W D Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Feature Type Color Abundance Size Contrast Texture sl -s\ ---Is: S~ructure sb\c ~!o~ s.b\<. . Gleyed or Low Chroma Depth of Org Mat Coarse Roots Frag% • ..,{. t<~t.-.~; 0 I I IJ,c..-.,.fc. 0 tt,fwl 0 /) 1 High Org Content Sand Depth to Permafrost / J I l Yes @ ·:Yes., Org Streaking Sand Major Rooting listed on Local Hydric Soils list Soli Temp listed on National Hydric Soils CJoyoturbated Thixotropic No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland I i.t . / / / Yes No .., IJ..-~ ~~~Q GPS Lat: 6 ::?-lt.f oo ·"' Project: D If H (, GPS Long: 1$ ~ 1<l "2..1 ,j Elev: %0 Site Code o S.S Investigators c9-lC. p.-- Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site (f';i) Vegetation Tree No Date: 1/z "&Ito Watershe'd: i' Township: Section: Range: COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH 1 1/'t.t/1~ ~ '?-r~o-9 2 V~\ ... /C. 10 3 ~14tJif IJ.-r (qC, 11 4 .4.\,u ... .s 12 5 (1,)4~0 /!) 13 6111-w If; 14 7~~~ le 15 8 '<!L<..fl ~f:--1 ·~-n 16 I Utte 1 r I Lit ter2 So il Uche n o s YG... M s 1!\-V C:.o ." Percent of Dominant Species (OBl, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: Field JD Wet: ';;A~f-,....d..r I ... ~""~ VierekVeg: T=<3% Method 50/20 1()0 Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: ;v Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water In Pit: ( t.1 lnu:1dated Depth to Saturated Soil: I Saturated in u·pper 12 inches Comments WaterMarks Er ... ~\ D<-~ .(" .... J,f.,f'-c') Drift Lines ~~ ll'"-< &!--.,...cw.y Sediment Deposits y Drainage Patterns Aspect JDL6 Direction IS. Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope I '1::. JV Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation ~ l) I w"" '"'"'' "'""'' Landform ..-, • .c :f>1->f< Local Soils Survey Data Topography ._..,.)...1~1--'"J Fac Neutral Test HGMCiass Solis Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and % 0-\D A I o--((Z.. "11{ 1 \0-1-~ 31 !OYe-7['-\ COE 1987 Hydric Soil Indicators .r\l Histosol( 16+) 1 \ Histlc Epipedon (8-16) -+Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime ---;- __ _,___Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Plot Number: D b!':> Field Drainage Oass ~ w wO Mottles and Other Redox Features Feat•.ore Type Color Abundance ~ilze ---¥A7,'--Gieyed or Low Chroma • High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed .on National Hydric Soils Contrast Matrix Coarse Textufe Structure Roots Frag% s\ sb \<:. r~!J.," ( 0 s( 5b['- Depth of Org Mat / Depth to Permafrost _ __./:;....,---- Major Rooting % Soli Temp Croyoturbated Th lxotropic / Comments: ~o(\ Vt-~ 1./~\y ..,......, • .).r W'\c.y k..re-'~"'~ wL ek .. u .. Jurc;l-<0 f\-L SP~, Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Veg<!tation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: ~ 7JjiJ Yes No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland Yes No ~ GPS lat: 51-13 ~. I GPS Long: If>:) 1 <1, 1?, ~ Elev: ?i Project: 0 li H E.. Date: <1../-z,'-{ Watersh;~: Site Code t: )( o !l(,. Investigators CO ,t..{fr Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site 8 No Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1 tftL'{ \.4-l.l-.L ~;> 9 2 R>Ptl1 j,~, 10 3 IA'llt'· 5 11 4 t'J4.r1/f ll.-obl 1..'5 12 5 tl<1c* \.\-' ? 16 13 6 CA-SI't ll.J 14 7 15 8 16 L1tter 1 l•tter2 Soil lichen Moss Percent of Dominant Species (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: Comments: (!_. !'-'\ ". j d I v...,.rG-o Field JD Wet: ~ \"fS .. N\t)... tA-"'" :.. Vierek Veg: I II If"!;) T=<3% Method 50/20 ,oD Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Indicators Depth of Surface Water: ;/' Prima;y Indicators: Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~'1 >V Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: o'' y Saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments '1 Water Marks 11 Drift lines 1"1 Sediment Deposits Aspect '2.1> Direction s X Drainage Patterns Seconda Indicators: Percent Slope n. K Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation s., A Water Stained Leaves Landform o 1; ,,..~ ~ .. L I' local Soils Survey Data Topography ~.~ .. ,.....,z)..') '( Fac Neutral Test HGMOass L ... ~....,~'\Y'L Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soli Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon Matrix Color and% o~'b A {.O ~V--11'/ ~>!i t COE 1987 Hydric Soli Indicators --....:'-!...:f\_Hlstosol( 16+) __ ....:Y\~Histic Epipedon (8-16) __ -~..1'\~...Sulfldic Odor ___ 'f.~-_Aquic Moisture Regime __ __!.b.l.. Reducing Conditions HydricCOE Comments:. Wetland Determination Hydrophyllc Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: Plot Number: OS G Field Drainage Class ~Q Mottles and Other Redox Features Matrix Feature Type Color Abundance Size Coarse Contrast Texture Structure Roots Frag% - '( I Gleyed or Low Chroma High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Listed on National Hydric Soils sl ;; b ~ r~rl ~.,"'" rr::;r., 5) Depth of Org Mat -ZD7" c:1, z:o f,. d.o1 /~I.Mj y\>"l~ 0 Depth to Permafrost / Major Rooting ~t I Soli Temp I Croyoturbated I Thixotropic No No No No(SO) Marginal Marginal Data Point with in a wetland ~No l~dnsitional Plot Number: 0 '; <;- Mise Factors WL Water .Regime " ' Ql)~:t (P~rn{ Rooded) Wildlife Mgnt l.dif Dry (Temp Flooded/Sat) Fisheries Mngt ~· urface Water Level Hist. Archological . J-jigh(>8") ~ec ..;.r· .-,_\ Desig Protected WL / Low(<8") Doc Hab for Listed Sp ·None Size: all(<10ac) · ed(10.100) >iooac) Ratio WL toWS area 0 l:figh(> 10%) [3"low(< 10%) Micro Relief ofWL Surface nounced(>45cm) veloped(15·45cm) or(<15cm) ne Overbank Flooding Freq Evi ce of.Sed None Fluvaquant soil Sed on Substrate Basin Gradient D !!igh(>2%l c::!Low(<2%) Watershed land Use Outlet Restriction SO% §:e tricted 5·50% Unrestricted 0·25% No outflow Wlland Use Inlet/Outlet Class High(ag) Inlet Outlet M (Forestry) §J;;one ~ None Low(Open) I er Intermittent Soil Variables Pern Perenial Water pH No H20 Seeps or Springs t....k Primary Veg Types Forest/Evergreen Forest/Deciduous Scrb/Shrub deciduous S Shrub Evergreen Emergent(Persistant Aquatic Bed Herb 0 Moss Nu er Veg Types Even Mod Even(70·30) Highly Uneven VegDen/Dom Sparse(0-20%) Low(20-40%) M 40.60%) High(G0-80%) Very High(80-100%) Veg Interspersion R.~ lj Low Plant Spp. Diversity (0-10) (10·18) (>18) Nonpers Co r Animal Food Plants lstribution Interspersion Cover/Open HZO 25-7 %cover and 25-75% open Water >75%veg 25%veg 100% cover or Open Water Dead Woody Material ndant(>SO% Wl surface) erate(25·50%) (0·25%) / GPS lat~ f:)":t--I?:Jtf~ •:, GPS Long: 1 ? "3 II{ /0 ,"'1' Elev: t, 1 r-r Project: Site Code o ?4> Investigators (!./,. ~fl.. Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site @ No Date: C'i:/2-~/ 10 Watershed: Township: Section: Range: Vegetation Tree COE Tree Species COE Strat lnd Stat %Cover Ht/DBH Species Strat lnd Stat % Cover Ht/DBH 1 r~d!-u. 'F-~c:, 9 ""l~ IO 2~m c; r-'i{~ 10~ .c; 3 DI!:Pfr ""\" f-1.\.. 10 11 4 ?oM-'2... u.. ()\..I 2.0 12 5 i'oPP.I lb 13 6~~ ~ 14 7~ /~. 1S B t"At..'< //) 16 Utt 1 er Utt 2 er 01 -D s l 1-Uh c en M oss LJ>A4 zc:l Percent of Dominant Spedes (OBL, FACW, FAC) NRCS Veg Type: ,., Comments: Field JD Wet: \V 1(~~\ VlerekVeg: 1\C.."Z..i. T=<3% ror-Method 50/20 Hydology Field Observations Wetland Hydrology indicators Depth of Surface Water: /. Primary Indicators: Depth to Free Water In Pit: y >'!. Inundated Depth to Saturated Soil: 9'' I Y saturated in Upper 12 inches Comments I y Water Marks P ~~\ I+')<) e.-r'f>~ 1 Pos. d.~"-~"< I 1'1 Drift Unes ~'""""' flr;b-Jc -1' o'" kl::.c tt Sediment Deposits -}' Drainage Patterns Aspect Direction Secondary Indicators: Percent Slope Yi Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Elevation ~6;[ "l Water Stained Leaves landform '""t.-i./~""<. Local Soils Survey Data Topography H .. ""' ;.,x:.k f / Fac Neutral Test HGMCiass . Soils Soil Survey Map Unit Name Soil Profile Description: Colors Moist Depth Horizon A & Matrix Color and% (0('\2 2-( ( 10 '( (2.. 7 { 7-- COE 1987 Hydric Soli Indicators Histosol( 16i-) Hlstic Epipedon (8-16) Sulfidic Odor ---'-' _Aquic Moisture Regime ---'1:;;..-RedL•cing Conditions ( HydricCOE Comments: Wetland Determination Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Wetland Hydrology Present Hydric Soils Present Comments: PlotNumber: 00~ Field Drainage Class ?w~O Mottles and Other Redox Features Feature Type Color Abundance Size ----.---- l.CJYIZ 7/{p (~ WI lVI ----+-Gieyed or Low Chroma I High Org Content Sand Org Streaking Sand listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils Contrast ~P Matrix Coarse Texture Structure Roots Frag% sl sH~. f-.f l'"o\l.t\ 0 51 ')_!..~ Depth of Org Mat / Depth to Permafrost* Major Rooting ~ SoiiTemp __ Croyoturbated Thixotropic / rJB No ~o {SO) Data Point with in a wetland @No Yes Transitional No Margir>al No ~a"- Plot Nu~ber: 6 ;:/-t Mise Factors WL Water Regime 0 Wet (Perm Flooded) ldlife Mgnt 1:2rorv (Temp Flooded/Sat) Fisheries Mngt Surface Water Level Hist. Archologlcal mh(>S") Desig Protected WL Low(<8") Doc Hab for Listed Sp None eg Scarce Micro Relief of Wl Surface :.t.J!ec Use Area ~ronounced(>45cm) ~ Subsistance Use eveloped(15-45cm) Landscape Var. Poor(<l5cm) Size: None all(<lOac) Overbank Flooding Freq ed(10·100) ~Syr >100ac) 2· yr Ratio Wl toWS area 1·2yr 0 ljigh(> lll%) none [3'low(< 10%) E • ence of Sed Primary Veg Types None Forest/Evergreen Fo t/Deciduous Scrb/Shrub deciduous Sc /Shrub Evergreen Emergent(Persistant Aquatic Bed Herb 0 Moss umber Veg Types ven Mod Even(70-30) ighly Uneven Veg o·en/Dom Sparse(0-20%) Low(20-40%) M d(40-60%) High(60·80%) Very High(S0-100%) ~::Interspersion Basin Gradient t:J ~~w 0 l:!.igh(>2%) Plant Spp. Diversity Isolated [d'Low(<2%) §!"'(0·10) Watershed Land Use Outlet Restriction ed(l0-18) Nonpers 0% §Ericted gh(>l8) SO% estricted Cover Animal Food Plants 25% outflow ~Low Wl Land Use Inlet/Outlet Class Med h(ag) Inlet Outlet High d(Forestry) §-:ne ~ None Cover Distribution w(Open) er Intermittent Continous son Variables rn Perenial Sc tered Patches §1 ydrologlc Varibles ow Perm igh Perm lacial Till terpH No H20 Interspersion Cover/Open H20 §__! 2~% cover and 25-75% open Water :::r-;-75% veg 25%veg 100% cover or Open Water Dead Woody Material gi\bundant(>SO% WL surface) Moderate(25·50%) Low(0-25%) CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE PROPOSED OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON KODIAK ISLAND, ALASKA Report prepared for: Solstice Alaska Consulting , Inc. 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 Report prepared by: Molly E. Odell , M.A. and Justin M. Hays , M .A., R.P .A. Northern Land Use Research, Inc. Peter M . Bowers, M.A., R.P.A. Principal Investigator P .0. Box 83990 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 November 2010 Confidentiality Notice The locations of cultural resources given in this report are provided to facilitate environmental and engineering planning efforts only. Under the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, site location information is confidential; disclosure of such information is exempt from requests under federal and state freedom of information laws. This report is not a public document. It is intended for release to the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, State Historic Preservation Office, Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. and other appropriate permitting agencies only. 10 Bald Eagle Nest Survey Report Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Prepared for: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 With funding from: Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant #2195431 Prepared by: Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. 2607 Fairbanks Street, Suite B Anchorage, AK 99503 June 2011 AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Bald Eagle Nest Survey Report, June 2011 Page2 Introduction AVEC, the electric utility provider in Old Harbor, Alaska, with funding from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), is seeking to develop a hydroelectric resource near the community of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island. The project is needed to stabilize energy costs and to provide a long-term and sustainable energy source in the community. Project Components · The proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project consists of: • An estimated dependable capacity of 130 kilowatts (kW). The peak installed- capacity will primarily depend on economics and the projected increase in demand. AVEC has chosen to permit the project with a peak capacity of 300 kW. • A water intake area at the Mountain Creek tributary of Barling Bay Creek, including a 4-foot cutoff (diversion) wall that will not create any significant impoundment of water. • • • • • • An 8,900 feet (approximate) penstock . A single 300-kW Pelton turbine with a hydraulic capacity of 7 cubic feet per second (cfs) coupled directly to a 480-volt, 3-phase generator. A 600 square-foot (approximate) powerhouse at the turbine's tailrace . Water discharge from the tailrace into a lake, or channeled across the lowlands to a nearby stream with final discharge at Lagoon Creek. A 1.25-mile (approximate), 7.2 kV three-phase overhead power line . A 3-mile (approximate) access road . AVEC is seeking a FERC Hydroelectric Project License under the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). As required by the FERC process, AVEC consulted with resource agencies to determine what field studies were needed for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project. The agencies requested that a bald eagle nest survey be conducted in the project area. The agencies provided input on study methods for the survey, including timing of the survey. Detailed methods are found in the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Revised Study Plan accepted by the FERC in June 2010. Following the Revised Study Plan accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in June 2010, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) contractors completed a bald eagle nests helicopter survey in the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project area on June 4, 2010. Notes regarding the nest characteristics were taken. Literature Review Prior to bald eagle nest survey fieldwork, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service {USFWS) Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas (USFWS 2010) was reviewed. The atlas shows one recorded nest in the Lagoon Creek Drainage, and five recorded nests in the Big Creek Drainage; however, the atlas shows no recorded nests along the project alignment. AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Bald Eagle Nest Survey Report, June 2011 Page3 Table 1 summarizes the atlas' most recent listing of recorded nests in the Lagoon Creek and Big Creek Drainages. Table L Location and Attributes of Recorded Nests in the Lagoon Creek and Big Creek Drainages. Most Recent Map Nest Record Tree Nest Survey # # Latitude Longitude M/D/Y Species Status Method Lagoon Creek Drainage 12214 5 57.22904 -153.31317 11/31/1987 cottonwood inactive helicopter Big Creek Drainage (to Midway Bay) 12214 1 57.24729 -153.29777 11/31/1987 cottonwood 12214 2 57.24422 -153.28161 11/31/1987 cottonwood active helicopter 12214 3 57.23831 -153.26231 11/31/1987 cottonwood inactive helicopter 12214 4 57.23478 -153.26116 11/31/1986 cottonwood active helicopter 12214 47 57.23378 -153.25565 11/31/1987 cottonwood active helicopter In August 1996, Richard Macintosh and William Donaldson {1996) visited the project site to observe birds. Their report identifies three inactive eagle nests and one active eagle nest. Figure 1 of their report marks these nest sites on a topographical map. This figure shows the inactive nests located near the powerhouse site and the active nest near the road alignment, halfway between the power house and the pump house. Exact nest locations are not specified in the report and the drawn in locations do not coincide with any nests listed in the USFWS Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas. None of these nests were identified during the June 4, 2010 eagle nest survey. Methods On Friday, June 4, 2010, Robin Reich and Kate Arduser of Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. performed a helicopter survey of bald eagle nests in the proposed Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project area. A 1/8-mile parallel search flight plan was used to survey the project area in loops from the pump house to the intake. The helicopter route is shown of Figure 1. Surveyors sat on either side of the helicopter and scanned for eagle nests. Total flight time was approximately 30 minutes. Once a nest was observed, the location was documented using a Geographic Positioning System {GPS). Using binoculars, the observers documented nest characteristics including whether the nest was active or abandoned, evidence of eggs, and eagle use of nest. In addition, details on nests and tree conditions were documented. tice onsu ltlng;, Inc. Proposed Old Harbor Hydroe lectric Project Bald Eagle Nest Locations Figure 1.0 Legend • 2010 Bald Eagle Nests Proposed Pe nstock Proposed Overhead Electric Lines from Powerhouse to Mountain View Drive --Proposed Tai lrace C/L Proposed Road from Powerhouse to Mountain View Dr. Proposed Access Road from Powerhouse to Penstock Helicopter Flight Path Results AVEC's Old Harbor Hydro ele ctric Projec t FERC Proje c t P-13272 Bald Eag le Nest Survey Rep ort, June 2011 Page 4 Two bald eagle nests, labeled as Nest 1 and Nest 2 for this stud y, were identified during this survey (Figure 1). The nests are located outside of the proj ect area . No eagle nests were observed within the project area . Nest 1 is located at approximately 57 .25281 North Latitude an d -153 .31617 West Longitude, within the Big Creek Drainage , approximately 4,317 f eet from the project area (Figure 2). At the time of survey the nest was active , with one adult eagle on the nest. The nest is located in a live cottonwood tree with a norm al bushy top . The tree is located on a braid bar of Big Creek . See Pictures 1 and 2. Picture 1. Nest 1 area view. Picture 2. Adult eagle is perched in Nest 1. Nest 2 is located at approximate ly 57.228082 North Latitude an d -153.31068 West Longitude , within the Lagoon Creek Drainage, approximately 1,67 6 from the project AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Bald Eagle Nest Survey Report, June 2011 PageS area {Figure 2). At the time of survey, the nest was active, wit h one adult eagle on the nest. The nest is located in a live cottonwood tree. Pictures of this nest are not available. Discussion According to the USFWS Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas and a Ju ne 2010 helicopter survey, no bald eagle nests are recorded within 1,500 feet of the proje ct area {Figure 2). The nests observed near the project area by Macintosh and Donald son in August 1996 may no longer be present. At the time of their survey {1996), three of the nests were abandoned with tall grass and fireweed growing in them. Nest 1 l I ~~ ~/ k ! ~/ / Figure 2. Nest Proximity to Project Area Nest 1 may be the previously recorded Nest #1 on Map #12214 of the USFWS Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas. Nest 2 is likely the previously recorded Nest# 5 on Map #12214 of the USFWS Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas. See Table 2 for a co mparison of the nest locations reported in the atlas with the locations documented in the June 2010 survey. Table 2. Comparison of Location Reported i n the Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas with June 2010 Survey. Source Drainage Name Latitude Longitude Nov 1987 Helicopter Survey Big Creek Map# 12214, Nest #1 57 .24729 -153 .29777 June 2010 Helicopter Survey Big Creek Nest 1 57 .25281 -153.31617 Nov 1987 Helicopter Survey Lagoon Creek Map# 12214, 57 .22904 -153.31317 Nest #5 June 2010 Helicopter Survey Lagoon Creek Nest 2 57 .22808 -153.31068 Conclusion AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Bald Eagle Nest Survey Report, June 2011 Page 6 Two nests were found approximately 4,300 feet and 1,900 feet away from the project area. The nests were active; adult eagles were observed on each nest at the time of the survey. These nests may have been previously observed and recorded. Other nests identified in past surveys were not observed during this survey. References AVEC's Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project FERC Project P-13272 Bald Eagle Nest Survey Report, June 2011 Page 7 Macintosh, R. and Donaldson, W. 1996. Bird Observations on a 9 August, 1996 Visit To The Proposed Site Of A Small Hydroelectric Development Near Old Harbor, Kodiak Island. Prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas. As viewed on June 2, 2010 at http:/ /164.159.151.40/private/alaskabaldeagles/viewer.htm