Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJurisdictional Delineation of Roripaugh Ranch 2/14/2001GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Regulatory Services February 14, 2001 Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development 470 E. Harrison Street Corona, California 92879-1314 ' SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Delineation of Roripaugh Ranch, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Ashby: This letter report summarizes our preliminary findings of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) ' and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction for the above -referenced property.' ' Roripaugh Ranch in the City of Temecula, Riverside County [Exhibit 1], is comprised of approximately 805 acres of active agricultural land and contains five blue -line drainages (as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map Bachelor Mountain, California [dated 1953 and photorevised in 1973]) [Exhibit 21. On July 22, 28 and 29, 1998, and August 24, 1998, regulatory specialists of Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) examined the project site to ' determine the limits of (1) Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and (2) CDFG jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. ' An additional off site delineation was performed on October 20, 1999 and November 5, 1999 that included drainage courses for the proposed alignment of Butterfield Stage Road. The road will extend perpindicular across a series of ridges and valleys from Roripaugh Ranch at the northern end of the alignment to Rancho California Road at the southern end. The delineation noted three ephemeral drainages off site associated with the proposed alignment. Enclosed is a 200 -scale map [Exhibit 31 which depicts the areas of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction. Photographs to document the topography, vegetative communities, and general widths of each of the waters are provided as Exhibit 4. Exhibit 5 depicts Corps and CDFG jurisdiction off site for the alignment of Butterfield Stage Road. Wetland data sheets are attached as Appendix A. ' This report presents our best effort at estimating the subject jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations and written policy and guidance from the regulatory agencies. Only the regulatory agencies can make a ti nal determination of jurisdictional boundaries. If a final jurisdictional determination is required, GLA can assist in ' getting written confirmation of jurisdictional boundaries from the agencies 23712 Birtcher Drive Lake Forest California 92630-1782 Telephone: (949) 837-0404 Facsimile: (949) 837-5834 11 1 1 1 I Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 2 Corps jurisdiction for the project totals approximately 10.0 acres, of which approximately 0.8 acre consists of jurisdictional wetlands. Impacts to Corps jurisdiction total 2.69 acres, of which 0.61 acre consists of jurisdictional wetlands. 1 CDFG jurisdiction for the project totals approximately 1 .2 acres, of which approximately 4.7 acres consist of vegetated riparian habitat. Impacts to CDFG jurisdiction total 3.00 acres, of which 0.83 acre consists of vegetated riparian habitat. I. METHODOLOGY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Prior to beginning the field delineation a 200 -scale color aerial photograph, a 200 -scale topographic base map of the property, and the previously cited USGS topographic map were examined to determine the locations of potential areas of Corps/CDFG jurisdiction. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Suspected wetland habitats on the site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Coms of Eneineers Wetland Delineation Manual'- (Wetland Manual). While in the field the jurisdictional area was recorded onto a 200 -scale color aerial photograph using visible landmarks. Other data were recorded onto wetland data sheets. To precisely determine on site jurisdiction, four separate field days were spent on the property to thoroughly accomplish the delineation of jurisdictional waters. Close inspection of the property was warranted due to the extensive ripping and tilling of the soil associated with ongoing agricultural activities which could disturb historical waters. We carefully inspected the site for small, potentially water -filled depressions and vernal pools that may not be easily recognized on the aerial photo. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the following soils as occurring in the general vicinity of the project site: Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (AtC2) & Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes (AtD2). These mapping units consist of an undifferentiated group of soils on top of convex terraces, on ridges, and in concave areas where dissected terraces and alluvial fans merge. These soils are mostly -used for dryland farming. - Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87-I, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. ' Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 3 ' Gullied land (GzG) consists of acid alluvium on older fans and terraces. It is frequently severely eroded and supports sparse annual grasses and forbs. tGreenfield Sandy Loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (GyC2). Soils of the Greenfield series occur on alluvial fans and terraces. These well -drained soils are developed in granitic alluvium and are used for dryland farming and pasture. Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (HcC). The Handford series consists of well - drained to somewhat excessively -drained soils on alluvial fans. These soils developed in granitic alluvium and are used for dryland pasture and grain production. Rough Broken Land (RuF) consists of alluvial materials that are remnants of old fans and terraces. These soils often support annual grasses and forbs. Terrace Escarpments (TeG) consist of variable alluvium developed on terraces. These soils may be used for pasture, but frequently support coastal sage scrub plants. Ramona Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (RaA), Ramona Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, ' eroded (RaB2), Ramona Sandy Loam 5 to 8 percent, eroded (RaC2), Ramona Sandy Loam 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (RaD2) & Ramona Sandy Loam, 15-25 percent slopes, severely eroded (RaE3). The Ramona series consists of well -drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces that are ' frequently used for dryland pasture and grain production. Ramona and Buren Loams 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded (RmE3) & Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded (RnE3). These sandy loam soils occupy convex, dissected old terraces, and are used for dryland pasture and citrus production. ' Riverwash (RsC) occurs on slopes of 0 to 8 percent in valley fills and on alluvial fans. These sandy, gravely, or cobbly areas lie in the channels of major streams and creeks. Drainage is ' variable. Tujunga Loamy Sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes (TvC). The Tujunga series consists of excessively -drained soils developed in granitic alluvium that are used for dryland pasture and grain production. This soil unit occurs on gentle to moderately sloping alluvial fans and floodplains. I 1 Mr. Richard Ashby ' Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 4 ' None of these soil units are identified as hydric in the SCS's publication, Hydric Soils of the United ' States.3 However, Riverwash (RsC) and Tujunga Loamy Sand (TvC) are listed in the local hydric soil list prepared by the SCS for western Riverside County.4 (The Tujunga unit is considered hydric only when it is associated with a specific landform, i.e., drainageways, of which the '. Riverwash soil unit is a major component.) According to the Riverside County report, the Riverwash soil unit may support hydric inclusions in ' floodplain channels if Hydric Criteria 2A and/or 4 are present: 2A: Somewhat poorly drained and have a frequently occurring water table at less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually more than two weeks) during the growing season. 4: Soils that are frequently f ooded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season. ' Also in the Riverside County report, the Tujunga Loamy Sand unit may support hydric inclusions when associated with drainageways containing Riverwash if Hydric Criteria 2A and/or 2B(1) are present: 2A: Somewhat poorly drained and have a frequently occurring ' water table at less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually more than two weeks) during the growing season. 2B(1): Poorly drained or very poorly drained and have: (1) a frequently occurring water table at less than 0.5'feet from the surface for a significant period (usually more than two weeks) ' during the growing season if textures are coarse sand, sand, or fine sand in all layers within 20 inches. i 3 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States, 3rd Edition, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. (In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.) USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Field Office Official List of Hydric Soil Map Units For Western Riverside Area, California, Soil Survey Area No.: CA679, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Davis, California. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 5 Prior to delineating the drainages at the site which could potentially contain these hydric units, we contacted Ken Oster, Soil Scientist, USDA Templeton Field Office, to discuss methodology. We also consulted the USDA's Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States to assure accuracy in our field determinations The USDA has prepared a regionally specific guide to aid in the identification and delineation of hydric soils in the field, including delineating sandy soils. Indicators listed by the USDA to identify hydric conditions in sandy substrates, such as sandy -bottomed stream channels and drainages, include Indicator S5 -Sandy Redox and Indicator S6 -Stripped Matrix: S5. Sandy Redox: A layer starting within 15 cm of the soil surface that is at least 10 cm thick, and has a matrix chroma 2 or less with 2% or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations as soft masses and/or pore linings. S6. Stripped Matrix: A layer starting within 15 cm of the soil surface in which iron/maganese oxides and/or organic matter have been stripped from the matrix exposing the primary base color of soil materials. The stripped areas and translocated oxides and/or organic matterform a diffuse splotchy pattern of two or more colors. The stripped zones are 10% or more of the volume; they are rounded and approximately I to 3 cm in diameter. These indicators were utilized during our analysis of soil test pits associated with hydrophytic vegetation in stream channels and along their banks in order to document the presence of Corps jurisdictional wetlands at the site. 5 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. July 1996. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils. ' Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 6 II. JURISDICTION A. U.S. Ariny Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined at 33 CFR Part 328 and includes (1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide), (2) all interstate waters and wetlands, (3) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or t destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce, (4) all impoundments of waters mentioned above, (5) all tributaries to waters mentioned above, (6) the territorial seas, and (7) all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above. In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non -tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e) as: ...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Wetlands are defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." 1n 1987 the Corps published a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. In 1989 the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation developed an updated methodology which was adopted by the Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and which replaced the 1987 Wetland Manual.6 The use of this 1989 manual was perceived by many to excessively increase the jurisdictional limits of wetlands. After several congressional hearings, EPA, Corps, SCS, and USFWS published proposed 1991 revisions to the 1989 manual.7 A few days afterwards, the 6 Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. Government Printing Office. 1991. Federal Register, "1989 Federal Manual for Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands; Proposed Revisions." August 14, 1991, Vol. 56, No. 157, pp 40446-40480. I Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 7 President signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1992 which, in effect, prohibits the use of the 1989 manual. Because the 1991 proposed revisions to the 1989 manual have not yet been adopted, the only remaining valid methodology is the 1987 Wetland Manual.8 The methodology set forth in the 1987 Wetland Manual generally requires that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the manual provides great detail in methodology and allows for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria: more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands9); soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and ' hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year. 10 I 1 1 1 B. California Department of Fish and Game Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake which supports fish or wildlife. CDFG defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has B This delineation was performed using, where appropriate, the 1987 Wetland Manual. It is unlikely that any actions will be taken on a revised wetland manual in the near future. If a new manual is adopted, it may be necessary to review our delineation to determine its compliance with any changes set forth - 9 Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.10). 10 For most of low-lying southern California, five percent of the growing season is equivalent to 18 days. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 8 supported riparian vegetation." CDFG's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs." CDFG jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based upon the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. CDFG Legal Advisor has prepared the following opinion: Natural waterways that have been subsequently modified and which have the potential to contain fish, aquatic insects and riparian vegetation will be treated like natural waterways... Artificial waterways that have acquired the physical attributes of natural stream courses and which have been viewed by the community as natural stream courses, should be treated by [CDFG] as natural waterways... Artificial waterways without the attributes of natural waterways should generally not be subject to Fish and Game Code provisions... Thus, CDFG jurisdictional limits closely mirror those of the Corps. Exceptions are CDFG's exclusion of isolated wetlands (those not associated with a river, stream, or lake), the addition of artificial stock ponds and irrigation ditches constructed on uplands, and the addition of riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the riparian area's federal wetland status. III. RESULTS A. Corps Jurisdiction Corps jurisdiction associated with Roripaugh Ranch totals approximately 10.0 acres of waters of the United States, of which 0.8 acre consists of wetlands within the OHWM. The boundaries of the waters of the United States are depicted on the enclosed map [Exhibits 3 and 5]. The Corps jurisdictional acreage for each drainage is discussed below. Thirty-eight Corps jurisdictional drainages occur within the Roripaugh Ranch project site and three additional drainages occur off site associated with the proposed alignment of Butterfield Stage Road. For the purpose of discussion, these drainages have been grouped into watersheds comprised of a main drainage channel which corresponds to one of the five blue -line streams depicted on the above-mentioned USGS quadrangle map. On our map, Drainages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 correspond to these blue -line streams [Exhibit 2, Vicinity Map]. On this map, Drainage 3 corresponds to Santa Gertrudis Creek; the remaining blue -line streams are unnamed. In addition, the three ephemeral Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 10 this drainage include eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), and black mustard (Brassica nigra) [Exhibit 4, Photo 11. Drainage 1 is an ephemeral stream since it supports only one small grove of elderberry shrubs and does not occupy a topographic position in the landscape to collect groundwater seepage. Ia. Tributary 1.1 Approximately 1,980 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributary 1.1. No. jurisdictional wetlands are associated with this stream course which drains steep slopes in the extreme northwestern comer of the property. Tributary 1.1, however, is an intermittent drainage that is densely vegetated with riparian vegetation consisting of willows and mule fat [Exhibit 4, Photo 2]. lb. Tributaries 1.2 and 1.3 Approximately 4,860 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 1.2 ' and 1.3. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these dry, ephemeral drainages. These shallow drainages support mostly ruderal vegetation, small patches of sparse coastal sage scrub, and Eucalyptus groves [Exhibit 4, Photo 3]. The OHWM of this, and other drainages in this area of the Ranch have been disturbed by ongoing agricultural tilling [Exhibit 5, Photo 4]. 1 lc. Tributaries 1.4 and 1.5 Approximately 2,440 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with these ephemeral drainages. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these dry deeply incised tributaries which drain southwest off the property. These drainages are vegetated ' with ruderal vegetation and coastal sage scrub [Exhibit 4, Photo 5]. 2. Drainage 2 ' Approximately 5,130 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 2. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with this dry, ephemeral drainage which lacks riparian ' vegetation. Drainage 2 is a northeast -southwest trending unnamed blue -line stream that is located in the northern portion of the project site. This broad, sandy drainage supports mostly ' coastal sage scrub and occasional groves of eucalyptus along its banks [Exhibit 4, Photo 6]. Most of the northern OHWM of Drainage 2 has been obliterated due to historical agricultural practices [Exhibit 4, Photo 7]. 1 1 F 1 1 1 k Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 9 drainages, Drainages 6, 7, and 8, located off site are mapped in Exhibit 5. In general, these drainages flow east to west across the site, and their tributaries drain historically farmed slopes and alluvial terraces. In many cases, these tributaries are permanently interrupted by discing or plowing, and only small remnant sections of their former drainage remains intact. One drainage (Drainage 5) is shown on the USGS map as a blue -line stream but is not jurisdictional due to these ongoing agricultural operations. Of the thirty-eight drainages on site and three drainages off site, only five of these, Drainage 1.1, Drainage 3 (Santa Gertrudis Creek), Drainage 3.1, Drainage 3.3, and Drainage 4, carry the frequency and duration of flows necessary to support hydrophytic vegetation within or along their banks. Therefore, these five streambeds are classified as "intermittent drainages" according to the definition published in the Federal Register. tt At Roripaugh Ranch, each of these intermittent steambeds occupies a topographic position in the landscape which collects groundwater seepage from the surrounding terrain, thereby supplementing seasonal storm flows as a source of water to support wetlands and riparian habitat. The remaining thirty-three jurisdictional streambeds located on site and the three jurisdictional drainages located off site meet the definition of an "ephemeral drainage" which is also provided in the Federal Register. These ephemeral drainages do not collect groundwater seepage from the surrounding terrain and they do not support hydrophytic vegetation. We carefully searched the property and we did not locate any vernal pools or other water -filled depressions with a basin morphology at Roripaugh Ranch. Also, we did not identify any species listed as obligate indicators of vernal pools in the Corps' Special Public Notice regarding venial pools.12 1. Drainage I Approximately 8,660 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with this dry, ephemeral drainage. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with this drainage. Drainage 1 is an east - west trending blue -line drainage located in the northwest portion of the project site. It runs through ruderal vegetation consisting of oat and brome grass (Avena sativa and Bromus sp.), and sparse coastal sage scrub comprised of buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Other species of exotic vegetation commonly found within I Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Proposal to Issue and Modify Nationwide. Permits. Federal Register: !uly I, 1998. 1' US Army Corps of Engineers. Los Angeles District. November 1997. Special Public Notice, Regional General Condition No. I - Venial Pool Notification. I Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development ' February 14, 2001 Page 11 ' 2a. Tributary 2.1 Approximately 1,900 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with this ephemeral drainage. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with "Tributary 2.1. Tributary 2.1 is a ' north -south trending, deeply incised drainage that runs through coastal sage scrub and tilled land before draining into Drainage 2. 2b. Tributaries 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 Approximately 2,440 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these ephemeral drainages. The OHWM of these drainages has been disturbed and/or removed by ongoing agricultural activities [Exhibit 4, Photo 8]. Those not impacted by agriculture support sparse coastal sage scrub and lack vegetated riparian habitat [Exhibit 4, Photo 91. 2c. Tributaries 2.7 and 2.8 Approximately 3,640 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with these ephemeral drainages. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with Tributaries 2.7 and 2.8. These dry, deeply incised drainages support coastal sage scrub [Exhibit 4, Photo 10]. This hilly area of the Ranch supports several non -jurisdictional gullies that lack evidence of an OHWM or other indicators of a streambed [Exhibit 4, Photo 11]. 3. Drainage 3 Approximately 214,218 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 3, of which 19,570 square feet consists of jurisdictional wetlands located within the OHWM. Drainage 3, Santa Gertrudis Creek, is a blue -line stream depicted on the above-mentioned USGS map. This intermittent, east -west trending drainage channels peak storm flows and collects groundwater seepage from the surrounding canyons. In general, Drainage 3 is vegetated mostly with ruderal exotic species including eucalyptus, tocalote, and black mustard, and/or sparse coastal sage scrub species throughout its length. Riparian scrub consisting of mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), black willow (Salix gooddingii), red willow (Salix laevigata), however, does become a major component of the vegetation in the northeast section of the property Soils associated with this drainage consist of the non -hydric Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam in the southwest section and the non -hydric Rough Broken Land and Arlington & Greenfield Fine Sandy Loam in the northeast section. The hydric Riverwash/Tujungasoil units occur in the central section of the drainage. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 12 In the southwestern section of its drainage, this blue -line stream supports a dry, but broad sandy streambed vegetated mostly with ruderal exotic species and does not support wetlands [Exhibit 4, Photos 12 & 13]. Along the center section of its stream course, between Tributaries 3.1 and 3.2, however, Drainage 3 supports occasional clumps of mule fat and willows along its banks and broad patches of Corps jurisdictional wetlands within the OHWM. Wetlands within the OHWM of Drainage 3 comprise approximately 19,570 square feet of Corps jurisdiction (0.45 acre) [Exhibit 4, Photos 14, 16, & 17], and are vegetated with heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) , downy monkey flower (Mimulus pilosus), mule fat, and red willow. The hydric soils associated with these in -channel wetlands are characterized by a splotchy soil profile as a result of the mobilization and/or translocation of organic material to below the sandy soil surface. These characteristics correspond to the USDA's hydric soil indicator S6 -Stripped Matrix and the Wetland Manual's organic streaking criteria. Photo 15 [Exhibit 4] shows a ped taken from the channel of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Data Point No. 11). This soil profile depicts a diffuse, splotchy pattern of low-chroma organic material located beneath the surface layer of sand. The Munsell color of the dark material is 10 YR 5/1 when moistened (see data sheets attached as Appendix A for additional details). Many of the stream -side terraces along Santa Gertrudis Creek are elevated one- to several feet above the channel and do not support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soil indicators. These terraces and other similar areas along the streambed support non -hydric clay loam soils with a Munsell color of 10 YR 4/3 when moistened. Photo 18 [Exhibit 41 depicts a non -wetland terrace dominated by weedy plants and non -hydric soils. The northeast section of Santa Gertrudis Creek drains steep canyon slopes vegetated with dense coastal sage scrub. The rocky to cobbly streambed supports dense riparian vegetation within and adjacent to the streambed [Exhibit 4, Photo 19]. The steeper slope of the stream and the shallow depth to bedrock precludes development of wetland soils in this area. 3a. Tributary 3.1 Approximately 24,230 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributary 3. 1, of which 17,780 square feet are jurisdictional wetlands. Tributary 3.1 is a north -south trending intermittent drainage that flows through sparse coastal sage scrub [Exhibit 4, Photo 201, but nevertheless, collects sufficient storm and groundwater seepage from surrounding hillsides to support wetland functions. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 13 These wetlands are dominated by willows, and developed as a result of a man-made impoundment which blocks drainage within the creek. Also, the wetland impoundment supports approximately 6,200 square feet of open water [Exhibit 4, Photo 21 ]. 3b. Tributaries 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 Approximately 7,930 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these dry, shallow to deeply incised drainages [Exhibit 4, Photos 22 & 231. These tributaries drain moderately steep slopes and support coastal sage scrub along their banks. Drainages 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 are ephemeral drainages. Drainage 3.3 is an intermittent drainage, however, which apparently collects peak storm runoff and supplemental groundwater seepage from the surrounding steep slopes to support hydrophytic vegetation. ' 4. Drainage 4 Approximately 61,188 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 4, of which 4,950 square feet are jurisdictional wetlands located within or immediately adjacent to the OHWM. Drainage 4 is a relatively broad, east -west trending blue line drainage located in the southern portion of the project site. Drainage 4 is an intermittent, sandy bottomed drainage that supports intermittent clumps of riparian vegetation consisting of mule fat, cocklebur, black willow, and red willow [Exhibit 4, Photos 24 & 25 ]. Soils associated with Drainage 4 consist of Ramona Sandy Loam and the Tujunga Loamy Sand along the western portion of the drainage. Greenfield Sandy Loam occupies the central and eastern sections of its drainage. Corps jurisdictional wetlands occur at the extreme western edge of property. Wetland vegetation consists mostly of mule fat and cocklebur. This wetland supports a silty clay loam inclusion characterized by a 5Y 3/1 Munsell color when moistened, and a 5Y 3/2 Munsell color with mottles towards the edge of the streambank. See the data sheets attached as Appendix A for additional details. The central portion of Drainage 4 is steeply incised and supports mostly ruderal vegetation along its banks [Exhibit 4, Photo 26]. 4a.,.,,- Tributaries 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 Approximately 18,880 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7. No jurisdictional wetlands are associated with these dry ephemeral drainages which support mostly ruderal vegetation or sparse coastal sage scrub Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 14 along their banks [Exhibit 4, Photos 27 & 28 ]. Most of these drainages are deeply incised, and agricultural activities have not severely disturbed their OHWM. 4b. Tributaries 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 Approximately 7,410 square feet of Corps jurisdiction are associated with these dry, ephemeral drainages which do not support jurisdictional wetlands [Exhibit 4, Photo 29]. The OHWM of these drainages have been altered and/or permanently interrupted, due to ongoing agricultural activities [Exhibit 4, Photo 30]. These drainages support mostly ruderal vegetation. ' S. Drainage 5 Drainage 5 is depicted as an unnamed blue -line stream on the above-mentioned USGS map. No Corps jurisdiction is associated with this drainage which has been permanently altered due to ongoing agricultural activities. At the time of our delineation, we did not find an OHWM nor did we find any other evidence of a streambed such as shelving [Exhibit 4, Photo 31]. 6. Drainages 6, 7, and 8 Approximately 1.6 acres of Corps jurisdiction, none of which consist of jurisdictional wetlands, is associated with Drainages 6, 7, and 8. Drainages 6, 7, and 8 are west -east trending ephemeral streams that are located off site south of the project site. These drainages support mostly coastal sage scrub and upland invasive grasses along their banks. Drainage 6 exhibits an OHWM ranging in size from 1 I to 15 feet wide, Drainage 7 exhibits an OHWM ranging in size from two to three feet wide, and Drainage 8 exhibits an OHWM ranging in size from one to three feet wide. B. CDFG Jurisdiction CDFG jurisdiction associated with the Roripaugh Ranch project totals approximately 13.2 acres and includes all areas within Corps jurisdiction. This total includes approximately 4.7 acres of vegetated riparian habitat and 306,549 square feet (8.5 acres) of open water and unvegetated streambed habitat. The boundaries of CDFG jurisdiction are depicted on the enclosed maps [Exhibits 3 and 51. At Roripaugh Ranch, most of the riparian vegetation is associated with the two primary blue -line streams that flow east to west across the site: Drainage 3 (Santa Gertrudis Creek) and Drainage 4. Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 15 Drainage 3. 1, which is a tributary to Santa Gertrudis Creek, and Drainages 1 and 1.1 support only relatively minor stretches of riparian habitat. The remaining drainages on site and off site drain historically farmed slopes and alluvial terraces currently dominated by non-native ruderal vegetation, sparse coastal sage scrub, or fallow soil. In many cases, these drainages have been disturbed by ongoing disking or plowing which has permanently altered the historic hydrologic regime necessary to support native riparian plants. Drainage 5, a former blue -line stream depicted in the above-mentioned USGS map, lacks a streambed and riparian vegetation due to historic and ongoing disking, and therefore, it is not considered jurisdictional in this report. 1. Drainage 1 Approximately 10,100 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with this drainage. Drainage 1 supports approximately 1,440 square feet of riparian vegetation consisting of elderberry scrub located on the banks of the streambed. The majority of this silty to sandy streambed is largely unvegetated and supports mostly ruderal species [Exhibit 4, Photo 1]. Ia. Tributary 1.1 Approximately 8,280 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with this dry drainage. Tributary 1.1 supports approximately 6,300 square feet of dense riparian vegetation consisting mostly of mule fat and small willows within the streambed and along its banks [Exhibit 4, Photo 2]. lb. Tributaries 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 Approximately 7,300 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with these tributaries. The limits of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical for these dry streambeds which do not support riparian vegetation [Exhibit 4, Photos 3 -51. 2. Drainage 2 Approximately 5,130 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 2. The limits of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical for this dry streambed which does not support riparian vegetation [Exhibit 4, Photo 6]. Most of the historic streambed in Drainage 2 has been disturbed/removed by tilling [Exhibit 4, Photo 7]. I 1 [1 1 L_J Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 16 2a. Tributary 2.1 Approximately 1,900 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributary 2.1. The limits of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical in this drainage. No riparian vegetation is associated with this dry streambed. 2b. Tributaries 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 Approximately 2,440 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. The limits of the Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical in these drainages. No riparian vegetation is associated with these dry streambeds [Exhibit 4, Photos 8 & 9]. 2c. Tributaries 2.7 and 2.8 Approximately 3,640 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 2.7 and 2.8. The limits of the Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical for these streambeds. No riparian vegetation is associated with these dry, deeply incised drainages [Exhibit 4, Photos 10 & 11]. 3. Drainage 3 Approximately 257,715 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 3 (Santa Gerturdis Creek). Drainage 3 supports approximately 103,984 square feet of riparian vegetation including riparian scrub consisting of mule fat, willows, and elderberry, and in -channel hydrophytes such as heliotrope and downy monkey flower [Exhibit 4, Photos 12 & 13]. Most of Drainage 3 is vegetated with ruderal exotic species including eucalyptus, tocalote, and black mustard, and/or with patches of coastal sage scrub. Riparian vegetation consisting of mule fat and willows and other hydrophytes are uncommon along the southwest and central sections of the drainage [Exhibit 4, Photos 14 - 17]. However, the northeast section of Santa Gertrudis Creek does support dense riparian vegetation within and along the streambed and dense coastal sage scrub along its steep canyon slopes [Exhibit 4, Photos 18 & 19]. 3a. Tributary 3.1 Approximately 24.230 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributary 3. 1, of which 17,780 square feet is vegetated riparian habitat and includes all areas within Corps jurisdiction. Tributary 3.1 flows through sparse coastal sage scrub [Exhibit 4, Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 17 ' Photo 20], but nevertheless, supports a man-made impoundment vegetated with willows ' [Exhibit 4, Photo 211. Approximately 6,200 square feet of open water habitat is associated with this impoundment., 3b. Tributaries 3.2,3.3,3.4, and 3.5 Approximately 7,930 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 3.2, ' 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. No riparian vegetation is associated with these dry, shallow to deeply incised drainages [Exhibit 4, Photos 22 & 231. These tributaries drain moderately steep slopes and mostly support sparse coastal sage scrub along their banks. ' 4. Drainage 4 ' Approximately 140,910 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Drainage 4, of which 79,722 square feet is vegetated riparian habitat, and includes all areas within Corps jurisdiction. Drainage 4 is an intermittent, sandy bottomed drainage that supports riparian vegetation consisting of mule fat, cocklebur, and willows mostly along the extreme east and western sections of its drainage [Exhibit 4, Photos 24 & 25 ]. The central portion, however, is steeply incised and supports mostly ruderal vegetation along its banks [Exhibit 4, Photo 26]. ' 4a. Tributaries 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 ' Approximately 18,880 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Tributaries 4.1, 42, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7. Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical in these drainages which do not support riparian vegetation. Most of these drainages are deeply ' incised and support mostly ruderal vegetation or sparse coastal sage scrub along their banks [Exhibit 4, Photos 27 & 28 ]. 4b. Tributaries 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 ' Approximately 7,410 square feet of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with these dry drainages which do not support riparian vegetation [Exhibit 4, Photo 29]. Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical in these drainages. Many of these streambeds have been ' altered due to ongoing agricultural activities [Exhibit 4, Photo 301 and support mostly ruderal vegetation. [1 Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 18 ' 5. Drainage 5 Drainage 5 is depicted as an unnamed blueline stream on the above-mentioned USGS map. No CDFG jurisdiction is associated with this drainage which has been permanently altered due to ongoing agricultural activities. At the time of our delineation, we did not find any evidence of a defined streambed [Exhibit 4, Photo 31]. ' 6. Drainages 6, 7, and 8 Approximately 1.6 acres of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Drainages 6, 7, and 8. The limits of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction are identical for these dry streambeds which do not support riparian vegetation (Exhibit 5). ' IV. DISCUSSION A. Impact Analysis 1. Corps Jurisdiction The project, as proposed, will impact 2.69 acres of Corps jurisdiction, of which 0.61 acre consists ' of jurisdictional wetlands. Most of the tributaries to Drainages One through Five will be impacted as part of the project. A majority of Drainages 3 and 4, intermittent drainages supporting riparian habitat, will be preserved to the extent practicable on site. Drainages 1, 2, 6, ' and 7 will be filled as a result of project impacts. Drainage 5 is a non jurisdictional drainage and was not figured into total impacts to Corps jurisdiction. ' 2. CDFG Jurisdiction The project, as proposed, will impact 3.00 acres of CDFG jurisdiction, of which 0.83 acre consists of vegetated riparian habitat. Most of the tributaries to Drainages One through Five will be impacted as part of the project. A majority of Drainages 3 and 4, intermittent drainages ' supporting riparian habitat, will be preserved to the extent practicable on site. Drainages 1, 2, 6, and 7 will be filled as a result of project impacts. Drainage 5 is a non jurisdictional drainage and was not figured into total impacts on CDFG jurisdiction. [1 ' Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 19 ' B. Corps Re¢ulations and Procedures The discharge of dredged or fill material (temporarily or permanently) into waters of the United States requires prior authorization from the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water ' Act. Activities that usually involve a regulated discharge of dredged or fill materials include (but are not limited to) grading, placing of riprap for erosion control, pouring concrete, laying sod, preparing soil for planting (e.g., turning soil over, adding soil amendments 13 ), stockpiling excavated material, mechanized removal of vegetation, and driving of piles for certain types of structures. Activities that do not involve a regulated discharge (if performed in a manner to avoid discharges) include excavation, placing a structure, driving pilings (for transportation ' structures), clearing of vegetation using hand held equipment and working above the ground surface, pumping water, and walking or driving non -track vehicles. ' Federal law recognizes wetlands and other waters of the United States as valuable natural resources. Therefore, federal agencies, principally the Corps, USFWS, and EPA strongly discourage activities within federal jurisdiction that alter aquatic habitats. In addition, Corps policy, derived from the National Environmental Policy Act, prohibits "piece-mealing," the submission of separate permit applications for discharges which are reasonably related to the same project. 1. Individual Permits tIf a proposed discharge is not authorized by one or more NWPs, an individual permit will be required. The average processing time for an individual Section 404 permit in the Los Angeles ' District Corps generally ranges between 120 days and one year, but, for complex projects, has been known to exceed three years. This processing time does not include the time necessary to prepare the application for submittal or hold pre -application meetings with the agencies. ' a. Pre -application Meeting ' The prospective 404 permit applicant may request a meeting with the Corps prior to submitting an application. These meetings are generally intended for large or controversial projects. The meeting may be held with the Corps alone or with a group of agencies that ultimately will be involved in the 404 permitting process, including the USFWS, EPA, and CDFG. The meeting may be held in the offices of one of the agencies or at the site of the proposed work. 1 i3 Similar planting activities associated with ongoing farming operations may be exempt frpm regulation by Section ' 404 of the Clean Water Act. I 1 �J 11 I Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 20 As these pre -application meetings are generally held only for large and controversial projects, they pose the possibility of drawing unwanted attention to the project. Nevertheless, these meetings can be helpful because the applicant can gain early understanding of agency concerns and philosophy prior to submitting the permit application and can then respond by means of plan revisions or incorporated mitigation. A flexible applicant, willing to consider agency concerns in advance, may be able to significantly shorten the formal permitting process through a strategically coordinated response to all agency concerns. Interagency coordination should be initiated as soon as possible after the project design and mitigation design have been finalized. Nevertheless, it is important that the project and mitigation be presented to the agencies in such a way that the agency representatives feel that they have the opportunity to provide input. ' b. Application Corps regulations dictate the minimum information necessary to constitute a complete application. This information is fairly general; the applicant is not required to provide detailed engineering plans. The application must address the entire project including all planned phases. ' Federal law prohibits "piece-mealing" a large project in an attempt to derive regulatory relief through giving the appearance of several small, unrelated projects, each with relatively minor impacts. 1 1 The Corps is interested primarily in how much fill will be placed, where it will be placed, how it will be placed, and why it will be placed. Not required by regulation, but strongly recommended to any applicant wanting to avoid delays, is a mitigation plan addressing any impacts to habitat that might occur as a result of the proposed work. Such mitigation will be required prior to issuance of a permit, therefore, presenting a reasonable mitigation plan up front is an opportunity to show good faith. c. Public Notice Upon receipt of a complete application, the Corps will publish a public notice (including drawings) for distribution to interested parties (including federal, state, and local agencies, and local news media). The public is given the opportunity to provide written comments to the Corps during the public comment period (usually 30 days). At the end of the comment period, the applicant is sent all comments received. The Corps does not consider the response to the public notice as a "vote" of the public for or against the issuance of a permit; however, issues raised by the commenters must be addressed. I Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 21 d. Decision Document After receipt of the response to comments (if any), the Corps should be ready to prepare a multi- purpose document consisting of an environmental assessment (EA), a public interest review, and a 404(b)(1) evaluation (alternatives analysis). The applicant is often asked to provide most of the information that makes up this document. By providing that information in the format of the document itself, the applicant can help shorten the permitting process. rThe issuance of a Section 404 permit is considered a major federal action and thus requires an environmental evaluation pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As ' required by this act, the Corps prepares an EA addressing the entire proposed project, (not just the part within Corps jurisdiction). The conclusion of this EA must be either that the proposed project does or does not pose significant impacts to the human environment. If the conclusion is that the project does not pose significant impacts, then the Corps may go onto the next step (the public interest review), otherwise the Corps must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS is a thorough examination of the proposed project and alternatives, and takes 18 to 24 months to prepare and process. During this time the public is provided opportunity for input and review. As in the case of the multi-purpose environmental document, the applicant is often asked to provide most of the information that makes up the EIS. In its public interest review, the Corps is required by regulation to consider whether or not the proposed project is in the public interest. 14Thedecision to issue a permit will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments (including cumulative effects). EPA regulations require the Corps to evaluate 404 permit decisions according to certain ' guidelines set forth in Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Two components of the 404(b)(1) guidelines cause difficulties for many projects, the "least damaging alternative" and "water dependency" components. The first of these components requires that the Corps issue a Section 404 permit only for the project alternative that is least damaging to special aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands) that also accomplishes the basic project objective. The second ' 1' Among those aspects of the human environment to be considered in the public interest review are the probable impacts of the proposed project on conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. ri I ' Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 22 component requires the Corps to presume that if the proposed project is not water dependent, a less damaging alternative (e.g., an upland site) exists. In the past a non -water dependent project which mitigated for damaged habitats at a greater than one-to-one ratio was seen to be the least damaging alternative (the proposed project would increase the amount of special aquatic habitat). ' This practice effectively allowed the Corps to circumvent the water -dependency requirement of the Guidelines. However, the November 15, 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and the Corps'5 requires the Corps when considering individual permit applications (not NWPs) to "first make a determination that potential impacts have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable." Thus, the MOA specifies that the Corps cannot consider mitigation as part of the project when determining the least environmentally damaging alternative. B. CDFG Regulations and Procedures 1 Unlike the Corps, CDFG regulates not only the discharge of dredged or fill material, but all activities that alter streams and lakes and their associated habitat. CDFG has no abbreviated permitting process comparable to the Corps nationwide permits. A CDFG 1601/1603 Agreement is required for all activities resulting in impacts to streambeds and their associated riparian habitats. A 1601/1603 notification (application) will not be accepted by the CDFG until after an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration has been certified. CDFG generally requires that any impacts to streambeds and adjacent riparian habitats be fully mitigated. To ' ensure rapid and favorable action on a 1601/1603 notification, a mitigation plan should be submitted with the notification package. It normally takes 30 days for the CDFG to process a 1601/1603 notification. C. Potential Mitigation If the division engineer takes discretionary authority and requires an individual permit, or if authorization is sought under a NWP requiring case-by-case approval by the Corps through the pre -discharge notification process, or if the proposed work does not qualify for authorization by NWP, then the Corps (and the state and federal resource agencies) will likely require mitigation for the impacted wetland/riparian habitat. 15 "Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Conceming the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(6)( I ) Guidelines," dated November 15, 1989 ' Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 23 ' Unlike the Corps, the CDFG will likely require mitigation for all impacts to streambeds and their ' associated riparian habitats resulting from any aspect of the proposed project, regardless of Corps requirements or extent of impacts. ' Mitigation can take several forms. It can consist of (1) avoidance of impacts, (2) reduction of impacts, or (3) compensation for impacts. 16 The first two types of mitigation (avoidance or reduction of impacts) are much preferred by the agencies and should be investigated to the maximum extent possible. In cases where impacts cannot be avoided or significantly reduced, compensation must be considered. The contribution of money or the purchase of existing wetlands is almost never considered by the agencies (this was once a more common practice, but has not been accepted by any of the agencies for several years). Compensation is the creation of habitat to replace similar habitat unavoidably eliminated at a different location. In order to be accepted, the concerned agencies must be convinced that the proposed compensation will totally mitigate for the lost habitat. Because the creation of habitat requires time (usually several years) there is a temporal loss of habitat unless the mitigation is performed several years in advance of the removal of the existing habitat. As a result, the agencies often require compensation at a ratio of greater than one-to-one. Our experience with ' NWP number 39 is that habitat replacement is usually required at a ratio of between 1.5:1 and 2:1; however, a ratio of 3:1 is not unheard of for the loss of high quality wetlands. ' If performed on the project site or immediately adjacent to the project site, the mitigation is said to be "on site." If no mitigation opportunities are available at or adjacent to the project site, 'off site" mitigation may be considered. Generally, as the distance between the project and mitigation sites increases, the value of the mitigation (as determined by the agencies) decreases. In addition, if the mitigation is too far off site, disputes may arise between local governing bodies in which one local government refuses to allow mitigation within its boundaries for a project ' outside its boundaries. Compensation does not have to take place on property owned by the developer. 16 The November 15, 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps and EPA directed the Corps to ' require that impacts to waters of the United States be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Although the MOA was intended to apply to individual permits only, recent experience with Corps permit managers has indicated that they are requiring prospective nationwide permittees to document that discharges into waters of the United ' States e1nnot be avoided and that there are no available upland alternatives. L] Mr. Richard Ashby Ashby Development February 14, 2001 Page 24 Please find attached: (1) Regional Map [Exhibit 1]; (2) Vicinity Map [Exhibit 2]; (3) Jurisdictional Delineation Map [Exhibit 31; (4) Site Photographs [Exhibit 41; (5) Off Site Delineation Map [Exhibit 5]; and (6) Data Sheets [Appendix A]. If you have any questions about this letter report, please contact either Martin Rasnick or Darlene Shelley at (949) 837-0404. Sincerely, GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Martin A. Rasnick Regulatory Specialist 5:0163-40c.rpt x .1 1 1 1 b 1 m x .1 1 1 1 b 1 = = m m m m m w = m m = m =I= MIM m = CD CL 0 3 c cn 0 U) cn tL 0 c Ill CL m cl) GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT F Chester op 51.Wa� Di U wio -I Ni IN '3 t� I ............. .......... a"g, a n I A '-J 260 kA indn!lll K h( PROJECT '4U_ L SAenc rtt., L I/ Wind liiiiiii s6l ON it :R, hRive91 —( 29.53 GQATA J L PEC - A A _LN Aitl Ell Q 4V 7, ff 7;�, le b A 'I oml�s -F� , WILD, S" rLE)IL�12XNID NAT-11'NINR Ft > FAUMA , z i., W I, %, 'S�m lo J I _ .—INDIA N GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT lJ 1 r ��w�• \(il�i'ir Adapted from USGS Bachelor Mountain Quadrangle ' 1000 2000 3000 NORTH FEET U) N W Qm U x O w cn Q cn 0 Y J z z W /J V m x w I 1 1 1 1 1 C LJ [1 1 1 I 1 1 r I m x N� �vr. Photo 1 View of Drainage 1 looking south-west The channel bottom is sandy and unvegetated while the adjacent banks support sparse coastal sage scrub and Eucalyptus �. I** mai ..� ev S Ir *it tl• Yj,`,1{r^- 1�T � V' r � Photo 2 View of Tributary 1 1 looking north. This dry sandy bottom tributary is thickly vegetated with mule fat and willow!- GLENN illows Photo 3. View of Tributary 1.3, looking west. This portion of the OHWM of this tributary has been interrupted by agricultural activities. The tributary is vegetated with eucalyptus and ruderal vegetation. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 Photo 4 View of a non jurisdictional erosional feature associated with ongoing agricultural activities w a. J0 1 Photo 5 View looking north at Tributary 1 4 This narrowly incised streambed ' flows south through sparse coastal sage scrub. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 f M r M M M M iM M M M M M M M a a alp M .1 Photo 6. View looking south-west at Drainage 2. The banks of this broad sandy bottomed drainage is vegetated with coastal sage scrub. { .. 1 r -�,�,•,�. "� - � Yet r Photo 7. View looking north-east at Drainage 2 The northern section of the OHWM of this drainage has been interrupted by ongoing agricultural activities. Photo 8. View looking north-west at a non jurisdictional feature. The area has been disturbed by agricultural activities. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 ®® ii iw Iii m m ON r m r m r mm m m m r v Photo 9. View looking east at Tributary 2.5. The banks of this dry narrow drainage are vegetated with coastal sage scrub. FIamM1y - ( Photo 10. View looking south at Tributary 2.7 This deeply incised drainage cuts through dense coastal sage scrub. ' M Photo 11. View looking south at a non jurisdictional gully vegetated with coastal sage scrub. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r M M Photo 15 Profile of sandy hydric soils at test pit 11 within the OHWM of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Arrows point to splotchy areas of translocated organics, Munsell color 10 YR 5/1 when moistened Photo 16 View of a wetland within the OHWM of Santa Gertrudis Creek GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 r Photo 17 View looking upstream at a wetland with in the OHWM of Santa Gertrudis Creek The vegetation is comprised of heliotrope, mulefat, red willow, and downy monkey flower Photo 18 View of the terrace adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek. The creek bank supports upland weeds consisting of black mustard, telegraph weed and tree tobacco Photo 19 View looking at the northeast portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek. This rocky bottomed streambed is heavily vegetated with mule fat. The steep nature of this section of the streambed deters the development of hydric soils in this area. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 .40 Photo 20. View looking north at the downstream portion of the drainage in Tributary 3.1 This dry, narrow section of the drainage is vegetated with buckwheat, tarragon, white sage, black mustard and red brome Photo 21. View looking north at the wetland area of Tributary 3.1. This broad basin is thickly vegetated with large willows GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 w Photo 22 View looking south at Tributary 3.2 This wide sandy -bottomed drainage drains south to its confluence with Santa Gertrudis Creek. pi Photo 23 View looking northwest at Tributary 3.4 The confluence of this drainage with Santa Gertrudis Creek is disturbed by agricultural activities. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 ®ii i� iii ®� i■l ���� a a a a a a a a a Photo 24. View looking the western most portion of Drainage 4. A wetland vegetated with mule fat, rumex, cocklebur and black mustard is present. Photo 25. View looking east at Drainage 4. This drainage is wide and sandy -bottomed. Photo 26. View looking west at Drainage 4 adjacent to the confluence of Tributary 4.3. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 N w Y Photo 27. View looking west at Tributary 4.7. This dry, deeply incised drainage cuts through ruderal vegetation southwest toward its confluence with Drainage 4. Photo 28. View looking south at tributary 4.3. This tributary is narrow and is not disturbed by agricultural activities due to steep slopes. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 M M M mom MM M M M M M M M M M M M M 10 r ;i. A. fit A Photo 29. View looking south at Tributary 4.8 The banks of this narrow, dry tributary support ruderal vegetation This tributary has been disturbed by agricultural activities. Photo 30. View looking south at Tributary 4.16. This narrow tributary drains ruderal vegetation and is disturbed by agricultural activities. Photo 31. This view of the southwest portion of Roripaugh Ranch demonstrates the current topography of the project site This former blue -line drainage is no longer evident due to current agricultural activity. GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 4 I �i I 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 k; 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 r x D F 1 I DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 11987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) PrcjecUSite: a c Date: Applicant/Owner: County: Investigator: q a %tri State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? N Transect 10: Z Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot 10: (If needed, explain on reverse.) Dominant Plant soecies Stra� Indicator ,. .l 1 0 L a. UH1! ✓l lS / Percent or Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW at FAC (secluding FAC -I. Ramarks: Oomfnant Planl SaeC.ee Stratum Indicator 9. s.. 10. 1I. t2. _Recorded Stream. Lake. at T -.da 11. 14. _ _ Aerial Photographs Other 15. 16. _ No Racard ed Oeu Avdl•hla J Data (Dascnb• in R•marksl: Wedand Hydrology Irldicators: _Recorded Stream. Lake. at T -.da Gauge Primary Indicators: _ _ Aerial Photographs Other Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Racard ed Oeu Avdl•hla Water Marks Oritt Lines _ _Sediment Deposits Field Observations: - —Drainage Patterns in Wetlands a Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Weer: 6n 1 — Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Waur-Stained L<avaa Soil Survey Data Depth to Free Water in Pit: A/ (in.) _Local _FAC-Nautral Test Other (Explain in Remarksl Depth to Saturated Soil:I�-4n-) — Ftamarka: l l G.)'�vH IHu �^sl �il� l J//Grip V % SOILS Map Unit Name (Saneand Phase): l 1 U r` Drainage Cass: Field Observedcns Taxonomy (Subgroup]: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes o Profile Descriotion: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches] Hariton {Munsell Moist) tMunys{�ell moist] Structure, etc. %AbuundanceXontrast clal Hydric Soil Indicators: Histasol _ Concretions _ Histic Epipodon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails _ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ _ Ulted on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions Usted on National Hydric Sails Us% _ Gleyed at Low-Chroms Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present) Y o (Circle) ,(Circle] Wedend Hydrology Present7 a Hydric Soils Present? e• No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YH No I Remarks-. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ligator: Date: _ County: State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? C.Ye� alCommunity ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YesTransect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10: (If needed, explain on reverse.) ATION nt ria t Soeues TStraruro Indicator Oomi..ant Plant Seeces Srvatur, Indicator 4 J /GG to. 14_ t1. 0 `. 12. 7 arcent of Dominant Species that are OeL. FACW or FAC (ascluding FAC -1, LOGY 4t— Recorded Data (Dascnbe in Remuksl: Stream- Lake, ar Tide Gauge Ik_ Aerid Photographs _ Other No Recorded Data Available p - old Observations: O It f opt a Surface Water (n.l Depth to Free Weser in pit: fin.) ' Depth to Saturated Sail- tin.) I I 6l Wedand Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators: _Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X Water Marks C_ Orin Lines Sediment Deposits _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water -S wined Leaves _ Local Soil Survey Onto _ FAC-Nautrai Tut _ Other (Explain in Ramarksl SOILS Mao Unic Nam. l5eies and Phesel: Oninag• Casa: Feld ODservsdons Confirm Mapped Tw•? yes No Profile Oslo"Tax[urs, Matrix Calor Mohs Colors Concretions, MONS stC. Oapth (Munsell Mostl �Munsall MaiaO ADundan� ^toast Swctu a mchaal Ho on 0� Y 5 _-- - �_� Hydric Soil Indicators _ Hia[osol _ Histic EOioadon _ Sultidic Odor _ ACuic Mcis[urs Rsgim• _ Reducing Conditions Gleyed at low -Chrome Colors Remarks: No Y dr. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytie Wgeution Pnsent7 Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: _ Concretions —High Organic Content in SuAacs layer in Sandy Soils _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils list _ Listed an National Hydtic Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) No lCirdal /V,v No es Is this Sempling Point WWun a Wetland? (Circle) DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Size: It%GIG/G7%1 �/p f, ApplicanVOwner. Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? {, Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION �r Dominant Plant Speaes Sveeum Indicator rA Portent o/ Dominant Species that art+ Del.. FACW or FAC (a xcluding FA-.). )'Remarks: S HYDROLOGY I,FR*cotdod Dau (Oascnbe in Remarks): _ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gouger_ Aerial Photographs othRecorded Dexo Available a. 5. 6. 7. i a Portent o/ Dominant Species that art+ Del.. FACW or FAC (a xcluding FA-.). )'Remarks: S HYDROLOGY I,FR*cotdod Dau (Oascnbe in Remarks): _ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gouger_ Aerial Photographs othRecorded Dexo Available l_ a'x Date: County- / State:— /'1 `les No , Community ID: Yes No Transect 10: Yes o Plot ID; �1 oo•ninant Plan, Seec•ex Stratum Indicator 9. 10. 1 t. 12. 13. 1 i U/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: _ Inundated Saturated in Upper I7. Inches 772�ester Marks _ Orin tines _ Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Pavans in Wetlands 54eandary Indicators (2 or mora rorluiradl: _ Osidiead Fact Channels in Upper 12 Inches -Wester-Stained Leevas _- Local Soil Survey Data FAC -Neutral Tut _ ()that (Explain in Ramarksl Feld Oburvedons: Depth of Surface Wetarl Depth to Free Weler in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil; l_ a'x Date: County- / State:— /'1 `les No , Community ID: Yes No Transect 10: Yes o Plot ID; �1 oo•ninant Plan, Seec•ex Stratum Indicator 9. 10. 1 t. 12. 13. 1 i U/ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: _ Inundated Saturated in Upper I7. Inches 772�ester Marks _ Orin tines _ Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Pavans in Wetlands 54eandary Indicators (2 or mora rorluiradl: _ Osidiead Fact Channels in Upper 12 Inches -Wester-Stained Leevas _- Local Soil Survey Data FAC -Neutral Tut _ ()that (Explain in Ramarksl SOILS Mao Unit Name (Seip and Phpel: Drainage pass: Field Obsarvedons Confirm fAaooed Type) Yes No profit.profit. O�no,,cn° MoN• Calors Motd• Textus, Concretions, Depth Matrix Color Structure ste inchp/l' Horizon 06.1L��t Mo tMu aaln Abund neo^traf Hydric Sail Indicators _ Histosot _ Histic Eoioedon _ Sulfidic Odor _AWic Moiiturs Regime _ Reducing Conditions _ Waved or Low•Chtoms Colors / yt ovj w"t YI A f Remarks: //--ff _ Concretions _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ listed an Local Hydric Soils List _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other tExplain in Remarks) sT,�>� c ii r7ND DETERMINATION hM eeo (Circle) c Vegetation PneanO aNod Hydrology Present) No Is [Itis SemolinaPointWithin • Wedard) Soils Present) Remarks-. No ' DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION r (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) i Project/Site: oCl T Applicant/Owner: r t' Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? . Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed. explain on reverse.) VFr.rTGTIr1N 7 i Date: 11c;Q7 County: "LVyS/40 State: CA ^i- 0 No Community 10: YesfC Transect 10: Yes ® Plot 10: Dominant Plant Soe 'es Strarury Indicator Oominant Plant Seecces Srraturn Indicator 2. C�cW 10. aCALi1 Fg,1R— HYDROLOGY } 4' t in e Worland Hydrology Indicators: Recorded Dots (Descnbe in Ramarkal: _ Stream. Lake. ar Title Gauge Primary indicators: _ Aortal Photographs Other �oRecorded Data Available Upper 11 Inches 9E� Sedirnent Dopesits Field Observations:_ _ Drainage Ponerns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: _Gn.1 SecoIndicators (2 at more required):. ndary _ Oxidized Hoot Channel$ in Upper 12 Inches _ , Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Wear in Pit: _ —Local Soil Survey Data _(n.) FAC•Noutral Test Depth to Sarursted Soil: _lino - _ Other (Explain in Remarksl Remarks: in e SOILS ^' ^ upit Nam• ;�" " , (Seiii?e11i';Msec. Drainage Cass: iT�^- _ _ •,-, -, - Field Observed, �_ Fed Taxonomy (Swbgwuol:"" - Confirm Mapped Type? Yet No Confirm + Profile Oescriotian: ' Matrix Color Motdo Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, Depth nchesl Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Mois[I AEundanu;Contras[ Structure, ate. Hydric Sail Indicator: _ Histaaol _ Concretions High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils _ Hiatic EDipedon Sulfidic Odor _ ,. organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moisture Rigrme7 . l , - rl+I'lltad on local Hydric Soils lis[ _ Reducing Conditions ir, ..:> ,� _Uited on National Hydric Soils list '&Gleyed or low -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) aem.rk>1: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? }}y+���yj���]]] No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Prsent7 No Hydric Soils Present] No asmarke: Me I r G u) ,,+'un - (Circle) 1a this Sampling Point Within a Welland? `© No DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION 0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: �� f liz)Crki �ccncl' Date: —71-Z 8 er Applicant/Owner: T 1 County: Investigator: State: DD Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Community 10: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect 10: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N Plot 10:_ (It needed, explain on reverse.) .t.f VEGETATION s. Oominant Plant soecief stratum Indicator 4.. LOLL 191JC? Dominant Plant S'.c'" stratum Indicator / 10. W 11. 12. 1]. 14. Pa.cent of Oominant species that ars OSL. FACW w FAC '' ll / (secluding FAC -1. _P UT __nQ�TY� AW IHYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Oucnbs in Rsmsrks): _ stream. Lake, or T.de Gauge _ A axial Photographs _ other f/ No Recorded Data Available_ Welland Hydrology Indicators: Pdnury Indicators: —Inundated —Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks �• 7Oritt Lines _ SedimenCDeposits Field Obsorverions: _ Drainage Penerns in Wetlands Sacondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of surface Water: •ET (n.) _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Wetu•Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: –ET fin.) _ _Local Soil Survey Oats FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated soil: Gn.) Other (Explain in Remarks) Ramarftr. ..... _ SOILS :, ;• :.. Map Uni[ Na^'e (S e:i.f end Phuel: - Orsioage Casa: Fdd Observations Confirm Mapped Typal Yat No P ofle O�esc_ i Motels Calors mottle Texture. Concretions. I Metria Color StrucN . tee Osatl+ lu�nssll Ma:att AO M ^ ineMll Noriton K dl Moiatl_ Hydric Soil Indictors: Concretions Histol � High Organic Content in Sudan Layer in Sandy Soils E Histic pipedon Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Sullidic Odor- (;j4d.on Local HYdric Soils list _ Aguic Moisture Regimef_ Ljatad on National Hydric Soils Uu Reducing Conditions Other (lsPlsin in Remarks) Waved or Law -Chrome Colors Remarks: Nvt Yap Ir/ WETLAND OETERMINATION Fon Present? No (Circle) s Present? ee ?`Vl Not Y (Circle) Is He Sampling Point Within a Wedand7 Yat (N n.. 1 1 1 1 1 ,> 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) 'F ect/Site: iI dv/c'licant/Owner.stigator:Normal Circumstances exist on the site? e site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? e area a potential Problem Area? If needed. explain on reverse.) ' vcI"LTA TIr'1N S> pa P" Date: County - State: Ye DNo Community ID: es Transect ID: N Yes Plot 10: ntunvt.0 gat I Recorded Data (Oescnbe in Remarks): Wedand Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge Prinury Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs —Inundated _ Other _ saturated in upper 12 Inches �r /410 Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks Drift Unca Sedirnen(OeOosits (Held Observations: _ — Drainage Panems in Wedands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Gn.) Oxidised Root Channels in upper 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water; _ Wafer -Stained Leaves Depth to Fr.L Wats, in Pit: Gn.) Soil Survey Data FAC-Noulral Test — Depth to Sacureted Soil; =Local (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks; . ■ 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophyrfc Vegetation Present ��Y..SS��la (Circle) (Circle) Welland Hydrology PrefenN Yes/ No Hydric Soils Present? ��jj• `®0 1• this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Cass. (Se:iaa and Phaaa): Feld Observations Field ^�!p` Confirm Mspped Type? Yes No Taxonomy (Subyroupl:. Profle Oaa<riotian: Depth r: Metrix Calor Mettle Colors - Mottle Textus. Cane»dens, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AbundanceXantreft Strumre, etc. 12 . �. it Hydric Sol Indicators: .. _ Histoaol _ concretions • r.. High Organic Can tent in Surface layer in Sandy dila ' _ Histic Epipdon _ Orgastic Streaking in Sandy Sails _ Sulfidic Odor _ Ueted an local Hydric Soils List Auric Moisture Regime —Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gley^ed or law -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophyrfc Vegetation Present ��Y..SS��la (Circle) (Circle) Welland Hydrology PrefenN Yes/ No Hydric Soils Present? ��jj• `®0 1• this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: pp Icant/Owner' ` Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N (If needed, explain on reverse.) J �rrnr-T I, TI/1111 r - Oominant Ptant Soecies Straw, Indicator Wedand Hydrology Indicators: Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks): Strum. Lake, or Trda Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs —inundated 3. —Saturated in Upper 12 Inches a. LnY17= ale S. .. /Y r 6. ,,2 Deposits 7. IT- (Sediment Portuns in Wetlands Field Observations:_Drainage A Date: _ County: State: Community 10: Transect 10: Plot 10: Oaminant Plan' Scenes Stratum Indicator 9. ' ;Cl 10. Y 11. 12. 11. 14. 1S.__ Portant of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW at FAC 2 (excluding FAC -1. Remarks: SG' 1 X d 4f Wedand Hydrology Indicators: Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks): Strum. Lake, or Trda Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs —inundated _ Other —Saturated in Upper 12 Inches �// _ No Recorded Data Avaibble —Water Marks Drift Linea ,,2 Deposits (Sediment Portuns in Wetlands Field Observations:_Drainage Secondary Indicators (2 or more repuiradl: tt Cn.) Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water: _Oxidised Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: fin.) _ _ Local Sall Sarvey Dau FAC-Nautral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) _ _ Other (Explain in Remarksl Remarks: , SOIL5 Map Unit Name Oreinap• Casa: - (Saies end Phaael: Feld Observations - Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Taxonomy (Subgroupl: ProfileprofiA p�otion0^: Matrix Color Maids Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, O'pth inahe'1 Raritan (Munsell Moist) tMunsell M/a'ivi AbundancelCantrast Struemre. etc. Hydric Soil Indicator': , _ Histasol - _ Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sols _ Hiatic Epipadon _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ on National Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _listed Other (Explain in Remarks) Low Chrcme Colors _ �tGbYedL,or Remark': WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye Circles (Circle)- Weiland Hydrology Pnsenp / No Hydric Saila P logy P e• rNo J is this Sempling Point Within a Wedand7 Yes No Remarks: N Ale -r(G rl Ci' ' DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ' Project/Site: 100Y�l Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? Nd (if needed, explain on reverse.) �21/'j�a f r• VEGETATION e^c r - 7. S Y 6. 7. Patent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC -I. Remarks: tel_ k uynanl nny Date: Coun State State: Community ID: Rc Transect ID: -i N Plot ID: _ Dominant Pians Scenes Stratum Indicator 1 Sc Recorded Oats (Odic -be in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream, Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicator[ _ Aerial Photographs Inundated Other _ saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ Z/t4p Recorded Oats Available _ Water Marks Drift Lines _ _ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secotsdrary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water- (n.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches -Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: fin.) _Local Soil Survey Oats - _ FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Seias and Phase): Orsinage Cass: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroupl: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No i Profile Oescriotian: Oapth Matrix Color More Colors ' Mottle Texture. Concretions. mchesl Ha.iron (Munsell Moistt tMunsell Moist) AburWanee:Contrest S[Naure. etc. Z r$:sol _Concretions High Organic Content in Sucfaee Layer in Sandy Sols c Epipedon _ ic Odor Orgutic Streaking in Sandy Soils c Moisture Regime r _ listed an Local Hydric Soils List cing Conditions listed on National Hydric Soils List ed ar Low -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) r-rrnuu� w T[AIJ Hydrophyric Vegetation Present? you I o (Circle) (Circ:No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Y�e,(s� M Is this Sampling Point Within a Weiland? Ya s Remarks: 9 ' DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse.) ' VEGETATION Date: County State: N Community IDjc Yes /R0 Transect 10: Ye f� Plot ID: Opminant Plam Species Stratum Indiparor Oominem Plan, Scec.es Stratum Indicator Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks):Wattend _ Stream. late, or Tide Gaug• Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs 2. _ Other 10. 3 _ ZNo Recorded Data Available 11. A. 12. 5. 13. /_ Sediment Deposits 6. Feld Obsarvetions:r 14. 7. 15. S. Depth of Surface Weer: 16. Percent of Oominant Species that are 09L. FACW or FAC [/ (excluding FAC -I. Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: Remarks: _ _Local Soil Survey Data HYDROLOGY ■ ■ ■ ■ Hydrology lndiutcrs: Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks):Wattend _ Stream. late, or Tide Gaug• Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs —Inundated _ Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ ZNo Recorded Data Available Water Marks rah linea /_ Sediment Deposits Feld Obsarvetions:r _ Drainage Pattens in Wetlands SeconT, y Indicators (2 or more requiredl: Depth of Surface Weer: Con.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: fin.) _ _Local Soil Survey Data FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: Gn.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks:. fl�r.C�nn" -rte ST�t'ClIJ,{/ (�-J SOILS Map Unit Name (Sense and Phase): Drainage Casa: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yee No Profit 0ssc-110- Depth Matrix Calor Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches, Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) ADundancefContrast Strveture. ste. Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histasol _ Concretions _ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Lays r in Sandy Sails _ Sulfidic Odor _ organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aduic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gloyad at Low -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: /* WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? wed Hydrology Presend Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: wl�-r Q No (Cir4el No •• o ' Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes i Approved y H U 1 0 j DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) I Project/Site: !l0/!,�i►r� /�(�/%�% ' Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed. explain on reverse.) VEGETATION IDate: County: State: r o ydsBN I Community ID: `l Yes Transect 10: Yes Plot ID: IC ' Dom ant Plan( Soeerea Stretnm Indicaror Dominant Plant Sc<ael stratum Indicator �I Ny 1 f. I� a ice: ;'lti 9. a .. ki 1 10 Worland Hydtology Indicatots: _ Stream. Lake. or Ttda Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs Inundated a7. _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ �No Recorded Oat& Available Water Marks 13. rih Lines _ Sediment Deposits Retd Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands is. ,. Ss2andary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of surface Weter: .— (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches i Patcant of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC ("on.) _Local Sail Survey Date (excluding FAC-). — Depth to Saturated Sail: (i^•) _ Other (Explain in Ramarks) Remark,: Remarks: i 1 HYDROLOGY 1 Recorded Data fDascnba in Ramarksl: Worland Hydtology Indicatots: _ Stream. Lake. or Ttda Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs Inundated _ Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ �No Recorded Oat& Available Water Marks rih Lines _ Sediment Deposits Retd Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands ,. Ss2andary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of surface Weter: .— (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Watar-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: ("on.) _Local Sail Survey Date FAC-Nautral Test Depth to Saturated Sail: (i^•) _ Other (Explain in Ramarks) Remark,: _.. � (TY?& -,7 &� r`iT'M all WETLAND DETERMINATION HVdfoph'tic Vegetation Present? Yee ® (Circle) (Circle) Wedand Hydrology Prosent7 a No Hydric Soils Pneent7 Yes 0 1 Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yeo Remarks: a Map Unit Name (Shies and Phase): Drainage Cass: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type2 Yes No r Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colon Mottle Texture. Concretions, Horizon (Munsell Monist( (Munsell AbundanceXantrast Str etc. Tinchasl /M�o/i'atl Ieture, Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions _ _ Histic Epipadon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails _ Awic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed or La. -Chrome Colon _ Other (Explain in Remarks) u %,/ Remarks: y t / WETLAND DETERMINATION HVdfoph'tic Vegetation Present? Yee ® (Circle) (Circle) Wedand Hydrology Prosent7 a No Hydric Soils Pneent7 Yes 0 1 Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yeo Remarks: a ' DATA FORM Raid Observations: ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Depth of Surface Water: (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) c( ' �7 Date: /Site: County:gator:State:rmal rApplicant/Owner: Circumstances exist an the site? Y No Transect I0: R, Community 10: yUs=flf e site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o i e area a potential Problem Area? Yes N Plot 10: needed explain on reverse.) CGETATION Dominant Ptant Soeaes Strewn, Indicator Oam•nont plant See<•es Screw, Indicator 10. 11. 3 12. a. 13. 5 14, 6. 7 15. ti. 16. l Portant or Dominant Species that are OIIL, FACW or FAC GJ (excluding FAC -1. Remarks: 1 M HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Dascnbe in Remarksl: Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge —Aerial Photographs Other ✓No Recorded Oats Available m A/e1- Wetland HydrolaQy Indicatan: Primary Indicators: _ Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches aur Ma ks Onh Liras Wirnant Deposits S A _ rainage Patterns in Wedands Secondary Indicators (2 or more requiredl: _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Lcayss _Local Sail Sarvey Data _ FAC-Nautral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Raid Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: /Q�f f /r m A/e1- Wetland HydrolaQy Indicatan: Primary Indicators: _ Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches aur Ma ks Onh Liras Wirnant Deposits S A _ rainage Patterns in Wedands Secondary Indicators (2 or more requiredl: _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Lcayss _Local Sail Sarvey Data _ FAC-Nautral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) (in.) (in.) m A/e1- Wetland HydrolaQy Indicatan: Primary Indicators: _ Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches aur Ma ks Onh Liras Wirnant Deposits S A _ rainage Patterns in Wedands Secondary Indicators (2 or more requiredl: _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water -Stained Lcayss _Local Sail Sarvey Data _ FAC-Nautral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) cniLS Moo Unit Name (Sexes and Phase): Drainage Cass: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgrouo): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Oesc iotien: ' Dopth Matrix Color Mortle Colors Moftl• Texture. Concretions, Cinches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AbundanceXontrast Structure. em. Hydric Soil Indicators•. Histosol Concretions _ Histic Epioodon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails _ Sulfidic Odor rgsnic Streaking in Sandy Sails ACuic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Sails List _ ReducingConditions _ Listed on National Hydric Sails List Gleyed or low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION HydrophYtic Vegetation Present? •• No (Circle) Wedand Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? • No Is this Sampling Point Within a Welland? Remarks: r S a [�✓ _l �/ S I�,l �D r No DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Size: /IG Date: � Applicant/Owner: I County: Investigator: a State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? SCS/ No Community Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o Transect IO: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: (If needed, explain an reverse.) Sidirnent Deposits VEGETATION Dominant Plant Soecies ]. 4. S. 6. 7. Stratum Indicator Oaminem Plant scec.es Stratum Indicator Primary Indicators: I1. 12. 13. 14. 15. 9. 16. Sidirnent Deposits Patcent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). _Drainage Patterns in Wenands Remarks: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of surface Water: (in.l NYrlROI Or.Y Recorded Data (Dascnbe in Remarks): Worland Hydrology Indicawn: _ strum. Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs _ Inundated _ Other saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ Recorded Oats Available etas Marks Orih l no Sidirnent Deposits Field Oburvatiom: _Drainage Patterns in Wenands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of surface Water: (in.l _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches -Water-Stained Lesves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (n.) —Local soil Survey Data FAC•Nautral Test Depth to saturated soil: 4n.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks. - Map Unit Name (Saris and Phase): Drainage Cass: - Field Obssnsdons Taxonomy (Subgrouol: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profit Oee crioti on: Depth Matrix Color Mord• Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions. rnchesl Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl AbundancalCentravt Structure, etc. Hydric Sail Indicators: Histosol Concretions _ Hiszic Epipedon _ —High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails _ Sulfidie Odor organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ _.Listed an Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ _ Greyed or Low -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevent?No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 'No Hydric Soils Present? Yes (: Remarks: /)/G, (Circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? Yes DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: KPI 1//L%N 61/7 L'a/1C/�_ Date: d",47 "'7Y Applicant/Owner: ���� County: Investigator: State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the sit e? N Community 10: S Qll/i Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect 10: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N Plot 10: (If needed. explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Ptsnt Soeeiet Stratum Indicator _ T � 2. 1. ? �_a r Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). a Remarks: %4Vr)Pf11 r)r.V Dominant Plan. Scec.es Scrarum Indicator I Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarksl: Wedand Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream. Lake. or Trde Gauge Prinury Indicators: _ Photographs _ Inundated —Aerial Other - -saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Oats Available afar Marks _ rih Line Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _ Orainaga Panons in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Wats(: fin.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) —Water _Local Soil SurveY Date FAC -Neutral Tut Depth to Saturated Soil: - fin.) Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: �C� snit s Map Unit Name (Sa:ies and Phase).• Drainage C.ass: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Calors Magda Texture. Cancratic". incheel Horizon (Munsell Moistl IMunseil Moistl Abundanc/e:Contraft Structure, etc. ,/ Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol _ Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails _ Sulfidlc Odor 7[Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails Apuic Moisture Regime — Lilted an Local Hydric Soils list _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Sails List _ Gleyed or Low -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?)0, No (Circle) (Circle) Wetland Hydrology ProsenO No ��1 Hydric Soils Present?/ YNo Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? CT•1�! No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Size (is' A/ �% Date: Applicant/Owner'. CD Statetely� Investigator: i : Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 61VNo Community 10: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes/1`10 Transect 10: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10: (If needed. explain on reverse.) `V" r. • stratum Oaminant Ptant Soedes Indicstor i' Dominant Plant Scenes Stratum Indicator `_ Other o ac_erdad Data Aveileble I,NR ate( Merks i icy.._ 9. Sadimant Deposits Drainage Panum in Wetlands Field Observations: 10. Oxidised Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water: fin.) _ Water -Stained Leaves fin.) Soil SuNeY Data Depth to Free Water in Pit: _Local FAC -Neutral Test r _ (in.) Other (Fxplain in Remarks) Depth to Saturated soil: a. 13. 14. 7� 16. 6. P arc a nt of Dominent SP-cies that era OBL. FACW or FAC / //� L -moi -(excluding FAC -1. HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Oescnbe in Rama,ks): Wedend MYdrolcoY Indicators: _ Stream. Lake. or Tida Gauge Primary hWi atnn: _ _ Aerial Photographs — Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Other o ac_erdad Data Aveileble I,NR ate( Merks Drift Lines Sadimant Deposits Drainage Panum in Wetlands Field Observations: Seconda_ ry Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidised Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water: fin.) _ Water -Stained Leaves fin.) Soil SuNeY Data Depth to Free Water in Pit: _Local FAC -Neutral Test r _ (in.) Other (Fxplain in Remarks) Depth to Saturated soil: _ Remarks CC - r Coll S Map Unit Name (SeAes and Phase): Oralnage C.ass: Rea Obsometions Taxonomy (Subareual: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No I Profile Oeseriotio" Depth Matrix Calor Mottle Calors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inch sl Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist% AbundanceXontrast Structure. are. r I Hydric Soil indicators: Histosal Concretions _ _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ AQuie Moisture Regime _ Ulted an Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils Ust _ Gleyed or La.-Chroms Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: t% WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytie Vegetation Present? Wedend Hydrology Present? Hydric Sails Present? Remarks: /I �. � O yea No (Circa) (Circle) vq No (V is this Sampling Point Within a Welland? Yu 1. NO'- DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION 11987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: 1 � Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y�es1 Is the site significantly disturbed lAtypical Situation)? Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed. explain on reverse.) V Cr]CTA TIr'1N Oate: 'SAI' C County: State: Community 10:' J �' Transect 10: Plot ID: Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Oominant Plant 5eeebe Stratum Indicator Recorded Date (0a9cnbe in Remarks)' _ strum. Lake. or Trde Gauge 2. Primary Indicators:. _ Aerial Photographs 10. 1. —Inundated 11. 6. 12. _ X. Recorded Data Available Wear Marks 6. -! -'+` Flt_ (1.. 14. 7. Sodimant Deposits Field Observations: _ Drainage Ponerns in Wedands Percent of Dominant Saades that are OBL. FACW ar FAC (excluding FAC -1. Secondary Indicators (2 at more required): Remarks: (in.) Oxidized Root Channel• in UpPar 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water: t, HYDROLOGY Welland Hydrology Indicators: Recorded Date (0a9cnbe in Remarks)' _ strum. Lake. or Trde Gauge Primary Indicators:. _ Aerial Photographs —Inundated _ Other _ saturated in upper 12 Inches _ X. Recorded Data Available Wear Marks nh tines Sodimant Deposits Field Observations: _ Drainage Ponerns in Wedands Secondary Indicators (2 at more required): (in.) Oxidized Root Channel• in UpPar 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water: -Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: --. (n.) _Local Soil Survey Data FAC -Neutral Tut Depth to Saturated Soil: _ _ Other (Explain in Remarksl Remarks: /lin-! encs Map Unit Name (Saias and Phase): - Orsinage Casa: - Feld Observations Taxonomy ISubgroual: Confirm Mappad Type? Yee No i Profile Descriotion: Oapth Metrix Calor Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Hpd¢on Munsell Meist (Munsell Mcistl AEundancolContrast Structure, etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histasol _ Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor Orpertic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Lilted on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: - - ��,` do f f WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophyric Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle) " Wetland Hydrology 1 0 .No Hydric Soils Present? Y No Is this Sampling Point Within • Welland? Yes No Remarks: G - DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) F USite: /1 p/ /ems" / 1G U//W1cant/Ownef:tigator: 77 3ormal Circumstances exist on the site? site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ste area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse.) S - VEGETATION Ft M•! Date: ' 7 County: State- �— o Community Yes No Transect ID: Yes Plot 10: Dominant Plant Soec:es Stratum Indicator Do,inem Pram Scenes Strata, Indicator 1. 1._Z11 2' ::. '1' :i 10. J. a. _ _ s► U!%L 12. S 1J. 7. is. e 16. Parent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAG Sa (excluding FAC -I. Remarks: � /c'7•�'� Jfi je, Nvr)nr)l rlr:y Recorded Data (Ducnbe in Ramarksl: Wedand Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gouge Prinury Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs _ Inundated _ / other _Saturated in Upper 12 Inches V No Recorded Oats Available Water Marks OFih Una _ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _ Drainage Panama in Wadands Secondary Indicators (2 of more required): \ fin.) Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water: _Oxidized Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Wale+ in Pit: fin.) —Local Soil Sufvey Data , _ FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Sarureted Soil: (in-) _ Other (Explain in Remarks] Remarks: i_: .. T.:. l.% 1I ._ .: CZ- enll et Mao unit Name (Seies and Phase): Drainage Cass: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No r Profile Oeaedorlon: ' Oepth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, inched Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Maistl Abundant/Contrast Structure. etc. Hydrin Sail Indicators: Histasal —Concretions _ Histic EPipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils _ Sultidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Listed an local Hydric Soils Ust - _ Reducing Conditions _ listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed at low -Chrome Colon _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: ur nun nl TFGMINATIr1N Hydraphytic Vegetation Present? ci;;' No (Circle) (Circle) Welland Hydrology Pnsent7 2Q/ Hydric Sails Present? Yes(91>1/ this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes IN 1 I Remarks: &-- R w¢!'lG7h r-> DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: /' Date: Applicant/Owner: County: Investigator: State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 6s;l No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes o Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 1 Plot ID: (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominent Plant Species Stratum Indicator 't Dominant Plant Scecres Stratum Indicator 4 12. 5_ 1]. I7 I Percent of Dominant Species that ere OBL. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC.). Ramarka: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data l063cnbe in Rema(ksl: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _ —Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs _ Inundated _ _ Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches no Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks _ Drift lines Sediment Deposits Feld Observations: _ _ Drainage Pettarns in Wedends /. Secondary Indicators (2 or more re0uiredl: Depth of Surface Water. - - ?i.�'y�-1.; ` _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water -Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (n.) —Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Nautral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: - 4n-) _ Other (Explain in Remarksl Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Sones and Phase): Drainage C.ass: Fold Observations Taxonomy (Subgrouol: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Oescriotion: Depth Matrix Cola, Mottle ' Calors Mottle Texture, Concrations, tncheal Horitan lMunsel_ 1!'Aaiat� Ihk+naell Moiatl Abu �ulContrsat Strve ro [ �l IDU._. Hydric Sail Indicators: _ Histosol _ Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Witic Epipodon Sullidic Odor XOrganic Streaking in Sandy Sails �_ AQuic Moisture Regime Listed an Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydrie Soils List ._ _ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colon _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: v WETLAND DETERMINATION Mydrophyric Vegetation Present? Y..e"-' No (Circle) I (Circle) Wedsnd Hydrology Present? No Hydric Saila Present? No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? Ye No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: AGS C Date: /,?�AIf Applicant/Owner: County: v Investigator: State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community v Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ,No i Transect 10: I Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N Plot ID: (If needed. explain on reverse.) vFGFTGTIr1N Dominant Plant soecies Stratum Indicator S. 6. 7. Percent or Dominant Species that are 09L. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC -1. Remarks: uvnnnt ncv Oominam Plant Sceue+ stratum Indicator 11 I 1 Worland HydrologY IMicatan: Recorded Data (Descnb. in Ramarksl: _ Stream. Lake. ar Td. Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs _ Inundsud _ Other // _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ XWearNa Recorded Date Available Marks O ih Lines Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _ _ Drainage Panama in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Wear. fn.1 _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches WatsrS reined Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ _Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Noulral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ —Other (Explain in Ramarksl Remarks: - � /nps I 1 snif s Map Unit Name (SeAss and Phase): Drainage Cass: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgrouol: Confirm Macpad Type? Yes No 1 Prefile 0e1cd011on: Oepth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Morve Texture. Concretions. inchasl Horizon {Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl AbundancelContrast Structure. etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions _ Histic Eoioedon _ _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aauic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions —Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gl eyed or Love -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: NU WETLAND DETERMINATION HydrophyTic Vegetation Present? Wedsnd Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: No ICircla) - (Circle) �No Yes /Nd is this Sampling Point Within a Welland? Yes (01 Mg -k cA k/1—H6T h DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: G%r AU L%/1 Sua Indicator Date:-.? 971''e Applicant/Owner: _ _ Aerial Photographs County: Investigator: 3. State: f Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (fe,*- No Community 10: Gr Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes pyo Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N Plot ID: (If needed. explain on reverse.) 6. Water-Stain.d Leaws VEGETATION Dominant Pt n t 5 jcrej'�� 1. L1��L Sua Indicator Dominant Plan, Scec.es Stratum Indicator Z. _ _ Aerial Photographs 10. Other 3. _ Recorded Data Available 11. 4. 12. _ Drainage Partems in Wetlands S. Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 13. _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches 6. Water-Stain.d Leaws 14. _ Local Sail Survey Data 7. FAC -Neutral Test is. _ _ Other (Explain in Remarks) e. 16. Percent or Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAG (excluding FAC-). ) Ramanks: HyflRni nny Recorded Data (Oescnb. in Remarks): Welland Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream. Lake. or Tid. Gauge Primary Indicators: _ _ Aerial Photographs _Inundated Other in Upper 12 Inches _ Recorded Data Available —Saturated Wear Mots _ All Lines _ edimenl Deposits Field Observations: _ Drainage Partems in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: 6n.1 _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stain.d Leaws Depth to Free Water in Pit: lin.) _ Local Sail Survey Data FAC -Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: / (in.) _ _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks. SOILS Map Unit Name (Seiss and Phase): Orainage Cass: Feld Olfse"ations Taxonomy (Suhgrouol: Confirm Maoped Type? Yds No t Profile Description: - Oepth Matrix Color Motue Colors Motile Tdxture. Concretions. inchasi Horizon Munsell Moistt (Munselt Moisti AEundanceXontrast Structure et to - frJ/I�G� Hydric Sail Indicators: Histosol _ Concretions _ Histic Epinedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Sails list _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Soils List _ _ Oleyad pr Low•Chrr'o'nma Colors _Other (Explain in Remarks) / Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophyric Vegetation Prevent? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Sails Present? Remarks: Yai No (Circle) !Gi No Yo No 1 ig, -,-h is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? yo Project/Site: _ Applicant/Owner. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? C Xe5 Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed. explain on reverse.) vL/`LTn TIr'I IU Dominant P1.9t So< ies Svemm Indicator I Paicent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC (excluding FA ---I. a HYDROLOGY Pr Date: -'/ r County: State: Community ID- Transect 0:Transect 10: Plot ID: Oominant Ptam Sc", Stratum Indicator 10. 14. is. Recorded Data (Descnba in Remar4al: Worland HYdrologY lndicators: _ Stream. Lata. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs Inundated _ Otheu l rvp Recorded Oats Availebl• _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _`(4.w Mots /pnh liras TTT_ $aliment Deposits Patterns in Wedands Field Observations: l _Drainage Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): (in.) Roo( Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water: _Oxidized Water -Stained Leavas Depth to Free Water in Pit: fin.) _Local Soil Su"*Y Data FAC-Nevtral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ _ Other (Explain in Remsrksl Remarks: C1111 C Moo Unit Name (Solea and Phase): Drainage Casa: Feld Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No r Plan's 0-sOescrio"o— Depth Matrix Color Mome Colors Mottle Texture- Concretions. Horizon (MunsellMoist)(Munsell Moist) Abundance;Contrast Structure, etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol _ Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sols _ Sultidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ AQuic Moisture Regime _ Listed an Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Sails List _ Gleyed or Low -Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: /117 Rn y .l_vc` 7 l/1 - pfd S WETLAND DETERMINATION ,�,!! Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevent? if*es No (Circlel Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Yoe No Remarks: / y ul wxl--/7 n' (Circiel is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? Yes (n ■■fit■�■�'1<■-� M5' 111. 15 ■1�= �//� ■■ 8 ■7f 31 3' Tributary � ; T � 3' 1 .1 _. _ DISCED Tributary T buts 20 f _'71�r- 1 ' - iy. �I� -,1 1 butarrar. - rl Y DISCED J j DISCED 6 Tributary 2 6 DISCED �� 3.2 (� r ``` . 4 .._ 1.3 DISCED ' s 1 ■ ,. a. i2' W2 71 f , - / . Tributar 21 -�,� ,: ,. -/•�• i ,,� .1'ributsry �� 2' F Y �inage 2.5 ; � 2.1 ,o WETLAND g Tributary / } _ DIS b 7 z CED .b Za 2.4 2' - -- ._ Tributary 1 3 3 2 2' w i I 2' 2' Tributary Tributary �� -F~ 1.2 ; 3 r. Drainage 2 2.2 i ► 1, r ,_. ► Tributary 1 2- 9 / 2.7 �_ 4 �, 2' �,' 2' r 2, a Tributary 2' r �} } 2.8 y1 3' ribu#ary 1 ~�` 2 'Tributary 12' / ;. 2 2' „G 1.5 I �� 1.4 AN ; , le I �� ■ ■�li■�■r>• ■ ■ ■ �■� itri r/�r■r■-1t■�.: s>f�,"r■ r r�■�L� ■ � �■ ■ rl■■■�Ir■a�r - DISCED - ; R GRC Development LEGEND Areas Within Corps Jurisdiction (A single number indicates width of the CHWM) - Wetlands Within or Adjacent to OHWM (This symbol represents the portion of the drainage supporting jurisdictional wetlanc 14'/48' Areas Within Corps and CDFG Jurisdiction (The first number indicates the width of the OHWM, while the larger number indicates the width of CDFG Riparian Vegetation . rs�*F CDFG Riparian Habitat Non -Jurisdiction Erosional Feature (No OHWM) 10 Photo Location ��, Wetlands Within OHWM Data Point I (� 1 ■ #'Il 25, 25' - ■. Drainage 3 j 42' l r >Y VETLAND 0 1 g 21 2A� OPEN WATER 28' Tributary 3.1 28, 26 ' 1 46' WETLAND • WETLAND x DISCED DISCED 4 31 14` DISCED 3' Drainage 5 Tributary 4.16 DISCED , 3' 2' noutary 4.1 2' 2 � urdnidye -+ I 2� 1 i 2 3 % 3 1' Tributary 4.2 1' 1' 2' 3' 1 1 1 I I 1 DISCED DISCED Tributary 4.12 3' 1 Tributary, 4.13 1' DISCED DISCED Tributary 3.5 1' 1. 1 7 Tributary Tributary 4.14'- 4.15No GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES 0 200 400 600 Tributary WETLAND 3.3 2'/ Tributary 3.4 7' , 7. 7' 7 Tributary 2' 4.5 2' Tributary 4.10 i i 4' i 3' 3' 2' i 4' Tributary 4.10 DISCED i i i l i DISCED ■ DISCED 6'/18' 6'/16' 3' 4'/28' 1 r 1 2' 29 2 X4'/18' ■ 1• 2' ■ Tributary Tributary 4.9 4.8 2' 2 { Sheet: i KEITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. Revesion: • Planning • Civil Engineering • Environmental Services • Revision: • Land Surveying Public Works • WaterResources • Revision: Revision: Inland Empire Division Revision: 22690 Cactus Ave., Ste. 300 Moreno Valley, CA 92553(9091653-0234 Revision: i i ■ DISCED 6'/18' 6'/16' 3' 4'/28' 1 r 1 2' 29 2 X4'/18' ■ 1• 2' ■ Tributary Tributary 4.9 4.8 2' 2 { Sheet: i KEITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. Revesion: • Planning • Civil Engineering • Environmental Services • Revision: • Land Surveying Public Works • WaterResources • Revision: Revision: Inland Empire Division Revision: 22690 Cactus Ave., Ste. 300 Moreno Valley, CA 92553(9091653-0234 Revision: GLENN LU KOS ASSOCIATES SCALE: 1 " = 200' 0 50100 200 400 600 800 DATED 1 OCTOBER 1999 DAVIDEVANs PERMIT EXHIBIT 1B AND ASSOCIATES, Boo NORTH HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE 300 ONTARIO, CA. 911764-4915 (909) 481-5750