Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.24 Wetland determination report1 :' ti� � r -. ;�i .. ;. ::� • •t:;;. _ fir' yr� �. .�'k;,�y;y�T;f..: . k :�.�_ � .. S• •. €),. �r etii �!1. -, lJ:•r5'll "' .� /'.' '�� ,j: .Z YY �..j: li �:: ^.. � ,.F �•� }f t,•.� .1 ,.,j Sk- . >.���`,� y�:.r< ;.�;�`� -�.! :r "��':�'`.i. ;��. i';r, s- _h�i:i 'e'•;.'r•,. r':: .� -ts 'YC �i•�.r �` �t�tn'i;� r•.!y ,.,'7.1.x. €' r: °. � > �' • -;" �.'. "•�. .'�,• ' �ri -• y'y �£ "�g�i- ';t. 4,w:L•�:5 �,c}� �';" ,f:;:.... �,..,:s' :s:., .:j- _ '1'lt Fy_ .i:y ,€ •'�`�"''��"r'° (,:a�•"yy:.: •:��'�:f., tC:,• :• f r ° *'9� �i'1��'• "• ` .t � 'c -� i.. €." ••�i':.;.: � :C .��' ! {:;ii' i." � �i. ;�.v..�:l s.�•• .;�`•. i�; �' :r '�!: .'F::. 'ti::.; •.'• ...� °g�' is .'tr •!i�'� y$..�fvs ^�.,. "..s�.'�.;n` �. 1 ...IR: •k�.�. �t�.', `:l:,�,.. '. -�'.�• � = �= ?�� ° ^�': ,�f� ;':���' — is - ++ :_'�� �. �;::'� r.�- ,r -•. �I.Y 4,y' � J..�`}... 'Ra '�y(.c Y�•F �,A••`'' =:�' £. 1 _ •: F�• Y' 44. ::4 _ : -:. r1•. "•. }y ° °.�:`�.� .`r.. �� ^, i.- •M1rds:" �xa'^ ,l._ ra;V. . ,i',• , %i 1 :i•�?,;D. `.' X.: •ry}� ;,�: •� y � -:�� �'�� ••`Z' .r irk �.. �<• . r. , j!! :YK ..��P� N`!,• 11�� �5,� .: Y. i.9 (�' k Y''• �[: . "'fin ��� ��A' -f � a:�. -" _ 4f . r�'; ;,l.r.� °,�,a,• .:� {y'':��Y�`- ,aC;K. :..i'�.; �i t • ^'�':v�::,:_:f; .,,�f -art• :.:�::>::vr:: f3 �F. { "'':'"'. _ - .,lY;�: `.s',� .�d -��jT: :�r����!r �l S'� '�.5 ;.'!'.5:, •:?s. ,x.: is :,. �i:..:7'� .�z�Y.;;•- ..: }.�• ... � ':.Gs.y��rP'.':'S:�S :h': =C•1A �:i•�.:.,'�'!n.�::n'Y���a'Y: Ci:�.:r rSf'e�:�'i +�r',�e.�xI+i23': (�� "_., ,:'.:�e'R:: _��a:.? S; 3 R7 ! Pmiserl, irldiand Determination Report A"gurt 1007 Wettand Determination for RTZ Property Garfield County, Colorado Executive Summary A wetland determination was conducted for the RTZ Property in Garfield County, Colorado on April 5 and May 9, 2007 on behalf of the property owner's representative, Mr. Tom Zancanella of Zancanella & Associates, Inc. The wetlands delineation was conducted following technical guidelines set forth in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers ( "Corps ") 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual, as well as the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region ( "Arid Land Supplement "). The Corps regulates dredging or filling activities within waters of the United States ( "Waters of the U.S. "), which includes rivers, creeks, ditches, and wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Prior to and during field work, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. ( "RMES ") reviewed various resources to assist in identifying Waters of the U.S., beyond wetland areas located on the property, These resources included aerial photographs, topographic and soils maps, and other environmental resources. Based on field identification and verification of areas that exhibited the three wetland indicators (hydric soils, hydrology, and wetland vegetation), RMES recorded these areas on maps and used a sub -meter global positioning system ( "GPS ") where appropriate to mark the location and general boundary of wetlands on the RTZ property. The wetland boundary was also flagged and sequentially numbered per Corps guidelines. Field data and GPS data were used in ArcView 9.0 GIS to determine approximate acreages. Areas near wetlands are being considered for gravel mining operations and associated ` infrastructure (scales, yards, etc.). The area planned for mining activities with adjacent wetlands is composed of upland shrub - steppe vegetation dominated by greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and sea -Mite (Suaeda intermedia). The understory vegetation in this area is dominated by cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum) and Japanese brome (Bromus japonicas). Wetland areas were composed of coyote willow (Salix exigua), cattails (Typha latifolia), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). The understary in the wetland areas was very sparse, but did have widely scattered hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus), and foxtaii barley (Critesion (Hordeum] jubatum). But much of the mud -flat areas within the wetlands had no vegetation, or sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and knotweed (Polygonum douglasir). Around many of the wetlands, the cottonwood trees were dying out, likely from lack of water, and the soils had widely scattered and marginal wetland indicators. This, as well as the vegetation composition and condition, indicated that the wetlands were marginal in function and likely transitioning out of a wetland into more of an upland situation. Personal communications with USACOE Regulatory Biologist Mark Gilfillan indicated that because of the newly adopted Arid Land guidance, delineations using both the 1987 manual guidance, as well as the new Arid Land guidance may be turned in if there were any issues with determining the wetland boundaries and for permitting issues, However, using both methodologies, wetland boundaries were the same, and thus only the more conservative Arid Land guidance was used. A total of approximately 1,02 acres of wetlands were identified using the Arid Land guidance. The Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404, authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers, specifically the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into navigable waters of the United States. This permitting process is overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency and is reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service and ROCKY MOUNTAIN EcoLoGiCAL SERVICES, INC RTZ Propeny FetlandDelmwinalionReport ; ggmO2007 the National Marine Fisheries Service. This permit requires that the limits of wetlands are identified and delineated. The resulting wetlands are referred to as jurisdictional wetlands and are regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The determination of navigability is left entirely to the Corps of Engineers. Project Information RTZ Industries is proposing the development of a gravel mining operation on the property. The property is characterized as a south - facing sloping valley bottom immediately north of the Colorado River. The Colorado River forms the southern boundary of the property. Mr. Tom Zancanella of Zancanella and Associates requested that RMES delineate a wetland boundary on the property in preparation for the possible submittal of a Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit application. The project has been modified in order to avoid impacting jurisdictional wetlands. An ephemeral drainage runs north -south on the western side of the property, and roughly forms the western property boarder. An earthen bridge will be constructed across this draw, with an installed culvert in order to facilitate crossing the draw. This ephemeral drainage does not contain jurisdictional wetlands. Approximately 30 years ago, levees were constructed on the property in an attempt to prevent northern migration of the Colorado River into the property. The levees were constructed by shallow excavation of surface soils on the property. The "borrow pits" subsequently have received surface runoff from adjacent uplands, and from road drainage from County Road 302, which is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property. Various PVC pipes were observed on the property, and Mr. Zancanella indicated that some time ago there was a tree farm on the property, and that the PVC pipes were used for the tree farm operation. The borrow pits have produced hydroph €tic vegetation over time. k Applicant &Site information Tom Zancanella RTZ industries Zancanella & Associates 1011 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81801 970 - 945 -5700 The property is located in Garfield County, Colorado (NW %4, Section 33, T7 South, R96 West), off of County Road 302. The area is within the Parachute USGS Topographic Quadrangle. METHODS Wetland Determinations Wetland Determinations were performed as outlined in the December 2006 Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Approximately 30 years ago, levees were constructed on the property in an attempt to prevent northern migration of the Colorado River into the property. The levees were constructed by shallow excavation of surface soils on the property. The "borrow pits" subsequently have received surface runoff from adjacent uplands, and from road drainage from County Road 302, which is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property. The borrow pits do not have surface water hydrological connection to the Colorado River, however the base of the pits is likely within 1 a few feet of the high water level of the Colorado River, therefore groundwater connectivity cannot be ruled out. The borrow pits have produced hydrophitic vegetation over time. Adjacent to the Colorado River, riverine associated wetlands with mature cottonwood tree overstories ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC R77 Pmpery Vetlnnd Deterwivation Report August 7007 ,. occur. As this area is being intentionally avoided by the proposed gravel mining operations, detailed wetland delineations of this area have not occurred. A cursory transect through the area was walked, and intermittent wetlands were apparent in this area of the 50 and 100 year floodplains. The wetlands associated with the borrow pits are primarily Depressional HGM class, with potential subclass designation of 2 (permanently and/or semi - permanently flooded basins) and more commonly 4 (low elevation basins flooded for short periods in the spring and early summer). The fowest points in the excavated basins appear to intermittently pond runoff waters through the growing season, while the rest of the basins appear to only receive rare, but likely significant flooding events from thunderstorm events. Vegetation: Vegetation was sampled throughout the site and in vicinity of the soil pits. An attempt was made to identify all dominant species. Species were listed in order of dominance. A wetland indicator status for each species was determined using the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Intermountain (Region 8) (USFWS, 1988). Where dominant species were primarily FAC species, the FAC Neutral Test would be used. Cover for each species was estimated to the nearest percent to determine dominance. • Soils: Soil pits were dug in wetlands and non - wetlands at each site and inspected for hydric characteristics. Hydric characteristics included saturated soils and standing water in soil pits among other indicators- very faint mottling was observed, and sulphidic odors were also very rarely observed. Soils in this area are Arvada Loams, which are formed in highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. Surface layers are strongly alkaline or very strongly alkaline. Because of this, as well as the relatively infrequent inundation and saturation of the soils, and the short time period allowable for hydric soil indicators to develop, hydric indicators were very infrequent. (Environmental Laboratory 2000). Hydrology. The site was traversed making observations for hydrologic characteristics. These characteristics included channels evidencing running water, sediment deposits an tree bark and leaves, and ponding- remnant biotic crusts in mud flats. Water for the site is from overland flow from surrounding uplands, as well as from drainage ditches along County Road 302. For the borrow pits where the delineation occured, there is no surface water hydrological connector to the Colorado River. Wetland and upland communities were classified based on dominant vegetation characteristics. A field copy of the Routine Wetland Determination Data Form (Arid Land) was completed for each soil pit, and transcribed to digital formats. This form recorded the vegetation, soil, and hydrologic measurements and observations. Latin plant names were used throughout. Based on the information recorded in the Data Forms, each plant community that met all three wetland criteria was established as a wetland. Many areas had wetland vegetation and hydrology, but lacked wetland soils development- this is likely due to the strongly alkaline soils, intermittent inundation, and short time period since the pits were constructed, which would retard adequate hydric soils development (Environmental Laboratory 2006). For the most part, delineation of wetlands in this area was difficult because of the spotty hydric soil development, and obvious declining vegetation component. It would appear that at some time in the past these pits were flooded, either due to a wetter climate regime, or more likely due to intentional flooding. This allowed the establishment of cottonwood, tamarisk, and some Russian olive trees, with sparse understory species diversity, which almost guaranteed that these areas met the hydric vegetation requirements, The obvious intermittent inundation ROCKY MC3L"NTAIN FCOLOGICALSERVICFS, INC RTZ Properly Verlrrnd Derermwa mn Report Aggurt2007 produced primary and secondary indicators as well for hydrology. Solis had spotty hydric indicators, but this could be from the highly saline parent materials (which retard formation of mottling and concretions) coupled with only intermittent inundation. The presence of the sediment deposits, and hydrological connectivity across the borrow pits lead to the conclusion that during significant rainfall events, much of the basins would likely be inundated. The function of the wetlands is likely very marginal, aside from the wettest (lowest) areas, which support coyote willow, cattails, and bulrush. The borders of the wetlands were logged with a Trimble GeoXT GPS (sub -meter accuracy) and marked with numbered pink wire flags with "Wetland Boundary" printed on them. Sal[ pits were also logged with a GPS unit, and numbered. Base maps were drafted in ArcMap 9.0 that indicated the project area, soil pit locations, levee areas, jurisdictional wetlands, and non - wetlands. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The borrow pits contained similar wetland characteristics, with somewhat similar boundaries based on either 1987 or the Arid band guidance, therefore only the more conservative Arid Land guidance was used. In this section a brief discussion of the delineation is presented, as well as maps. Greasewood Community- (Non- wetlands) Vegetation: This site is dominated by greasewood (FACU`), sea -blite (FAG), and an herbaceous stratum dominated by cheatgrass (UPQ and Japanese brome (UPL). Alkali sakaton (FAC) occurred in patches. Due to the lack of hydric vegetation, this site did not have hydrophitic vegetation suitable for wetland classification. Soils: The soils in this area were typed by the NRCS as Arvada loams. These soils are well drained soils on fans and high terraces. The soil is formed from highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shales. Typically, the surface is strongly alkaline or very strongly alkaline. I failed to detect any oxidization, mottling or gleying, nor did the soils have any sulphidic odors. Hydrology: There was intermittent evidence of channeling from snowmelt or intense precipitation events, however these factors did not exist on a scale large enough to be an indicator of wetland hydrology. Determination: The Greasewood uplands did not have hydrophitic vegetation, hydric soils, or have persistent wetland hydrology, thus these sites were not wetlands. 'e- Greasewood uplands ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOCACAL SERVICES, INC R'17 Propero Vetland Determirraliorr Report ; Upsi 2007 Barrow Pits- (Wetlands) Vegetation: The species of dominance were cattail (T"ypha latifolia- OBL), hardstem bulirush (Scirpus acutus- OBL), and kochia (Kochia scoparia- FACU). In a ring around the area was cottonwood (FACW') and tamarisk (FACW). In most areas, the cottonwood trees were dying off, or dead, and in these areas the hydrophilic vegetation stratum failed to meet hydrophitic vegetation criteria. In some areas, cattail and bulrush were replaced with coyote willow (OBL). Much of the area could be characterized as "mud flats ", and did not have wetland vegetation. As the vast majority of the plant species in these areas were FACW or OBL, the area met the wetland vegetation parameter. Soils: The soils in this vegetation community were derived from Arvada loam parent materials. As this area receives runoff from surrounding upland areas dominated by clays and loams, the soils in these basins was primarily composed of fairly homogenous clay and silty clays. - The sal profiles failed to indicate noticeable stratification, aside from a few isolated areas. In some of the soil pits dug in wetland areas with vegetation, sulphidic odors were detected, and very faint mottling was observed. However, the mottling observed was extremely faint, not widespread, and was ��. more of an exception than a rule for the area. Salt deposits were occasionally observed, Hydrology: These areas had evidence of pending, channeling, sediment .depositions, and biotic crusts, which provide both primary and secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. Determination: The basin wetland type in this project area presented wetiand indicators for all of the three parameters, and thus a wetland determination was made for these areas ?ROCKY MOUNTAIN F- cOLOGiCAL SERVICES, INC i RIZ ll yyp?rl , 11- elland Deterptina&n Repod Aggxsd 7007 CONCLUSION The vegetation, soil, and hydrologic data gathered in this survey determined that wetlands occurred within some of the borrow pits, and that hydrological surface connectivity to waters of the US was absent. Due to similar elevations and adjacency to the Colorado River, groundwater connectivity to this water of the US is likely. Due to the levees in place, the wetlands were not within the 100 year floodplain. The borders of the wetlands were logged with a Trimble GeoXT and marked with pink wire flags that have "Wetlands Boundary" printed on them. Many areas around the borrow pits had hydrophitic vegetation (although generally declining in health and vigor), indicators of at least historic wetland hydrology, but failed to support indicators of hydric soils. Final authority in determining the actuality of a wetland and the allowance of wetland alterations rests with tho various interested government agencies. 11,P*,OCKY Mou -`-mr.uN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC RT2 Papero F hand Determination Repvt : Lygust 2007 SELECTED REFERENCES Cooper, D.J. 1989. A Handbook of Wetland Plants of the Rocky Mountain Region. EPA Region VIII. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,. Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss, Environmental Laboratory. 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. ERDCfEL TR -06 -16 Federal Interagency Committee for Weiland 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. 76 pp. plus appendices. Kartesz, J.T.. 1996. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Region 8. Ecology Section, National Wetlands Inventory, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report, Washington, DC. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the BLM, USFS, and the USFWS by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Weber, W.A. and R.C. Willmann. 2001. Colorado Flora: Western Slope, Third Edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. /'�()C.KY M CJLINWA1N ECOLOGICAL SERVICH, INC �P .1�: �`''�; :'•�':r.i:. �:'.,..� x.5'3 ,< p. .C' X I In •' -Y+S K'_� ;:i rye .1 .j RTZ Pmpe?-O Welland Deiemimifion Report r Jwgmst 2007 �i � I-iAlmwq Plot DI (upland) flRC -CKY MOUINTAIN EcULUGICM. SERVICES, INC Plot F.1 (upland) 10 pb O G3 N,000'9?.6s N 00011Z o69 N'000"?Z.6s N 000'02 A 4� A A. ij 4c ID did :ly R.nom tkz wn N UUU Zle-ok, N OVQ V14 alb L N 1000WI&W N '000.ozi u C.1 z 12, b 2 I n v n N Q a O v i7 O 0 n ti 0 O O 6 d n O C6 S 0 0 n O fII O N i0Gc'bZQ6£ N 000,E2n6£ iV ,C 01?Zc6£ N ,000T? *6& 0 C3 C7 a o• d: QS 0 Q a o. 4 m O M 0 O O ti Q m C) �i �ri Q 0. n Q O r G z t .n T U i� U z z a 0 I aC 4A n 77'.12w _ r: Y.V fro k' LP.. . r- x - r s i -y a ry ` . 4 ✓ .4 • 1 P . r. �w V. ,�,{ -• riN . J z... r �... .....F ., '...:' ,�, fir: _. �� > .., '�•' - rv. •' .- a •e .;� °i• y• 4 .ti r y� '.rC•. r 2 -.�•�� .tii'Yi.� 4' =15. ..µ T a� •ti y ?R era:- • � " ";:. " ^'. e.. RI'Z 1rop", lrlekwd Report Alay 2007 Appendix 3- Routine Wetland Delineation Field Data Forms ftic� Y MOUNTA IN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 24 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region jectiSite: RTZ Gravel Mine Cily1County:Garfield Sampling Date:5 /9/2007 ApplicanlJOwner:Zancanella & Associates State:co Sampling Pdnt:A 1 Investigator(s):Eric Petterson & Mindy Wheeler Section, Township, Range:"17S, R96W, S33 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc -): Riverine terrace Local relief {concave, convex, none }:none Slope ( %).0 -5 Subregion (LRR):D - Interior Deserts Lat:39 °23.834'N Long l08 °05.457' W Datum: Sail Map Unit Nam- Arvada Loam NWl classifwation: Are climatic l hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes (a No (' (If na, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation L] Soil 0 or Hydroktgy ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes { No Are Vegetation Sail Q yr Hydrology [] naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling paint locations, transacts, important features, etc. x 4 = LIPL species 4.= Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes rt No i Column Totals: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No {rp Is the Sampled Area 1 194- (Bl Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No {y within a Wetland? Yes (% No (7 VEGETATION Tree Stratum (Lase scientific names.) % Cover S�ecies? Status t.Pr�pulus delto ides 10 Yes FArw- __ _ Total Cover: 101. SaplinglShrub Stratum I - Tamarix ramosissima 10 Yes FACW 2 Popiulus deltoides 1 -7- Yes F+rw- Herb Stratum 1- Kachia scrrpuria 2 Tyha 1.1ifo11. 3 Scirpus actrtzss 4 Distichlts spicata T 5- Agropyron cristatum 6. T. 8. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Flo Total Cover: 27;% Total Cover 18 Yes FACT) 10 Yes n:;r. 5 I` _— nssr. 5 No FAC 4 No 37 42% Total hover: % % Cover of Biotic Crust % Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC II':: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: % (AJB) Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species I S: x t= FACW species 37 x 2 = 7Q FAC species .5 x3= FACU species 1.9.c x 4 = LIPL species 4.= X5= Column Totals: 79:. (A)i 194- (Bl Prevalence Index = BfA = 2,x#8 ro p yt Hy ic Vegetation findieatam- ._ — Dominance Testis >60% Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a sops rate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) `Indicators of hydric will and welland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetations Present? Yes (07 No C Arid West- Version I I -1 -2006 SOIL Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis: ❑ Histosol (Al) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient_ Sampling Point; Al row file Descriptlan: (Bescri ie to the depth needed to document the Tnd[cator or confirm the absence oiind3Catvrs.) Depth Matrix High Water Table (A2) Redox Features Drift Deposits (83) JRiverine) Saturation (A3) inches Color (moist % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture' Remarks _ 0 -7 7.5YR 3/3 95 15YR 3f6 5 C RC Clay 7 -14 7.5YR 3/3 95 2.5YR N6 5 C RC Sandy Clay 14-20 7.5YR 313 95 2.5YR 3/6 5 C RC Sandy Clay wl E� Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix. 'Location: PL= Pore Lining, RC =Root Channel, M = Matrix . 'Soil Textures: Clay, 514 Ctay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Sift, Loamy Sand, Sand Hydric Sofl Indicators. jAppiicable to ail LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis: ❑ Histosol (Al) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient_ _ Sandy Redox (55) ❑ Surface Water (Al) 0 Salt Crust (811) 1 cm Muck (A9) (t_RR C) High Water Table (A2) Histic Epipedon (A2) Drift Deposits (83) JRiverine) Saturation (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Ll Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (131) (Nonrhrerine) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR 8) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Slack Histic (A3) Oxidized: Rhixospheres along Living Roots (0) ❑� Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits {B3) (Nonriverine) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 } i l Crayfish Burrows (C8) Lj Surface Sail Cracks (BS) Reduced Vedic (F18) X R Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) X Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (Fe) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) I Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (FB) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Vernal Pools (F9) 'Indk ators of hydrophylic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) weltand hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soli Present? Yes (i, No (` Remarks; Saltv Parent Materials HYDROLOGY wetione nyoroiagy inuicaiom- jeconcary inyicaiors ([ or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient_ _ Water Marks (81) {Rlverine) ❑ Surface Water (Al) 0 Salt Crust (811) Sediment Deposits (82) (Rlveriney High Water Table (A2) ❑ Blotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (83) JRiverine) Saturation (A3) F-1 Aquatic Invertebrates (653) Ll Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (131) (Nonrhrerine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) jNonr €verine) Oxidized: Rhixospheres along Living Roots (0) ❑� Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits {B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) i l Crayfish Burrows (C8) Lj Surface Sail Cracks (BS) F-1 Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C8) F� Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes C. No (% Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes (` No t• Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes (` No �` Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) as�beacor�ed DaFa {sfrearrt gauge, monitoring we , aerial p ol— v €sus ii LS Army Corps Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (e— No C Arid West - Version 11 -1 -2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Hydrophyffc Vegetation Present? Yes q No (ml's Hydric Soil Present? Yes { No (*^ Is the Sampled Area Welland Hydrology Present? Yes M1 No _ within a Welland? Yes (. No (` VEGETATION Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) %Cover Species - -pecies7 Status 1- 2. SaPIlnn1Shrub Stratum 1 •Sarcobaflfs vermiculatus 2. 3, 4. 5, Total Cover: 20 Yes FACU Herb Stratum 1 Suaeda inferrnedia Total Cover: 2Q. 10 Yes FAC . :s-'•" jectiSite: R'1"L Gravel Mille - y CitylCounty Garfield Sampling Date: 5/g/2007 Applicantlowner:Zancaneila & Associates StatwCo Sampling Point:A2 Investigator(s):Eric Petterson & Mindy Wheeler section, Township, Range:7S, R96W, S33 Landform (hitlslope, terrace, etc.)-. Riverine terrace Local re list = conca ve, convex, none):ylone Slope Subregion (LRR) -.D - interior Deserts Lat:39 °23.834'N Long: 108'06.457'W Datum: ^~ Solt Map Unit Name: Arvada Loath NWl classification: Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes (o—: No { (If no, explain in Remarks.) Ara Vagetalion[] $oo ❑ or Hydrology signiflcantly disturbed? Are "Nomtat Circumstances" present? Yes (s No {'- Are Vegetation ❑ Sall ❑ or Hydrology naturally problemate (if needed. explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophyffc Vegetation Present? Yes q No (ml's Hydric Soil Present? Yes { No (*^ Is the Sampled Area Welland Hydrology Present? Yes M1 No _ within a Welland? Yes (. No (` VEGETATION Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) %Cover Species - -pecies7 Status 1- 2. SaPIlnn1Shrub Stratum 1 •Sarcobaflfs vermiculatus 2. 3, 4. 5, Total Cover: 20 Yes FACU Herb Stratum 1 Suaeda inferrnedia Total Cover: 2Q. 10 Yes FAC 2•Bromrfjaponicus Jr Yes UPL DBL species 4. im,..:. 5. ;v, 6. a;:= 7. 16' 8. 30 Woody Vine Stratum 1. Total Cover: 1 % 2. gp;, Total Cover: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % % Cover of 8iolic Crust % YN-- Number of Dominant Species That Are CBL, FACW, or FAC: , (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: f3 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33;3; % (prg) Total % Cover of: Multiply by: DBL species x 1 = im,..:. FACW species ;v, x2= a;:= FAC species 16' x3= 30 FACU species 2a` x 4 = gp;, UPL species '; x 5 = Column Totals: 3j;, ": (A) 05 (B) Prevalence Index = BIA = 3.86 `4' Dominance Test is >50% . Prevalence Index is 53.01 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (' No (% Arid West • Version 11- 1.20013 SOIL. Sampling Point: A2 Profile Descriptiom (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (any one Indicator is sufficient inches Olaf moist % Color moFstJ °In T e Luc Texture' Remarks 0-16 7.5YR 313 95 ❑ High Water Table (A2) Clay 16 -20 7.5YR 3/3 95 ❑ Salurat €on (A3) Sandy Clay 'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM =Reduced Matrix. `Location: PL =Pare Lining, RC =Root Channel, M= Matrix. 'Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Sill Loam, Slit, Loamy Sand, Sand. Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) indicator: for Problematic Hydrlc Solis_ 0 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (SS) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Recent Iron Reductlon in Plowed Soils (C6) Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (86) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR 8) HHistic Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Verfle (F18) Hydrogen 5uffide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (Tf-2) No (% Depth (inches): S(ral €fled Layers (A5) {LRR C} Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) No re Depth (inches): 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Saturation Present? Yes C (includes capillary fringe) No Depth (inches): Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) i emar s: Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Repressions (F8) IN Arniv Coms of Eneineers Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) we#land hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: t3eplh (inches): Hydrfc Soil Present? Yes {- No {i`. Rernarks: i I HYDROLOGY Watt ld i4ydrology Indicators. SamndaryiRiqaors ar mare re titre Primary Indicators (any one Indicator is sufficient Water Marks (B1) (Riverirre) L� Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (1511) Sediment Deposits (152) (Rlverins) ❑ High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (8 12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) ❑ Salurat €on (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dralnago Patterns (B 10) ❑ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidlzed Rhlzespheres along Living Roots (C3) E] Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (83) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reductlon in Plowed Soils (C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (03) C Water - Stained Leaves (1219) FAC- Neutral Test (D5) -F—leld Observations. Surface Water Present? Yes {� No (% Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes `. No re Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes C (includes capillary fringe) No Depth (inches): Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes (`. No ;s. �escrihe Recorded Data stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if availabW i emar s: IN Arniv Coms of Eneineers And West - Version 11 -1 -2005 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region oiect[site: RTZ Gravel Mitre City1CountY :Garfie1d Sampling oate:5 /9/2007 _.- ApplicantiOwnerZancanella &. Associatcs Staie:Go Sampling Point:131 Investigator(s):Fric Petterson & Mindy Wheeler Section, Township, Range.T7S, R96W, 533 Landform (hil €slope, terrace, etc.): Riverine terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %):0-5 y Subregion (LRR):D - Interior Deserts Lat:39'23.834'N Long:-] 08'06.457'W E7atum: Soil Map Unit Narne: Arvada Loath NWI classification: Are climatic! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No r*" (If no, explain in Remarks -) Are Vegetallonn Soil X or Hydrology [_j significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes(—.. No {s. Are Vegetation Soil LXJ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? ( €f needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (! No P i Hydric Soil Present? Yes No l is the sampled Area Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No (. i whin a Welland? Yes r No (� Remarks: VEGETATION Tres Stratum (Use scienlific names.) % Cover _species? Status 1.Populus deftoides i Yes 2. c a�4. Total Cover: SaplinglShfub Stratum 1 •Populus deftoides 2•Tamari_r jwmosissima 3. 4. Total Cover: 28.% 18 Yes FACW 10 Yes FACW Herb Stratum 1 •Typha latifolia 2•Xanthium strumarium 3-polygonum douglasii 4, 7. fi. Y L Total Cover: Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2, 15 Yes oaa. 5 Yes FAC 9 Yes UPI, Total Cover: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % % Cover of Biotic Crust % Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Eominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 811-3 % (AIS) Total % Cover of: Multiply by_ OBL species t.5 :.' x 1 = t5 FACW species 24:...., x 2 = 58.... .. FAC species $', .. x 3 = 15" FACLI species x 4 = UPL species X5= Column Totals: (A) I3:_ :. (8) Prevalence Index = SfA = 2,29 X Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence index is s3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Fj Problematic Hydraphytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydrie soil and wel €and hydrology must he present. Hydrophytie Vegetation Present? Yes to No C ?kmiy Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 11 -1 -2006 SOIL ":,3 Depth inches 0 -20 ription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Matrix Redox Features Color moist o Color (moist)_ % Type' L-77— Texture3 7.5YR 3/3 95 2.5YR 3J6 5 C Clay Sampling Point: B I Remarks 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Deptation. RM= Reduced Matrix. zLocafion: PL =Pore Lining, RC =Root Channel, M= Matrix. 3Soit Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand Hydrlc Sall Indicators: (Appl icable to all UtRa, unless S econd ary Indicators 17 or more re u otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Solli: Hlstosol (A1) Surface Water (Al) Sandy Redox (35) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR E) Sediment Deposits ($2) (Riverine) Histic Epipedon (A2) F] Biotic Crust (13 12) Stripped Matrix (SS) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Saturation (A3) Black Hist €c (A3) ❑ Drainage Patterns (8 10) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F t) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) FXJ Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonr €verine) Loamy Glayed Matrix jF2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Drift Deposits (83) (Nonriverine) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) D Crayfish Burrows (C8) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) L � Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6} 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Inundation Visible an Aar let Imagery (B7) Redox Dark Surface (F6) F1� Shallow Aqultard (03) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11 } F-1 Depleted Dark Surface (177) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redax Depressions (FS) Sandy Mucky Mineral jS1) Vernal Pools (F9) `Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) watland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layei (€f present): Type; Depth {inches}: Hydrlc Soil Present? Yea (�; No f HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indleato►s: S econd ary Indicators 17 or more re u Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient Water Marks (81) (Riverfne) Surface Water (Al) ❑ Salt Crust (S 11) Sediment Deposits ($2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) F] Biotic Crust (13 12) Ll Drift Deposits (133) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (13 13) ❑ Drainage Patterns (8 10) X Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine} Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) L] Dry - Season Water Table (C2) FXJ Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonr €verine) X Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) E] Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (83) (Nonriverine) ❑; Presence of Reduced lron (C4) D Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) L � Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6} D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible an Aar let Imagery (B7) F-1 Other (Explain in Remarks) F1� Shallow Aqultard (03) Fl Water- Stained Leaves (B9) iE FAC•Neutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes (` No (ei Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes i!• No r Depth (inches): 12 -18 Saturation Present? Yes (: No ( Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Welland Hydrology Present? Yes (s= No (� Describe eco aL�ta stream gauge, moni or Ing we 11, aerie I photo s, previous inspections , ; available Arid West - Version 11 -1 -2008 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region ojecusits RTZ Gravel Mine CilyiCvunty:Garfeld Sampling Date:51912007 App €icant)Cwner:Zancanella & Associates State:C0 Sampling Point:gZ Investigator(s):Pric Petters on & Mindy Wheeler Section, Townsh €p, Range:T7S, R96W, S33 Landform (hil €s €ope, terrace, etc.): Riverine €efface Local relief (concave, convex, none):notte Slope {°,6}:0 -5 Subregion (LRR ):D - Interior Deserts Lat:39 °23,834'N Long :I08 °06,457' W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name. Arvada Loatn _ NWI classification: Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for This time of yeah Yes No (' ( €f no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation[] Soil or Hydrology F-] significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes (a-, No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology L_J naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.} SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (` No (` Hydric Soil Present? Yes (• No €s the Sampled Area 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes : No s`• within a Wetland? Yes ( No (i' 1 Remarks: VEGETATION Tree Stratum (Use scientific names -) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species I. That Are 03L, FACW, or FAC: {A= Total Number of 0nminanI Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species 2' 4. - - Total Cover: Ia That Are 0BL, FACW, or FAC: 9r( A/% B i Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1•Chrysolharnnus nauseasus s.sp. graveolens 5 Yes UPL Preva ante In dox wo rksh eat: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2•Sarcohafus ver•miculafus 20 Yes Fnru 3- Populus delfoides 40 Yes FArw OBL species x 1 FACW species 4Q x 2 = g{J: FAC species 4:1_ 3 = 12. FACU species x 4 - Z_f1 &D '. 4- 5. Total Cover: 61.y° Herb Stratum UPL species x 5 = 50. . 1 -Bromusjaponicus 3 No UPL Column Totals: B Prevalence Index = EVA = 3.60 2 Gut ierrezia sarothrae 2 No uPL 3•Disrichlis spicala 4 No FAC y Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4t Dominance Test is ->5o% )4 Prevalence Index is s3.01 5 6 f Morphological Adaptations' (Provide Supporting: data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) - - - -- 8. _ Total Cover: 9' � 1Noady Vine 5 €ratum ' 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. z. Hydrophytic - - _ -- Total Cover: °I° Vegetation Bare Ground in Herr Stratum % % Cover of t3Me Crust .6 Present? Yes ire No C _ nrps orrngineels - -- - Arid West - Version 11 -1 -2006 SOIL Sampling Point, 132 Vrofile Description: (Describe to the 4depth needed to document the in[iicafor or oanf'rrm t� a —absence of indicators) F Depth Matrix Redox Features otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrle Salle: inches Color (moist) °S olor {moist} Ia Type 1661- oc Texture' Remarks 0-9 7.5YR 414 98 Silty loam 9 -24 7.5YR 414 98 Silt loam 24 -30 7.5YR 414 98 Sandy clay 'Type; C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix. Location PL =Porn Lining, RC =Root Channel, M =Matrix. 'Soft Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Ciay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. Hydric Solt Indicators: (Appllcabla to all LRRs, unless econ a ry n Ica ors or more re uire otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrle Salle: rl U Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (55) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Eplpedon (A2) j—j Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) r U Drift Deposits (8 31 (Rtverine) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 j Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) F1 Drainage Patterns (B10) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (t=2) Red Parent Malarial (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ❑ Dry - Season Water Table (C7) Depleted Matrix (F3) other (Explain in Remarks) [F� 1 cm Muck (A8) (LRR D) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriver €ne) Redox Dark Surface (F6) L�JI Depleted Below Dark Surface (Af 1) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) L�11 Vernal Pools (F9) `tndlcators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yee : No to Remarks HYDROLOGY Wetl and Hydrology Indicators: �'. econ a ry n Ica ors or more re uire Primary Indicators jany one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (81) (Riverine) ❑ Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) F-1 High Water Table (A2) Blanc Crust (B12) r U Drift Deposits (8 31 (Rtverine) Saluratian (A3) Aquatic invertebrates (B13) F1 Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Non riverine) Hydrogen Su1ride Odor (C1) ❑ Dry - Season Water Table (C7) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverins) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriver €ne) Presence of Reduced Iron (CO Crayfish Burrows (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water - Stained Leaves (B9) FAC- Neutral Test 4175) Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) US Anny Corps Yes (" No C•; Depth (inches): Yes ('. No is Depth (inches): Yes No (i,- Depth (inches)i: gauge, previous Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (� No G`. Arid Wast - Version 11 -1 -2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Hydmphytfc Vegetation} present? Yes (0-, No (y oiecVSite: RTZ Gravel Mime Citylcounty:Garfield. Sampling Date:5 /912007 ApplicantfOwner:Zancanella & Associates Slate:Cp Sampling Point{;] Investigator (s)--Eric Petterson & Mindy Wheeler Section, Township, Range:77S, R96W, S33 Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.): Riverine terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %):0 -5 Subregion (LRR):D - interior Deserts Lat:39 °23.834'N Long :i08'06.457'W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Arvada Loath NWI classification: Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Ca No ['' (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soif 0 or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ( No {%• Are Vegetation Soil FXJ or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map ShOWing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydmphytfc Vegetation} present? Yes (0-, No (y Hydric Soil Present? Yes Cif No (j;., Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (0- No tZ within a Wetland? Yes (a No Remarks: VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Else scientific names.) % Cover specles7 Status 1.Populus deltoides 2 Yes FACW 4, Total Cover: 7 1% S_aplinglShrub Stratum 1 •Tamarix ramosissima 10 Yes FACW 2 Salix exigua 17 Yes out 1Populus deltoides 9 Yes FACW 4. 5. Total Cover: 3k% t- MelNotus officina s S Yes FACU 2. 3. 4- 7. 6. Total Cover: s Woody Vine Stratum 1- 2. Total Cover; % =l.t 06 Hare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust arps or engineers Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ' .; (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across Ail Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: g4 ( ojo (A113) Prevalence index worksnest: Total % Cover of: Multiply by.__ OBL species 1:7:. x t = 11 FACW species'} x 2 = 42''.: FAC species x 3 FACU species x 4 = 2t!' - UPL specles X5= Column Totals: ..'. : (A} T9_ (B) Prevalence Index = BIA = 1.84 A Dominance Test is X50% Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' {Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (i• No C, Arid West - Version t1.1 -2006 t� SOIL Sampling Point: C i eeded to document the -in 111111 ar con�iim the absence of Indicators. , roflle Descriptian: ;Describe to the depth need- epth Matrix Redox Features inches Color moist ° _ Color (moist) _ % 'type Loc Textufe3 Remarks 0 -20 7.5YR 313 98 2.5YR 3/6 2 C PL Clay ❑ Biotic Crust (0 12) Drift Deposits (83) (Rlverine) Ej Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (8 13) Drainage Patterns (814) ❑X Water Marks (B1) (Non riverino) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) ❑X Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonriverins) 'Type: C= Concentralion. D= Depletlon, RM= Reduced Matrix. 2Location Pt, Pore Lining, RC =Root Channel, M= Maldx. 'Sail Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Sift Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. Hydric Uil Indicators: (Applicabia to all LRRs, uni ass otherwlse noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: rI Satura €ion Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Histosot (Al) I__i Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Murk (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (SS) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR 8) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F 18) X Hydrogen Sulfide (A4} Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) E Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F8) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) i Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) ' Indicators of hydrvphytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Sail Present? Yes (i No C Remarks. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (any one Indicator is sufficient) _ F1 Water Marks {B3) (Riverins) ❑ Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (1311) Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverino) r ti High Water Table (A2) ❑ Biotic Crust (0 12) Drift Deposits (83) (Rlverine) Ej Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (8 13) Drainage Patterns (814) ❑X Water Marks (B1) (Non riverino) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) ❑X Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonriverins) X Oxidized Rhizospheras along Living Roots (C33 ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Drift Deposits (03) (Nonriver €ne) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Recant Iran Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) rI Satura €ion Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) El inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) I__i Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D33 D Water - Stained Leaves (B9) F] FAG- Neutral Test (05) Surface Water Present? Yes (' N0 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes (" loo e;: Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ('. N0 (i. Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (9, No (' tIS Army Corps Gf Hngineers Arid West - Version 13 -1 -2008 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid West Region Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (+7. Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes a VEGETATION No No r is the Sampled Area No 4—* within a Wettand? Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) °Ia Cover Species? Status 1. '4. Total Cover: "/o -ojecVSite: RTZ Gravel Mine CitylCounty Garfield Sampling Date:519i2007 ApplicanttOwner:Zancanella & Associates State:G(} Sampling Point:G2 Investigator(s):Eric Petterson & Mindy Wheeler Section:, Township, Range:T7S, R96W, 533 Landform (hit €stope, terrace, etc.): Riverine terrace -�� Luca! relief (concave, convex, none):none Slope ( %)e ()-5 �,. Subregion (LRRy:D - Interior Deserts Lat:39 °23,834'N Long: 10$ °06.457'W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Azvada Loam NWi c €assifcatlon: Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (` (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are VegetatlonE] Soil or Hydrology signiilcantly disturbed7 Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yas C No (i Are Vegetation Soil 0 or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (+7. Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes a VEGETATION No No r is the Sampled Area No 4—* within a Wettand? Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) °Ia Cover Species? Status 1. '4. Total Cover: "/o SaplingfShrub Stratum 1 Tamarix ramosissima 20 Yes FACW 2.popurus deltoides 20 Yes FACW 3 (;hWathamnus nauseosus ssp. graveolens 2 No uPL 4•Sarcohatus yermiculatus l5— Yes—F-ncU 5. Total Cover: Herb Stratum 3 Agropyron cri- riaturn 2•Suaeda intermedia 3 Bromus japonicas Woody Vine Stratum 1- 2. �° Sare Ground in Herb Stratum 115 Army Carps of Engincers Total Cover 5 Yes 7 Yes 6 Yes 18 % Total Cover: !n 60% % Cover of Biolic Crust ilPl. FAC UPL °Io Yes (-' No J Number of Dominant Species That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC: ;: (A) Total Humber of Dominant Species Across All Strata: [k':. (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5Q&% (A18) Total % Cover of: Multop€y by: OSL species x 1 = Q: FACW species 4 x 2 = $# - • : - FAC species, . x 3 = 2):.;. FACU species . I $ x 4 = 60. UPL species l3 x 5 = SS. Column Totals: ]. (A) 226:: (e) Prevalence Index = BlA = 3,0.1 - Worcphyth ifegietat art indicators: ;= Dominance Test is >50% 4; Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) F1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetailon' (Explain) 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology most be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (0. No (` Arid West - Version 11 -1 -2006 SOIL roflle Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conflrrn the absence of a- Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type" Locr Texture' 0 -20 7.5YR 414 Flay loam Sampling Point: C2 Remarks ? 'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion. RM= Reduced Matrix. 'Location: PL =Pore Lining, RC =Root Channel, M= Matrix . �~ 'Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Sift Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand Hydrlc Soil fndlcators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) indlcatnrs for Problematic Hydric Soiti: atwxnua Fy rnuicamr$ tz or more re uifso Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) Surface Water (A1) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Histic Epipedon (A2) F] Biotic Crust (B12) Stripped Matrix (5B) Saturation (A3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) L] Drainage Patterns (B10) Black Histic (A3) hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Loamy Mucky MineraI (F1) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Reduced Ver1l c (F18) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonrlverine) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) F� Crayfish Burrows (CB) Loamy Gfeyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Recent iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Red Parent Material (TF2) inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B1) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Shallow Aquitard (03) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (Ag) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (FS) 1"Ieted Below Dark Surface (A11 } Depleted Dark Surface (177) Thick Bark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) I Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) `Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ( No (±: HYDROLOGY wellano rryurology rnelcalers: atwxnua Fy rnuicamr$ tz or more re uifso P ri rn ary indicators (any one indicator is sufficient Water Marks (81) (Riverino) Surface Water (A1) [] Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) F] Biotic Crust (B12) ❑ Drift Deposits (83) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) F] Aquatic invertebrates (B13) L] Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) F-1 Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxldlzed Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) F-1 Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonrlverine) Presence of Reduced iron (C4) F� Crayfish Burrows (CB) Surface Soil Cracks (BB) ❑ Recent iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (C9) inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B1) Lj Other {Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (03) Water- Stained Leaves (89) FAC•Neutrai Test (D5) Surface Water Present? Yes r No r, Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes (7. No ri. Depth (inches); Saturation Present? Yes C No re: Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Welland Hydrology Present? Yes ( No nescr!be Reccrded Data stream gauge, moni onng well, asHat photos, preAious 'ins padtipns), av�iiabla: Arid West - Version 11- 1.2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (0i No (Z Hydric Soil Present? Yes (-�, No (# is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �J-p; No with in a Wetland? Yes C No t• Remarks: - -- - - - - VEGETATION Tree Stratum (Use scientific names,) 1.Populus delroides 2. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 17amarix ramvsissima 2•populus delloides 3 Salix exigua 5. 1W WLi6 LJVFIi111tl11% FOUL VIV °k Cover 52ecas? Status 1 Yes FACW Total Cover: Multi by: ojectl5ite: RTZ Gravel Mine _. City /Counly.Gareleld Sampling Date:5i9i2007 ApplicantiOwner:rancanella & Associates State:CO Sampling Poinl:pl €nves6gator(# Eric Petterson & Mindy Wheeler Section, Township, RangwT7S, R96W, S33 _ Landforrn (hi €Islope, terrace, etc.): Riverine terrace Local relief (concave, convex, nono):none Slope ( %):0 -5 Subregion (LRR);D - Interior Deserts Lat:39°23.834'N Long: I08 °06.457' W Datum; Soil Map Unit Name: Arvada Loam NtVI classification: Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this lime of year? Yes to No (` (if no, explain in Remarks ) Are Vegetation Soil ❑X or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes (' Not;• Are Vegetation Soil 0 or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (0i No (Z Hydric Soil Present? Yes (-�, No (# is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �J-p; No with in a Wetland? Yes C No t• Remarks: - -- - - - - VEGETATION Tree Stratum (Use scientific names,) 1.Populus delroides 2. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 17amarix ramvsissima 2•populus delloides 3 Salix exigua 5. 1W WLi6 LJVFIi111tl11% FOUL VIV °k Cover 52ecas? Status 1 Yes FACW Total Cover: Total Cover: 141% Herb Stratum t - polygonum douglash 20 Yes UP- 2WOrdeum jubalum 1 No FAC 4. 6. 5. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum t- 2. Total Cover: 21 % Total Cover: % % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 55 °/° % Cover of Biotic Crust Du Number of Qom in ant Species That Ara OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:;;: (a) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60,0 I; (EV13) Total % Cover of: Multi by: 4 Yes FACW 4 Yes ff FACW 6 ` Yes ura. _ Total Cover: 141% Herb Stratum t - polygonum douglash 20 Yes UP- 2WOrdeum jubalum 1 No FAC 4. 6. 5. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum t- 2. Total Cover: 21 % Total Cover: % % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 55 °/° % Cover of Biotic Crust Du Number of Qom in ant Species That Ara OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:;;: (a) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60,0 I; (EV13) Total % Cover of: Multi by: OBL species x 1 = 0'• FACW species:, x 2 FAC species l:z' x 3 FACU species x 4 UPL species 24 x5= I30. Column Totals' 3 y . (A) 1.51' (e) Prevalence Index = 81A = 4.10: . � r� nn�IT riarxT�tn�i bra }nra� - ' _ X Dominance Test is X50% r. Prevalence index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No C% Arid West - Version 11 -1 -2008 SOIL Sampling Point: D 1 ;Profile Description., (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)_ Color (moist) _ o or (moist) Type' foc Texture3 Remarks 0 -32 5YR 412 Clay 'Type: C =Concentratlon, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix. 'Location: PL =Pore Lining, RC =Root Channel, M= Matrix. 'So it Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loarn, Silty Clay Loam, Slit Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand Hydric Sall Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hyddc Salls: Histosol (A1) Prima ry Indicators a ny one indicator is "clenf Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Salt Crust (911) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Biotic Crust (812) Lr�JI Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns (BID) 2 cm Muck (A10y (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) LJ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits. (B2) (Nonrlverine) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) 0 Drift Deposits (133) (Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Reduced Vartic (F 18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) [] Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) FAC- Neutral Test (05) Depleted Matrix (1.3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'j 1 cm Muck (A8) (LRR C) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11 } Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick ©ark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) `indicators of hydrophytic vegelation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes C. No Co. HYDROLOGY wetlano myaroiogy indicators: =onaary indicaiors tz or more requuesD Prima ry Indicators a ny one indicator is "clenf [_1 Water Marks (B1) (Riverins) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Salt Crust (911) L1 Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) ❑ Biotic Crust (812) ❑ Drift Deposits (83) (Rlverihej Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (131) (Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) LJ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits. (B2) (Nonrlverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizespheres along Living Roots (C3) F] Thin Muck Surface (C7) 0 Drift Deposits (133) (Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) E] Crayfish Burrows (CB) Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) [] Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water - Stained Leaves (89) FAC- Neutral Test (05) Surface Water Present? We let Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) US Anny Corps Yes {". No (i: Depth (inches): Yes ( No re Depth {inches}: Yes �' l+lo t Depth (inches): gauge, Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (% No r Arid Wast - Version 11 -1 -2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region ojec315ite: R'1'Z Grave} Mine� CitylCaunty:Garfteld Sampling Date:51912007 ApplicaniVowner.Zancanella & Associates State-.Co Sampling Point:E1 Investigator(s): Eric Petterson & Mindy Wheeler Section, Township, Range :T7S, R96W, S33 Landform (hi€lslope, terrace, etc* Riverine terrace Local relief (concave, eonvex, nene):none Slope ( %) 0 -5 Subregion (LRR)D - interior Deserts Lat:39023.834'N Long: 108'06,457'W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name; Arvada loam NWl classificaliom Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No {' (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation F-1 Soil X or Hydrology E] significardly disturbed? Ara "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes(–. No Are Vegetation Soil Q of hydrology [] naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yea No M Hydrfc Soil Present? Yes {? No (a i is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (:2 within a Wetland? Yes C No t: Remarks: VEGETATION Aosc[uie uommant moicaic Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover - Species? Status 1.Elaeagnus ungustifolia 1 Yes FAC •4. Total Cover: Saplingl5hrub Stratum 1 TamaKr ramosissima 2•pupulus delfoides l -f - -- 3 Elaeagnus anguslijolia 4. Total Cover: Herb Stratum 1 'Welilufus afcinalis 2 Nvrdeum jubQlwn 3, 4, 5. 6. 7, 8. % 1 No FACW 4 Yes FACW 1 No FAc 0131 species x 1 = OF.- 6 No FACV 30 Yes FAC FAC species 32:.. x 3 = 96: FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Total Cover: 36 % Woody Vine Stratum 1- Z Total Cover: % 1 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum —65 % % Cover of Blotic Crust /n 4 �.;riarnarka• Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3:.:. (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:„ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: I`0€is0% (AIB) Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 0131 species x 1 = OF.- FACW species x 2 = FAC species 32:.. x 3 = 96: FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 43 . (A) 13€ . (s) Prevalence Index = BIA = 3,02 . Dominance Test is X50% e.i Prevalence Index is 510' Morphological Adaptations` (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (e No C )s of Engineers Arid West - Version 11 -1 -2006 SOIL %1."; rofile Description: (Deecribs to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm epth Matrix Redox Features "j inches Color (moist) o Color (moist) °/o Tywe Loc Texture' 0 -6 7.5YR 312_ 98 silty Clay 6 -32 7.5YR 412 98 Clay Sampling Point: E1 Remarks 'Type: C =Con central ion, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix. 'Location: PL =Pore Lining, RC= Root Channel, M= Matrix . 'Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Slit Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. Hydric S Indlcators: (Applicable to all LRRa. urrless ❑I Sett Crust (B 11) otherwise noted.) Indtcaton; for Problematic Hydrlc $ells: Fj Histoso€ (A1) Saturation (A3) Sandy Redox (85) �j 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Water Marks (131) (Nonrlverine) Histic Eplpedon (A2) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Stripped Matrix (SO) H 2 [m Muck (A10) (LRR B) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Black Histic (A3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Loamy Mucky MInatal (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Inundation Visible an Aerial Imagery (B7) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Water - Stained Leaves (89) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) FAC- Neutral Test (135) depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain In Remarks) 1 cm Muck (Ag) (LRR D) Redox Dario Surface (F8) Depleted Below Dark Surface {A11) Depleted dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (FR) Sandy Mucky Mineral ($1) Vernal Pools (F8j `indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present- Restrictive Layer (if present): k Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes �' No (i: Remarks: HYDROLOGY Primani Indicators (any one indicator Is sufficient Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (Al) ❑I Sett Crust (B 11) Sediment Deposits (82) (Rlv*rine) F] High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B17) lI Drift Deposits (83) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) ] -J- l Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Drainage Patterns (BID) Water Marks (131) (Nonrlverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (82) (Nonrivarine) Oxidized Rhizosphares along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7) FXJ Drift Deposits T3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible an Aerial Imagery (B7) F1 Other (Explain in Remarks] Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water - Stained Leaves (89) FAC- Neutral Test (135) Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe Yes (- loo ti: Depth [inches); Yes (` No Depth (inches): Yes {' No Depth (inches): ream gauge, monitoring well, aerial phatoc Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Co- No (' Arid West - Version 11.1.2006 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the fD Form instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): August 2007 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: US Army Corp of Engineers, Colorado /Gunnison Basin Regulatory Office C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Stale:RTZ Gravel Pits County /parisblborough: Garfield County City: Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 39 "23.834'° 14, Long, 108 °06.457'° VJ. Universal Transverse Mercator: Marne of nearest waterbody: Colorado River Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Colorado River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC); Upper Colorado River ® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. © Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc..,) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: -SUMMARY _-OE FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There AA "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Y '. [[ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: Colorado River facilitates interstate commerce. B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Ail "waters a }'rite U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t TNWs, including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that Row directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that Flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: :Von - wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 1.06 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: N4 Al pRis b10 Elevation of established OBWM (if known), approximately 5,006ft. 2. Non - regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicahle):3 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. FQr purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TAtW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (e.g., typically 3 months). 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section 111.F. SECTION III: C WA ANALYST A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TN Ws and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. if the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource Is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections i11.A.1 and and ScOlon I]I.D.I.; otherwise, see Section I11.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Colorado River. Summarize rationale supporting determination: Wetlands are elevationally within high water of Colorado River, anti likely have sub- surface hydrological connectivity. 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent ": Wetlands are within 5d' of Colorado River, and separated by levee, site has likely sub - surface hydrological connectivity to Colorado River. B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WF,TLANDS tfF AMY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, If any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent wagers" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource Is not a TNW, but has year -round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. if the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section II1.D.4. A wetland that €s adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps d €,trios and I EPA regions will include In the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbodys Is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine If the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of Its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request Is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. if the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.I for the tributary, Section 111.8.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section 111.5.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists Is determined in Section I1I.C: below. 1. Characteristics of non -TNW* that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (I) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: P141A Drainage area: "A tol Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (f €) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW; ❑ Tributary flaws directly into TNW. ❑ Tributary flows through Plvj . tM tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick -L i river miles from TNW. Project waters are PlrkL.i river mites from RPW. Project waters are P €ell I'M aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pkkililf aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: `€Vote that the Instructional Cividebock contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and West. Identify flow route to TNW3: Tributary strcam order, if known: (b) General 'rrihu[ary C FActchsti s (check a] [ tbig apply): Tributary is: ❑ Natural ❑ Artificial (rnan- made). Explain: ❑ Manipulated (roan- altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to lop of bank (estimate); Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Plag;>f 4. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete ❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck ❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/%o cover: 0 tither. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain. Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes. Explain: 'tributary geometry; P10k;i; Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % (c) Flaw: Tributary provides for: PJAIMIA Fstimate average number of flow events in review area/year: kDA Descnbe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Characteristics: Subsurface flow: 1% F1�W, Explain findings: ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that appl y): ❑ Bed and hanks ❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): ❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ❑ the presence of litter and debris ❑ changes in the character of soil ❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation ❑ shelving ❑ the presence of wrack line ❑ vegetation malted down, bent, or absent ❑ sediment soiling ❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ scour ❑ sediment deposition ❑ multiple observed or predicted flaw events ❑ water staining ❑ abrupt change in plant community ❑ other (list): ❑ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ ❑ high Tide Line indicated by: ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ line shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings /characteristics ❑ tidal gauges ❑ other (list): me lateral extent of CWA juri sdiction (check all that apply) Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ❑ survey to available datum; ❑ physical markings; ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characteri ze tributary (e.g,, water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Fxplain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flaw into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. °A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever j urisdiction (c.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the 0 H W M has been re moved by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the 0H WM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e.g., flaw over rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies w i I I look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 'Ibid. (1r) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): { ❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species, Explain findings: ❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TN W that flow directly or €nd Ire ctty into TN (t) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics Properties: Wet] and size: t .06acres Weiland type. E xp lai n: Depressiona I HG class with subclass 2 and more commonly 4. Wetland quality. Explain:Poor- rare inundation has produced marginal vegetation characteristics. Project wetlands cross or seine as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship. with Non -TNW: Flow is: in 10*"t Explain: Surface flow is: oirtot+ fh, 0 14 Characteristics: Site captures runoff from surranding flats and a County Road. Subsurface flow: Y�4. Explain findings. Vary close to Colorado Rivcr and subsurface hydrology is likely. ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -1220: ❑ Directly abutting ® Not directly abutting r ❑ Discrete wettand hydrologic connection. Explain: ❑ Ecological connection. Explain: ® Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: Levee. (d) Proximi V f Re!ation shiplLo TNW Project wetlands are ' river miles from TN W. Project waters are i [tr lji�a aerial (straight) miles from TN W. Flow is from: Ne -F16A. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the $k 'W floodpla in, (11) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Intermiltant overland flow is captured in borrow pits. Identify specific pollutants, if known: Likely some petrochemical runoff frorn nearby County Road 302. ( €11) Biological Characteristics. Wetland! supports (check all that apply): ❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ® Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain:Marginal (less than 10%) hydrophytic cover. ® Habitat for: ® Federally Listed species. Explain findings.-Area has potential habitat for yellow - bitted cuckoo. ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquaticlwildlifc diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary ( €f as ) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: I Approximately ( 20 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: [7irectlXal3uts? 4YIN) Sire {in acres0 17]reclly abuts'? {YIN] Size (in acres No .46 No .l3 No .43 Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Site captures and stores surface runoff from surrounding uplands and County Road 302 and ponds the runoff in borrow pits on the back side of levees separateing the site from surface hydrological connection to the Colorado River. Ponded water has facilitated the development oFhydrophinc vegetation and wetland soils, with primary and secondary hydrology. Due to the close proximity of the site to the Colorado River, and similar elevations to the Colorado Rivers waters, subsurface hydrological connectivity cannot be ruled out without significant research efforts. C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary Itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and Its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all Its adjacent wet €ands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNWj Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed In the Instructional Guidebaok. Factors to consider include, for exampie: ■ Does the tribe in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), the capacity to ca pollutants or flood waters to �']'� ] ( Y7. P ty carry p TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tri butary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? ■ Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations Is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: I. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III, D; 2. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D; 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of signifi cant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERSIWETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide sire estimates in review area: TNWs: linear feet width (fl), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. N 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdiclional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: ® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictianaI. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B, Provide rationale indicating that tributary Flows a` seasonally: Evidence of surface flow and ponding exists on the site, but surface waters were not actively flowing during the site visit. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all Ihat apply): �] Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). q Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify lype(s) of waters: Non- RI'Wss that now directly or indirectly into TNWs. ® Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW isjurisdicIional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check a I I that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non - wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Wetlands directly shutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Q Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. [] Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically now year - round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section 11i.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that Welland is directly abutting an RPW: 0 Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section I1I.B and rationale in Section I11,D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly Into TNWs. ® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TTti W are jurisidictiona1. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III, C, Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 1.06 acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. 0 Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tribuiary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III. C. Provide estimates for j urisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a j uri s d ict i anal tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED (INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTiON OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) :'o a 'See Footnote t# 3. 4.. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IIi.D,6 of the Instructional Guidebook. '0 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ For review consistent with the process described in the CorpslEPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Aef Jarisdiction Fallowing Rapanos. A which are or couId be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which [ish or shellfish are u could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign comm ere e. which are or could he used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain:Likely subsurface hydroligical connection to Colorado River. < Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Colorado River does support interstate commerce, and wetlands on site positively support hydrological, biological and overall function of Colorado River. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check AI that app €y): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non -we ti and waters: acres. Identify types) of waters: Q Wetlands: 1.06 acres. F. NUN - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CIIECK ALL THAT APPLY): [3 If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Welland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Q Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in " SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migralory ilird RuIc" (MHR). © Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: p Other: (explain, if not covered above). Provide acreage estimates for non - jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sale potential basis of jurisdiction is the M13R factors (i.e., presence of migratory hirds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): Non- wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (fl). 0 Lakes /ponds: acres. Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates far non - juri sdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Non- wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): - linear feet, width (ft). Lakes /ponds; acres. Other non- wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicanticonsultant: ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/cunsuItant. ❑ 0ffice concurs with data sheets/delineatiun report. ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Carps: Corps navigable waters' study: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas. ❑ USGS NHD data. ❑ USGS $ and 12 digit HUC maps. 1],S, Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000 Parachute, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey, Citation: National wetlands inventory map(s). fate name: StaWl_ocal wetland inventory map(s): FEMA/I; MM maps: Y 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date).NAIP Garfield County 2005. or ❑ Other (Name & Date): Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response Ietter: App tic able/supporling case law: Applicable/supporting scientific literature: Other Mformation (Please specify): B. ADDrnoNAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: