The URL can be used to link to this page

TXU Trail-SY120531 I AIM integrated environmental solutions 31 May 2012 Mr.Brian LaFoy,P.E. Nathan D.Maier Consulting Engineers,Inc. 8080 Park Lane,Suite 600 Dallas,Texas 75231 Re: Waters of the United States Delineation TXU Easement-Trail Expansion,Coppell,Dallas County,Texas Dear Mr.LaFoy, Integrated Environmental Solutions,LLC.(IES)performed a survey to identify any water features that meet a definition of a water of the United States to facilitate design for the TXU Easement-Trail Expansion in the City of Coppell, Dallas County,Texas (Attachment A,Figure 1). The proposed project will involve the expansion of the hike and bike trail system within the TXU easement. As such,the delineation project area included the TXU transmission line corridor (easement) from Sandy Lake Road south to Belt Line Road, and included a small segment of corridor extending west between Mallard Drive and Hidden Hollow Court. This report will ultimately assess the project's anticipated impacts to potential jurisdictional waters and determine the appropriate Section 404 permits for the proposed project to ensure compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA). INTRODUCTION Agencies that regulate impacts to the nation's water resources within Texas include the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Jurisdictional waters of the United States are protected under guidelines outlined in Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA,in Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and by the review process of the TCEQ. The USACE has the primary regulatory authority for enforcing Section 404 requirements for waters of the United States,including wetlands. The definition of waters of the United States,in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3,includes waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, wetlands, sloughs, wet meadows,or natural ponds and all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States. Also included are wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands). The term adjacent is defined as bordering,contiguous,or neighboring. Jurisdictional wetlands are a category of waters of the United States and have been defined by the USACE as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support,a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Integrated Environmental Solutions,LLC. 2150 South Central Expressway,Suite 110 McKinney,Texas 75070 www.intenvsol.com Telephone:972.562.7672 Facsimile:972.562.7673 Mr.Brian LaFoy,P.E. TXU Easement-Trail Expansion-Waters of the United States Delineation 31 May 2012 Page 2 Waters of the United States are defined in 33 CFR 328.3 (a)as: 1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce,including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 2. All interstate waters including interstate 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 destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce;or iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; 4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; 5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs(a)(1)-(4)of this section; 6. The territorial seas; 7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs 1-6 above. 8. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA(other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m)which also meet the criteria of this definition)are not waters of the United States. On 05 June 2007, the USACE and the USEPA issued joint guidance on delineation of waters on the United States based on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Rapanos and Cara bell. Under this guidance, potential waters of the United States have been classified as traditional navigable waters (TNW),relatively permanent waters (RPW) (i.e., having flow most of the year or at least seasonally), or non-RPWs. Per the guidance, TNWs, wetlands adjacent to TNWs, RPWs, and wetlands that directly abut RPWs are waters of the United States. Wetlands that are bordering, contiguous, or neighboring another water of the United States are considered"adjacent." Additionally,wetlands that are within the 100-year floodplain of another water of the United States are also considered adjacent. Non-RPWs, wetlands contiguous or adjacent to non-RPWs, and wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a RPW must undergo a"significant nexus"test on a case-by- case basis to determine the jurisdictional nature of these water features. Under the"significant nexus"test a water feature must have substantial connection to a TNW by direct flow,or by indirect biological,hydrologic, or chemical connection. Under the "significant nexus" test the USACE District Engineer must submit the jurisdictional determination(JD)to the regional USEPA office,which makes the decision whether to move the JD to Headquarters USACE to make the final determination. The new guidance does not void the January 2001 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. USACE which disallowed regulation of isolated wetlands under the CWA through the "Migratory Bird Rule." Previously,the USACE assumed jurisdiction over isolated waters of the United States based on its 1986 preamble stating that migratory birds used these habitats. The "Migratory Bird Rule" provided the nexus to interstate commerce and thus protection under the CWA. However, the new guidance does require that the "significant nexus" test be performed in addition to an analysis of other potential interstate commerce uses for isolated waters. METHODOLOGY Prior to conducting fieldwork, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map, the Soil Survey of Dallas County,Texas and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) digital soil database for Dallas County, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and historic aerial photographs of the proposed project area were studied to identify possible waters of the United States and Mr.Brian LaFoy,P.E. TXU Easement-Trail Expansion-Waters of the United States Delineation 31 May 2012 Page 3 areas prone to wetland development. Mr. Rudi Reinecke and Mr. Shae Kipp of IES delineated all potential waters of the United States in the field in accordance with the USACE procedures on 27 April 2012. Wetland determinations were performed on location using the methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineer Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0,March 2010). The presence of a wetland is determined by the positive indication of three criteria(i.e.,hydrophytic vegetation,hydrology,and hydric soils). Potential jurisdictional boundaries for other water resources (i.e., non-wetland) were delineated in the field at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The 33 CFR 328.3(e) defines OHWM as the line on the shore/bank established by flowing and/or standing water, marked by characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank,erosion shelving,changes in the character of soil,destruction of terrestrial vegetation, presence of litter and debris,or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Water feature boundaries were recorded on a Trimble GeoExplorer XT global positioning system (GPS) unit capable of sub-meter accuracy. Photographs were also taken at representative points within the project area (Attachment B). Wetland Determination Data Forms were completed where wetland features and variation in these features were encountered and to determine wetland feature boundaries(Attachment C). RESULTS Literature Review The USGS topographic map (Carrollton 7.5' Quadrangle, 1982) illustrates the project area as relatively flat, between Denton Creek and Grapevine Creek near the Elm Fork Trinity River (Attachment A, Figure 2). It appears that the project area is potentially within the floodplain of all three water features. Several overhead utility lines,both above and below-ground,are shown within the project area and the surrounding vicinity is shown as undeveloped. The Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas mapped six soil series within the project area-Altoga silty clay,5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded; Ferris-Heiden complex, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Frio silty clay, occasionally flooded; Heiden clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes,eroded; Seagoville clay,occasionally flooded; and Trinity clay,occasionally flooded. Trinity clay,occasionally flooded is listed on the National Hydric Soils list prepared by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils within depressional areas(revision April 2012) (Attachment A,Figure 3). The FEMA FIRM (Map Panel 48113C0155 J, effective date 23 August 2001) illustrates the project area from Sandy Lake Road to MacArthur Boulevard within Zone AE (areas inundated within the 100-year flood with base flood elevations determined to be at 443 above mean sea level [amsl]),with outlying areas within Zone X (areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from the 100-year flood). The remainder of the project area from MacArthur Boulevard to Belt Line Road is within Zone X (areas determined to be outside 500 year floodplain) (Attachment A,Figure 4). Historic aerials of the project area and surrounding vicinity from 1942 to 2005 have been included in Attachment D. A review of historic aerial photographs from 1942 until 1972 shows the project area and surrounding vicinity as undeveloped. Multiple drainage patterns and areas of inundation can be seen throughout, as indicated by the varying color signatures. In some areas it is hard to determine which way these drainages flow, as hydrology is influenced by Denton Creek, the Elm Fork Trinity River, and in some cases,Grapevine Creek;although ultimately hydrology within this area reaches the Elm Fork Trinity River. In 1984,development of the surrounding vicinity began. Drainage patterns could still be seen within the project area and immediate vicinity. Beginning in 1995, inundation of the project area, indicative of present day conditions,was visible. By 2004, conditions, including the surrounding development, are similar to present day. Site Survey As the project area was located within an overhead transmission line and a belowground pipeline easement, maintenance is required to prevent the growth of trees, which could interfere with the overhead lines. As Mr Brian LaFoy,P.E. TXU Easement-Trail Expansion-Waters of the United States Delineation 31 May 2012 Page 4 such, the plant communities are dominated by herbaceous species, with a few shrubs and saplings present. The two predominant plant communities were determined by hydrologic regime, as such, there was an upland herbaceous community and a wetland herbaceous community. Dominant vegetation associated with the upland herbaceous community was Japanese brome (Bromus japonicum), Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), beggars lice (Torilis arvensis), and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). The wetland herbaceous community was dominated by various sedges (Carex spp.), water horehound (Lycopus americanus), water paspalum (Paspalum fluitans), water primrose (Ludwigia repens), spike rush (Eleocharis palustris),frog fruit(Phyla nodiflora),and sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus). Woody species observed, included,black willow(Salix nigra),green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), cottonwood (Populus deltoides),and willow baccharis(Baccharis salicina). The topography of the project area was complex, as it was generally flat, but sloped to the center of the project area; ultimately to the east. The project area sloped away from the major drainages (i.e., Denton Creek and Grapevine Creek) and their tributaries. Ultimately,when water elevations reached the capacity of the depressional area,water flowed into adjacent impoundments on the golf course to the east of the project area. It appeared that as the developments have occurred in the vicinity, fill was placed to elevate the surrounding developed land from the 100-year floodplain, further exacerbating the depressional nature of the project area. Denton Creek flows to the east to the Elm Fork Trinity River, north of the project area and Grapevine Creek flows east to the Elm Fork Trinity River, south of the project area. The Elm Fork Trinity River is located a short distance to the east of the project area. Aquatic features identified within the project area are connected to the Elm Fork Trinity River through various drainages and impoundments that drain to the river and through the 100-year floodplain. The Elm Fork Trinity River,within this reach,is considered a TNW-in fact. Eleven potentially jurisdictional waters, six tributaries and five wetlands, were delineated within the project area are summarized in Table 1 and detailed below(Attachment A,Figure 5). Table 1. Aquatic Features Delineated within Project Area Water of the Hydraulic Length Area Water Identification Water Feature Type United States Characteristics (Linear Feet) (Acre) Tributary 3 Drainage Channel No Ephemeral 52 0.014 Tributary 5 Drainage Channel No Ephemeral 185 0.021 Tributary 6 Drainage Channel No Ephemeral 254 0.100 Subtotal of Non-Jurisdictional Features 491 0.135 Tributary 1 Tributary Yes Ephemeral 113 0.006 Tributary 2 Tributary Yes Ephemeral 87 0.008 Tributary 4 Tributary Yes Intermittent 796 0.261 Wetland 1 Herbaceous Wetland Yes Oxidized 1.535 Rhizospheres Wetland 2 Herbaceous Wetland Yes Oxidized 0.085 Rhizospheres Wetland 3 Herbaceous Wetland Yes Oxidized 4.153 Rhizospheres Wetland 4 Herbaceous Wetland Yes Inundated --- 16.779 Wetland 5 Herbaceous Wetland Yes Water Marks --- 5.147 Subtotal of Jurisdictional Features 996 27.974 TOTAL AQUATIC FEATURES 1,487 28.109 Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and Wetland 3 were located at the north end of the project area near Sandy Lake Road. As with the rest of the project area,this area is relatively flat and collects stormwater from the adjacent residential neighborhoods that drain into this area. Vegetation was dominated by frogfruit,water paspalum, sand dropseed, and sedges (Carex tribuloides), meeting the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. Hydric soils were indicated by redox dark surface,with soil matrix colors of 90 percent 10 YR 3/2 with 10 percent 10 YR 3/6 redox concentrations. Hydrology was indicated around the fringe of the wetlands by oxidized rhizospheres on living roots,the presence of crawfish burrows,and geomorphic position;however,the center Mr.Brian LaFoy,P.E. TXU Easement-Trail Expansion-Waters of the United States Delineation 31 May 2012 Page 5 of these wetlands were inundated and saturated with water. Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and Wetland 3 met all three criteria for a wetland. These wetland areas differed from the surrounding uplands,which contained the same vegetation but did not contain hydric soils or any primary indicators of hydrology; crawfish burrows were present in the uplands; however,which is a secondary indicator. No culverts or other type of physical connection to Denton Creek were identified during field investigations. As such, it is likely that Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and Wetland 3 are connected, or considered adjacent, to the surrounding features and the Elm Fork Trinity River, and possibly Denton Creek as well, only after high rainfall events and through the 100- year floodplain. Per the 2007 guidance,as wetlands adjacent to a TNW,Wetland 1,Wetland 2,and Wetland 3 would be considered waters of the United States and regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Wetland 4 was located in the center of the project area and was the largest of the wetlands. Wetland 4 collects a large amount of stormwater from the adjacent developments and was characterized by large areas of deeper water. Tributary 1 and Tributary 2 provide outlets for water into the adjacent impoundments located on the golf course, which eventually drain into the Elm Fork Trinity River. Tributary 3 provides another source of hydrology into Wetland 4. Vegetation within Wetland 4 was dominated by water horehound, various species of sedges, black willow saplings, small areas of cattails, water paspalum, water primrose, green ash saplings, and spike rush. Several soil test pits were taken throughout the wetland; however, hydric soils in all test pits were indicated by redox dark surface. Hydrology was indicated by surface water,saturation,water marks, drift deposits,algal mats,inundation visible on aerial imagery,water stained leaves,crawfish burrows,and geomorphic position. Wetland 4 met all three criteria for a wetland. A physical connection was provided by Tributary 1 and Tributary 2 to the adjacent impoundments and Wetland 4 would be considered adjacent to the Elm Fork Trinity River,and possibly Denton Creek as well,through the 100-year floodplain. Per the 2007 guidance,as a wetland adjacent to a TNW,Wetland 4 would be considered a water of the United States and regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Tributary 1 and Tributary 2 provide a hydrologic connection between Wetland 4 and adjacent impoundments located outside of the project area. The limits of these tributaries were identified and delineated at the OHWM based on field indicators including destruction of terrestrial vegetation, standing water,and a shallow bed and bank. Water was flowing from the wetland to the golf course impoundments through these tributaries. These tributaries appear to have been recently formed as a result of a beaver dam restricting water through the engineered overflow structure. The location of these tributaries is the next lowest point in the topography after the beaver dam has restricted the engineered spillway. It is believed that water within these tributaries is not influenced by ground water,but is surface water only,as such Tributary 1 and Tributary 2 would be considered ephemeral. However, as this water likely flows at least seasonally with the overflow of runoff from the surrounding developments and wetland areas,Tributary 1 and Tributary 2 would be considered RPWs. Under the 2007 guidance, channels that transport relatively permanent flow between two or more waters of the United States, including wetlands, are waters of the United States and regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Tributary 3,located along the western project area boundary,is a stormwater drainage channel that directs stormwater into Wetland 4 from the surrounding uplands and developments to the west. The limits of this channel were identified and delineated at the OHWM based on destruction of terrestrial vegetation. Hydrology is provided by stormwater runoff and this channel would be considered ephemeral. As a channel constructed in uplands to direct stormwater, that does not contain a relatively permanent flow of water, under the 2007 guidance,Tributary 3 would not be considered a water of the United States and would not be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Wetland 5 was located at the southern end of the project area and also collected stormwater like the other wetland areas. Wetland 5 was connected to Wetland 4 through culverts constructed under MacArthur Boulevard. Vegetation within Wetland 5 was dominated by spike rush, water horehound, and cattails with areas dominated by willow baccharis. Two soil test pits were dug; hydric soils in both test pits were indicated by redox dark surface. Hydrology was indicated by oxidized rhizospheres on living roots, water marks, drift deposits,water stained leaves, and geomorphic position. Wetland 5 met all three criteria for a wetland. Wetland 5 is shown by FEMA to be located outside the 100-year floodplain;however,it is connected to Wetland 4 through culverts and topographic surveys show that elevations of Wetland 5 match elevations within the adjacent 100-year floodplain. Through this connection to a wetland adjacent to a TNW,Wetland 5 would also be considered a water of the United States as well and regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Mr Brian LaFoy,P.E. TXU Easement-Trail Expansion-Waters of the United States Delineation 31 May 2012 Page 6 Tributary 4 was located near the southern end of the project area,flowing from west to east, outfalling into the project area through culverts and exiting the project area through culverts. It appears that Tributary 4 then continues east, outfalling into an impoundment located on the adjacent golf course. The limits of Tributary 4 were identified and delineated at the OHWM based on the destruction of terrestrial vegetation and the presence of a bed and bank. Flowing water was observed within the tributary and it is surmised that flow is influenced by ground water and as such,Tributary 4 would be considered intermittent. As this water likely flows at least seasonally,Tributary 4 would be considered a RPW. Drainage patterns within the vicinity of Tributary 4 can be seen on aerial photographs since 1942. As such, despite is current configuration; Tributary 4 is likely a functional replacement of a former water of the United States providing a relatively permanent flow to water of the United States. Under the 2007 guidance,Tributary 4 would be considered a water of the United States and regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Tributary 5 was a stormwater drainage channel that directed stromwater from the surrounding development into Tributary 4. The limits of this channel were identified and delineated at the OHWM based on the destruction of terrestrial vegetation and the presence of a shallow bed and bank. Hydrology is provided by stormwater runoff and this channel would be considered ephemeral. As a channel constructed in uplands to direct stormwater, that does not contain a relatively permanent flow of water, under the 2007 guidance,Tributary 5 would not be considered a water of the United States and would not be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Tributary 6 was located at the southern end of the project area, directing stormwater from west to east, parallel to Belt Line Road. The limits of Tributary 6 were identified and delineated at the OHWM based on the destruction of terrestrial vegetation and the presence of a shallow bed and bank. Hydrology is provided by stormwater runoff and this channel would be considered ephemeral. As a channel constructed in uplands to direct stormwater, that does not contain a relatively permanent flow of water, under the 2007 guidance, Tributary 5 would not be considered a water of the United States and would not be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. SECTION 404 PERMIT ASSESSMENT The final proposed project has not yet been determined; however,it will involve the construction of hike and bike trails through the project area. Depending on the final project plan,two nationwide permits,Nationwide Permit(NWP) 14-Linear Transportation Crossings and NWP 42 -Recreational Facilities could be utilized to authorize the proposed project. Both permits authorize trails; however,should the proposed project include other attendant features such as park benches or structures (e.g., gazebos or covered areas), exercise or information stations,or other recreational-like structures, NWP 42 would have to be utilized. As the project area consists of large wetland, it is likely that the proposed project would impact wetlands. As such, pre- construction notification (PCN) under either permit would be required. The following is a summary of the terms of each permit. NWP 14 authorizes activities required for the construction,expansion,modification,or improvement of linear transportation projects (e.g., roads, highways, railways, trails) within waters of the United States; the discharge cannot exceed 0.5 acre of waters of the United States. Any stream channel modification,including bank stabilization, is limited to the minimum necessary to construct or protect the linear transportation project; such modifications must be in the immediate vicinity of the project. The permittee must submit a PCN to the USACE prior to commencing the activity if the loss of waters of the United States exceeds 0.10 acre or there is a discharge in a special aquatic site, including wetlands. NWP 14 also authorizes the temporary structures, fills, and work necessary to construct the linear transportation project. Appropriate measures must be taken to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable, when temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, are necessary for construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of construction sites. Temporary fills must consist of materials,and be placed in a manner,that will not be eroded by expected high flows. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction contours. The areas affected by temporary fills must be re-vegetated,as appropriate. NWP 42 authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States for the construction or expansion of recreational facilities (e.g., playing fields, basketball or tennis courts, hiking Mr.Brian LaFoy,P.E. TXU Easement-Trail Expansion-Waters of the United States Delineation 31 May 2012 Page 7 trails, bike paths, golf courses, ski areas, horse trails, nature centers, campgrounds). This NWP also authorizes the construction or expansion of small support facilities, such as maintenance and storage buildings and stables that are directly related to the recreational activity, but it does not authorize the construction of hotels,restaurants,racetracks,stadiums,arenas,or similar facilities. The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 0.5 acre waters of the United States, including the loss of no more than 300 linear feet of stream bed,unless for ephemeral and intermittent streams this limit is waived in writing by the USACE. The permittee must submit a PCN to the UASCE prior to commencing the activity, regardless of the size of the impact. CONCLUSIONS To summarize the delineation, six tributaries and five wetlands were identified and delineated within the project area. A summary of these features is presented in Table 1. Based on the June 2007 guidance, Wetland 1,Wetland 2,Wetland 3,and Wetland 4,as wetlands adjacent to a TNW,would be considered waters of the United States. A surface connection is provided between Wetland 5 and Wetland 4,as such,Wetland 5 would also be considered a water of the United States. Tributary 1 and Tributary 2 would be considered waters of the United States as they transport relatively permanent flow between two waters of the United States. Tributary 4 is likely a functional replacement of a former water of the United States, providing a relatively permanent flow to a water of the United States,and would therefore also be considered a water of the United States. All of these features would be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. As channels constructed in uplands to direct stormwater that do not contain a relatively permanent flow of water,under the 2007 guidance,Tributary 3,Tributary 5,and Tributary 6 would not be considered waters of the United States. These features would not be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. This delineation is based on professional experience in the approved methodology and from experience with the USACE Fort Worth District regulatory biologists; however, this delineation does not constitute a jurisdictional determination of waters of the United States. Only the USACE can make the final jurisdictional determination,which can be based on the professional opinions presented in this report. Proposed activities associated would likely result in impacts to waters of the United States. Depending on the final outcome of the proposed project plans,permanent impacts could be authorized under either NWP 14 or NWP 42,with PCN to the USACE. IES appreciates the opportunity to work with you and Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc. on this project, and hope we may be of assistance to you in the future. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns,please do not hesitate to contact Rudi Reinecke at 972/562-7672 (rreinecke @intenvsol.com). Sincerely, Integrated Environmental Solutions,LLC. `/(' Rudi Reinecke Vice President Attachments File ref: 04.051.022 ATTACHMENT A Figures SBEFs'S:: Lewisville =_.3 ind cn.1.04.111:14.4i1114' Denton /j ,)f,. a∎e rZo gl .;1411' `/� 6's Lakeview x I•:iw."' \,County Dr Beau Dr m ' t 1� Gha"ny 1 V M °oa'a�P (2M/ e ca Or N arre • 3 y Dr co, 4r r n C1 1 arrollton eit.o Creek C• *pen / I o a Xing •1 Spyglass Gbbs Dana - Cove k"n9 as) Cov �- �— u %, • Farmers Dr Basilwood Dr 1a7) Branch khaven Ln �-a Eta o ° v :3 c N C� ° 0 3 U o c Crest Dr n a° 3 - m m To r m o cn v) n o U m ,, m c ° m �a T a C r a R C �� c m m U o ?•o r c Swallow o m 2 Mapleleaf c S G� a° — 2 Dr 3 Ln fie* a� Benton e R a- ct o z a 0 o y e ay Creek E teems Y Quail Ln Robin Elmvale \y N 3 5 d E G Ln ° Ct FoXta y m .= p ay,e a > p6 °c Shadowcresty G� w ra evine GaiOs Ln <ga�eq Z' St v ;Creek Dr S. °re arye t a 0 r Woodhurst is,.Ot Ot villawood St a of St -o n PI ,a6 a� Ln Lenten o Winetree \\A0 .\\.0o o°a�y Meadow Dove Cir Ct a� Ct Q Oo E Bethel vtewCn eadoW\a<k Falcon Ln 4� ,,06.k t, Q� Kin- olt c BIN r* Briarcove School Rd 4. ` Christi A M 0e' oc .\co, -c t 3 a Mclnnish Ln °1c sm Ln C�i�o �� aca O c�(c Se ° o o. m Park y ° y �'+ e Yak �M O� d�� a a o , o X 2 der o 6�J c a7ara , (D m_■o Dr o or -o �, 3 ° J r. ., ri f o 8eVtd c°j o`co .o „ BCverchase D ,i 3-en m e R 49 . ° a v Club - 3 C- X-'44‘e 2 o z .., a) ,?60,, `� o S Northlake Rd � -"_._-� 0 �¢ 0 (U Qm c Michener _ O Way U o o0 r Marina rn U Yy _? ° O 17'5o' 6 a) L D r - ,e f J g q"ore 0, o m North - C &;- �� Dr °'21... '10 O a o Lake ro a) c o s a AVE Of 4o. Landry Gt ° cn = m o Champions 3d 1-IowleY Ct ° Cliffside3 C'ei Lakef\d9e Ln Dr ° Meredith Ct Figure 1 N General Location Map i Survey Area I W� .-E I S County: Dallas State: Texas 1 inch = 2,000 feet Date map created: 5/24/2012 Source: ESRI 10 Streetmap 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 North America Feet S i,.z..,,,,/,..t,_ �� 1 +x ` �I ,/ //` M L u / 5(� i Or , -• Ayy ( • f'�} I / t- +,1 '111 f b o� �� .�i 54 "" '; 4 ' I l , M .` rr (+ Sandy � It �P k. fi ,t rl - RMA39 5A�- I"'a 11 ■ O 1 I S "—ii' b^1, ,,�-r— 1 11f = p .:Y'§ 111 ■ • ! „ �S`.. 1 ty f_'� r cjy i 1 I' L S r '- --°-°\ (�` ti '.z! �, bark _/ t 91 -. i r 1A Grapev - t1 .4\ Ej �+w i ` W : \,,..,,s,z,N L. '' y�t3 I.i, ,w WT 'f.__r p p•_,. , ,..„ ,.......,, ; — I ...(5., '-''''''"•Zi,',.,-;-.11. --.-- - ..-77'..—..;.-',....,,. -.0.'k.,''I, 'i:". i )(;:r" '--) rk f'..t.',1/,' '•. i-id-. ‘V.:,,, 1 tia f .� s ?1 11 ^ Il , � /R a*` ,Y a / ��i ` i ce' 4 S'p�a \ p *'+ �yvy syll�� f .1.7thd o r't 1.,,4,,,,,,,....„,„.„..,„,„.„, ,,,„_.,,,,:„..,...„....s: 51 5 , .-,, ,,,,.-.., .,�' F!O7 ''-'4:'..1� C77",t ,y,i J(, 1, j� r w ti f l''.:,:' } 1 ac's _-1 .A:.,'- :*::.+3x w"w +J`A44 + ti``3'°Y y='�fr"` " + r� +N' �? 1..-i'✓ — 1 C+:.-7 I C J T + .k• 8la J: Figure 2 N Topography of the Survey Area 4 Survey Area w_( — E I County: Dallas S State: Texas 1 inch = 2,000 feet Date map created: 5/24/2012 Source: USGS Topographic Map 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Feet Carrollton 7.5' Quadrangle, 1982 i 62 25 70 ,0, } 53 4k ....s, 12 ,. ,..,,,,,,, ...,d....._ 4,,,, .,, ,,, , ,,,,..,,78 ". / d 1. Ye ;11'''., ra knm / ' 18 d { ,. 71 \ _- . / 79 ,,/ � � 61 , w / 78 �, 34 '*� ( _... 71 �; 72 . 48 • �` „ 42 -' — ( 34 73 c/ Soil Series Description Figure 3 Survey Area Soil Series located within and Other Values N adjacent to the Survey Area 1 -Altoga silty clay, 5 12% slopes, eroded �— 314- 4- Ferris-Heiden complex, 5-12% slopes W E County: Dallas 36 Frio silty clay, occasionally flooded s State: Texas 42 - Heiden clay, 2 5% slopes, eroded Date map created: 5/24/2012 59 Seagoville clay, occasionally flooded 1 inch = 750 feet Source: 2008 USDA FSATOP Aerial Photography; 2007 USDA 72 Trinity clay, occasionally flooded 0 500 1,000 2,000 NRCS Digital Soils Database Feet 114.001 ZONE X � 'I if ' N li'l‘l . , . o ZONE X •" ... /443 . . sANnY tNE ctrx OF ZONE , : F • X i ZS ROAD ZONE X PEEBLE tit, CREEK I. ZONE N E AE------- ' = `�U ca 4C ' 11LLCT• o ZONE X �,tl-, Hugs � CSC BEACON HrLL O,p 44gC? DRIVE �� fir, DRIVE g:'kRP1NGT aN • 44 ZONE AE ZONE X I 4 ZONE X ZONE X to RE„LINE L!NE _41 t, CITY OF DALLAS ROAD., !!I N Figure 4 II Survey Area I FEMA FIRM FEMA Zone Descriptions W E with the Survey Area Zone X-Areas determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain s County: Dallas Zone X-Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square State: Texas mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood Date map created: 5/24/2012 ::.,,,, Zone AE - Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by 100 ear flood; Source: Federal Emergency Management "�''' Base Flood Elevations determined y y Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map r,a Zone AE - Floodway areas in Zone AE Panel #FM48113C0155J 0 500 1,000 2,000 1 i Effective 8/23/2001 inch = 750 feet Feet r , ` ,`, . ,� 4 , ` L,, - _ Wetland Q 4., ., ."In, i volst I ..,.._ f . • #,.. , .,..,, ., �� Wetland ` �r Tributary g 1 1 ft $$ -+ i� 4 'I i * w 'j Tributary 11 ,-, " ; '1 ;.`41 - # 1. Wetland 4 y�_ Wetland �r i ' !3 `'•.fir s1 1 inch = 250 feet Tributary 2 ; F ,fr � � `* + �, �� .r' .4 ,t 1 r p, ;. =''''/�' vc a J4' '' �. t ,�`;f r ^y z ,: sue. , - .,,.^# `' , ".*' ' art ri , . T#ibutary_3 ;�Z a `"` �""` Tributary 1 r � „,. _; t � � i Tr tary 2 Wetland 4 Libu - / ! -'#L n i d 4 K w4..,,,_.,_ 7 i* 1- r .y fi ' 4 e, wfk . am, t {t y ,' rr • µ ` • t, W a s + ' 144f t � Tributar Tributary „ . , ,/ • 1. * 5 �. t ,. ,-xi ` f , : c IF 'i . 1 ,* / i' . '. t ..4„.4-,,. "Vatit.-:"74,,-4,r77,74.,..q-44,„.. „, . toligoloc4 - , • 1, ) - .‘„" tv 4.. d • _ ,. Tributar c3 <any"tea�a'okk..t = ° tr I # 4 ! . i° _ ° 1., 4- - Figure 5 Survey Area Water Features identified a Dataform Locations N within the Survey Area Features that meet a definition of a Water of the United States W E Tributary County: Dallas _ Wetland S State: Texas Features that do not meet a definition of a Water of the United States Date map created: 5/30/2012 Tributary 1 inch = 650 feet Source: 2008 USDA FSA TOP 0 500 1,000 2,000 Aerial Photography ■ Feet ATTACHMENT B Representative Photographs ,; itst,"44t A D .0_': '0°,1 i '. t Wetland 9 Wetland l 1 27773 . F; ''''.11.1'... r' , : `Li 122 rY x r de ., ` ` i. f 1 I t" ' }I . 411 F k , f Y z a a 20 '4" Wetland 3 r , , t 4-' : ' Wetland 4 „ ,, ,, , .„ ,,,,. , „Fes. N M .' , k x. ^ �,IC' ?∎∎ {��}� :,mat . !"..,V.). * ,�. ,,, s c .,yb.* 4 , • ^ ry : r�` t 2� s gyp. .16 , ,,,,,.......44,:. ., , y j f ! ” Tritiutary3 _10 a 11^ 1 1.,. . "r',,,. "°" / 15 4 Tributary 1 �� Y + s _..� r Y oto F� {. . 7 ? ) �� 14 V a +� �� ( 13 12 Tributary 2 x / ,1 y .1i1,- x g ` , • "' r ) "s j' of ., i ,jam t r 1 ' t c•JJ r46`° °44 43, 'Wetla Cld ;* - *";/_.°. �` . . ""` el r �` 47 �' 48, 52 � � f „ S3 ti«I 42 ` f▪ K r. . per ..�-. . , � '�p ) • r , .. ' 3 Tributar�3 1 1 i ( i �t. _ t.. a .�.... t 1: Survey Area Photograph Location Map N D Photograph Location Features that meet a definition of a Water of the United States W E Tributary County: Dallas s State: Texas Wetland Date map created: 5/30/2012 Features that do not meet a definition of a Water of the United States Source: 2008 USDA FSA TOP Tributary 1 inch = 650 feet Aerial Photography 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Photograph 1—Facing east Photograph 2— Facing south Photograph 3—Facing west Photograph 4—Facing east . ids .y • of ;11, a b 5 ryyu u Photograph 5—Facing south Photograph 6—Facing east Photograph 7—Facing west Photograph 8—Facing southeast Photograph 9—Facing northwest Photograph 10—Facing north Photograph 11—Facing south Photograph 12—Facing southeast Photograph 13—Facing southwest Photograph 14—Facing south Photograph 15—Facing southwest Photograph 16—Facing southeast Photograph 17 Facing west Photograph 18—Facing northwest rti '` • , ' y s, K ' � �#` - �; *✓4 , , �� .was .., ;�v r si 4 ��' 11:,4 ' p Photograph 19 Facing southwest Photograph 20—Facng east t, r„ t„ f",,-4,4' - '"4-, ""4- �<. w aq : eems' `, g * . -* , Ml 4.- y i Y Photograph 21—Facing south Photograph 22—Facing south ... ." * gym :, 4 r ,. .ati,�, 4,,� , , ."'",',""''.:,',';',114' as ?Sk.� Photograph 23—Facing north Photograph 24—Facing east Photograph 25—Facing north Photograph 26 Facing west alt It * *4 444 4* z> Photograph 27—Facing south Photograph 28—Facing southwest Photograph 29—Facing north Photograph 30—Facing east z �s?4 J • Photograph 31—Facing south Photograph 32—Facing southeast , . a c '" .w "' '1",..'''';'''4f44.x t4� i 117 ''' zx `�,. t. „ aatt '� S rka ifi rya " ti Photograph 33—Facing south Photograph 34—Facing south 4, Sgt ' # a r a " .s . fit:; ' . ,„,"4"14,4':: 1 *',' �@d. „q s Mp�y .€ ky "S x �'i f44,4�' k fF''R ff T""�`g,�r;3"^ . *'?}' d fer is=.,,. Photograph 35 Facing north Photograph 36—Facing northwest v 4yG: 9& E. ?b Rrt" g' # Ana y.:.. ** a k s ,, „ 'II:'r_. ,.ski..;p .a' 4:. � w ,4,,'",°'V a 1 Wn�Y +» f Photograph 37 Facing south Photograph 38 Facing west a v , . ;, s l Photograph 39—Facing west Photograph 40—Facing north z ;Lg.' g.., �y{j � g VI tl Y* rte,+ .. R Photograph 41—Facing east Photograph 42—Facing north Photograph 43—Facing east Photograph 44—Facing south > o- c7 � A "*. s Photograph 45—Facing west Photograph 46—Facing southeast Pr ..+w 3� Si 4'1 \ lit. Photograph 47—Facing southeast Photograph 48—Facing east 1 _ } • Photograph 49—Facing east Photograph 50—Facing northwest Photograph 51—Facing southeast Photograph 52—Facing west Photograph 53—Facing west Photograph 54—Facing east { tom. Photograph 55—Facing east Photograph 56—Facing south t �$ a7A'y�, �1i y3n yam. ( �M' r }k \ r rt hti z ... -r ' '' ''-''4 Ji*bLilt" ,- -F r,�'' r' Esc �1' r �� f w t !'' pt. .� � L� _ 11Mt y�• . Photograph 57—Facing east Photograph 58—Facing east c,-,.. k V"° -1. ' w,, t o�'t: '=fit y' _ k , f/ r _ ' c" .„ � '. ? ..fit' , ' tom. >w i'' ri P 6. A y Photograph 59— Facing east Photograph 60—Facing east •a -^ u< f r Photograph 61-Facing north Photograph 62—Facing east r+ t r Photograph 63—Facing east Photograph 64—Facing east ATTACHMENT C Wetland Determination Data Forms-Great Plains Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Great Plains Region Project/Site: TXU ROW Trail City/County: Coppell Sampling Date: 4/27/2012 Applicant/Owner: Coppell State: Texas Sampling Point 1 Investigator(s): Rudi Reinecke Section,Township,Range: Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.), Terrace Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope%, 0-1 Subregion(LRR): J Lot 32.962651 N Long: -96.955301 W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Trinity clay,occasionally flooded NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, El Or hydrology ❑ Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ® No ❑ Are vegetation, El Soil, El Or hydrology El Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No El ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® Na within a wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Herbaceous wetland type. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Number of Dominant Species That Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) Coverage Species? Status Are OBL,FACW,or FAC (excluding FAC-): (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species 3. Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That =Total Cover Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: (A/B) Saalino/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15x15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1• Total%Cover of Multiply By 2. OBL species x I= 3- FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5x5 ) Column Totals: (A) (8) 1. tyropusamericana 50 Yes OBL 2. Carex tribu/aides 30 Yes OBL Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Carexrrus-rorvi 5 No OBL 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 6. X 1- Rapid Test far Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. 2- Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3- Prevalence Index is<3.0' 9. 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data 10 in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 85 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) I Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless Woody Vine Stratum (Plat Size: 30x30 ) disturbed or problematic. I. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes ® No El %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 Remarks:Areas with no cover is water or mudflats. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 SOILS Sampling Point: 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) % Color(moist) n/o Type' Lac' Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR3/2 95 IORY4/6 5 C _ PL Clay saturated 2-18 10Y03/2 80 10YR4/6 20 C PL/M Clay 'Type: (=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) El Sandy Gleyed Matrix(54) ❑ 1 CM Muck(A9)(LRR I,J) ❑ Histic Epipedon(62) ❑ Sandy Redox(55) El Coast Prairie Redox(Al6)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Stripped Matrix(56) ❑ Dark Surface(57)(LRR 0) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(Fl) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16) ❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR F) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ (LRR H outside of MLRA 72&73) ❑ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑ Depleted below Dark Surface(All) ® Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) El Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) El Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) El Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR 6,H) El High Plains Depressions(F16 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must El 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(53)(LRR F) (MLRA 72&73 of LRR H) be present,unless distributed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes IN No El Depth(inches): Remarks:Redox features in a depressed area. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) ® Surface Water(A1( ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) El Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(BB) ® Saturation(A3) El Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) El Drainage patterns(B10) ❑ Water Marks(81) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) E l Sediment Deposits(B2) El Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) (where tilled) ® Drift Deposits(B3) (where not tilled) ❑ Crayfish Burrows(C8) El Algal Mat or Crust(84) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) E l Iron Deposits(05) El Thin Muck Surface ® Geomorphic Position(D2) ® Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) El Other(Explain in Remarks) El FAC-Neutral Test(DS) ® Water Stained Leaves(09) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes? ® No?❑ Depth(inches): 0-2 Water Table Present? Yes? El No?® Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No El Saturation Present? Yes? ® No?El Depth(inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Depressed area along TXU powerline.Surrounding landscape was developed and was raised from natural topography. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Great Plains Region Project/Site: TXU ROW Trail City/County: Coppell Sampling Date: 4/27/2012 Applicant/Owner: Coppell State: Texas Sampling Point: 2 Investigator(s): Rudi Reinecke Section,Township,Range: Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Terrace Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope%: Subregion(LRR): J Lot: 32.962032 N Long: -96.955511 W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Trinity clay,occasionally flooded NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ® No El Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No El Yes the Sampled Area within a wetland? Yes ® No El Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Shrub dominated wetland type. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Number of Dominant Species That Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) Coverage Species? Status Are OBL,FACW,or FAC 1. (excluding FAC-): (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species 3. Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That =Total Cover Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: (A/B) Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15x15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Solix nigro 30 Yes FACW Total%Cover of: Multiply By: 2. Fraxinuspennsylvanira 10 Yes FACW OBL species x l= 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 40 =Total Cover UPI.species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5x5 ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Solixnigro 5 No FACW 1. Carexlribuloides 10 Na OBL Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. lyropusamericana 40 Yes OBL 4. Typho latifolio 5 No OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 6. X 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. 2- Dominance Test is>50% 8. 3- Prevalence Index is<3.0' 9. 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data 10 in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 60 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 'Indicators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must be present,unless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ =Total Cover Present? %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 Remarks:Shrub canopy<15 feet tall. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 SOILS Sampling Point:2 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type, Lac' Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR3/2 BO lORY4/6 20 C PL/M CLAY 4-16 IOYR4/6 80 10YR4/6 20 C PL/M (LAY 'Type: C=-Concentration, D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histasol(Al) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ 1 CM Muck(A9)(LRR I,J) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Stripped Matrix(56) ❑ Dark Surface(S7)(LRR G) El Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(FI) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16) ❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR F) El Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ (LRR H outside of MLRA 72&73) El I cm Muck(A9)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18) El Depleted below Dark Surface(All) ® Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TFI2) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(SI) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR 0,H) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ S cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR F) (MLRA 72&73 of LRR H) be present,unless distributed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No El Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) ® Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Surface SoilCracks(B6) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) El Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) ® Saturation(A3) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Drainage patterns(B10) ❑ Water Marks(BI) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) ❑ Sediment Deposits(B2) El Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) (where tilled) ❑ Drift Deposits(B3) (where not tilled) ® Crayfish Burrows(C8) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(84) El Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery((9) E l Iron Deposits(B5) ❑ Thin Muck Surface ® Geomorphic Position(D2) ® Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(05) ® Water Stained Leaves(B9) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes? ® No?El Depth(inches): 0-2 Water Table Present? Yes? ❑ No?0 Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? Yes? ® No?El Depth(inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Great Plains Region Project/Site: TXU ROW Trail City/County: Coppell Sampling Date: 4/27/2012 Applicant/Owner: Coppell State: Texas Sampling Point: 3 Investigator(s): Rudi Reinecke Section,Township,Range: Londform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope%: 0-1 Subregion(LRR): J Let: 32.962306 N Long: -96.955461 W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Trinity clay,occasionally flooded NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ® No ❑ Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area within a wetland? Yes ® No El Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Deep water. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Number of Dominant Species That Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) Coverage Species? Status p Are OBL,FACW,or FAC 1. (excluding FAC-): (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species 3. Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That =Total Cover Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: (A/B) Saoling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15x15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1• Total%Cover of: Multiply By: 2. - OBL species x 1= 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5x5 ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Paspulum Jluitens 5 No _ 08L 2. Ludwig/orepens 20 Yes OBL Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. fleorar/spolustric 5 No OBL 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 6. X 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. 2- Dominance Testis>50% 8. 3- Prevalence Index is<3.0' 9. 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data 10 in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 30 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes 12:1 No ❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Dead stalks of cocklebur;and algae US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 SOILS Sampling Point:3 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Lac' Texture Remarks 'Type: (=Concentration, D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: Pl=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(54) El 1 CM Muck(A9)(LRR I,J) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox(Al6)(LRR F,G,H) El Black Histic(A3) El Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Dark Surface(57)(LRR G) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(Fl) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16) ❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR F) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ (LRR H outside of MLRA 72&73) ❑ I cm Muck(A9)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑ Depleted below Dark Surface(All) El Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) El Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl) ❑ Redox Depressions(ED) ® Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(52)(LRR G,H) ❑ High Plains Depressions(Fl6 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(53)(LRR F) (MLRA 72&73 of LRR H) be present,unless distributed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No El Depth(inches): Remarks:No soils were recorded due to depth of water and obvious hydrophytic community. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) ® Surface Water(A1) El Salt Crust(B11) El Surface Soil Cracks(B6) E l High Water Table(A2) El Aquatic Invertebrates(Bl3) El Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) ▪ Saturation(A3) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) El Drainage patterns(B10) ® Water Marks(Bl) El Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) El Sediment Deposits(82) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots((3) (where tilled) ® Drift Deposits(B3) (where not tilled) El Crayfish Burrows(CB) ® Algal Mat or Crust(B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Iron Deposits(B5) El Thin Muck Surface ® Geomorphic Position(D2) ® Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) El Other(Explain in Remarks) El FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ® Water Stained leaves(B9) El Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes? ® No?❑ Depth(inches): 8-12 _ Water Table Present? Yes? El No?® Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? Yes? ® No?El Depth(inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Deep water area—algae mats hanging on revegetation 4"higher than current water elevation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Great Plains Region Project/Site: TXU ROW Trail City/County: Coppell Sampling Date: 4/27/2012 Applicant/Owner: Coppell State: Texas Sampling Point: 4 Investigator(s): Rudi Reinecke Section,Township,Range: Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Terrace Local relief(concave,convex,none): onvex Slope%: 0-I Subregion(LRR): J Let: 32.961922 N Long: -96.956017 W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Trinity clay,occasionally flooded NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ® No ❑ Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ Na ® Is the Sampled Area within a wetland? Yes ❑ No Ej Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Upland transition into wetland complex VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Number of Dominant Species That Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) Coverage Species? Status Are OBL,FACW,or FAC 1. (excluding FAC-): 0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species 3. Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That =Total Cover Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15x15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Bhusg/ahra 5 Yes NL Total%Cover of: Multiply By: 2. OBL species x 1= 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species 105 x 4= 420 5 =Total Cover UPL species 10 x 5= 50 Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5x5 ) Column Totals: 115 (A) 470 (B) 1. Bromusjaponirus 95 Yes FACU 2. Doke sp. 10 No FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 4.08 _ 3. Tori/isorvensis 5 No NL 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 6. 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. 2- Dominance Testis>50% 8. 3- Prevalence Index is<3.0' 9. 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data 10 in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 110 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes 1:1 No=Total Cover Present? %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <2 Remarks:NL-Species was not listed on the wetland plant indicator status list;assumed upland. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 SOILS Sampling Point:4 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Lac' Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR3/2 50 cloy many fine roots 10YR4/2 50 clay many fine roots 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosal(Al) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) El 1 CM Muck(A9)(LRR I,J) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR F,6,H) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Dark Surface(S7)(LRR 6) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(FI) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16) ❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR F) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ (LRR H outside of MLRA 72&73) ❑ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR F,6,H) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Reduced Vertic(FI8) ❑ Depleted below Dark Surface(All) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TFI2) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G,H) ❑ High Plains Depressions(FI6 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ S cm Mucky Peat or Peat(53)(LRR F) (MLRA 72&73 of LRR H) be present,unless distributed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No El Depth(inches): Remarks:Mixed soil,possibly imported.Sewer manholes nearby,possibly along utility line. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(Bll) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(116) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) ❑ Drainage patterns(B10) ❑ Water Marks(BI) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table((2) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) ❑ Sediment Deposits(82) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) (where tilled) ❑ Drift Deposits(B3) (where not tilled) ❑ Crayfish Burrows(C8) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Iron Deposits(115) ❑ Thin Muck Surface ® Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Water Stained Leaves(B9) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(07) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes? ❑ Na?® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ED Saturation Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Ridge into wetland complex. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Great Plains Region Project/Site: TXU ROW Trail City/County: Coppell Sampling Dote: 4/27/2012 Applicant/Owner: Coppell State: Texas Sampling Point: 5 Investigator(s): Rudi Reinecke Section,Township,Range: Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope%: Subregion(LRR): 1 Lot: 32.962566 N Long: -96.954203 W Datum: NAD83 Soil Mop Unit Nome: Trinity clay,occasionally flooded NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation, El Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ® No El Are vegetation, El Soil, El Or hydrology ❑ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No El Hydric Sail Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area within a wetland? Yes ® No El Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) (overage Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC 1. (excluding FAC-): 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species 3. Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That =Total Cover Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15x15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply By: 2. 0111 species 120 x l= 120 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species 110 x 4= 440 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5x5 ) Column Totals: 230 _ (A) 560 (B) 1. Cynodondarty/on 95 Yes FACU - 2. (orexlribulaides 25 No OBL Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.4 3. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 10 No FACU 4. Cleorarispa/uslris 60 Yes OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. (arex trasgoll, 5 No OBL 6. Sorghumba/epense 5 No FACU 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. &spalom fluidains 30 No OBL 2- Dominance Testis>50% 8. X 3- Prevalence Index is<3.0' 9. 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data 10 in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 230 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless Woody Vine Stratum (Plat Size: 30x30 ) disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes ® No El a Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Higher elevation with dominance of bermudagrass. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 SOILS Sampling Point:5 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Lac' Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR3/2 90 10RY4/6 10 C PLUM CLAY 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(54) ❑ I CM Muck(A9)(LRR I,J) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Stripped Matrix(56) ❑ Dark Surface(S7)(LRR G) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑ High Plains Depressions(FI6) El Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR F) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ (LRR H outside of MLRA 72&73) ❑ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Reduced Vertic(Fl8) El Depleted below Dark Surface(All) ® Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) El Thick Dark Surface(All) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) El Sandy Mucky Mineral(Sl) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) El Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(52)(LRR G,H) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR F) (MLRA 72&73 of LRR H) be present,unless distributed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No El Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) El Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(BI I) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) ❑l Saturation(A3) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Drainage patterns(BI0) ❑ Water Marks(81) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) El Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) ❑ Sediment Deposits(B2) ® Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) (where tilled) ❑ Drift Deposits(B3) (where not tilled) ® Crayfish Burrows(CB) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(84) El Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) El Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Iron Deposits(115) El Thin Muck Surface ® Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) El Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Water Stained Leaves(B9) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes? ❑ Na?® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Moist clay soil. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Great Plains Region Project/Site: TXU ROW Trail City/County: Coppell Sampling Dote: 4/27/2012 Applicant/Owner: Coppell State: Texas Sampling Point: 6 Investigators): Rudi Reinecke Section,Township,Range: Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope%, Subregion(LRR): J Lat: 32.964610 N Long: -96.953378 W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Nome: Frio silty clay,accasionolly flooded NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ® No ❑ Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No El Yes the Sampled Area within a wetland? Yes ® No El Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Slight depressions within a matrix of uplands. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) Coverage Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC (excluding FAC-): (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species 3. Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That =Total Cover Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15x15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply By: 2. OBL species x 1= 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FA(species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5x5 ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Phylanodi/loro 75 Yes FACW 2. Carextribu/aides 10 No OBL Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Paspulumt/uiloins 30 Yes OBL 4. Sporobo/us rryptondrus 20 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 6. X 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. 2- Dominance Testis>50% 8. 3- Prevalence Index is<3.0' 9. 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data 10 in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 135 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks:Mowed vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 SOILS Sampling Point:6 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Lot' Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR3/2 90 lORY3/6 10 C PL CLAY 'Type: (=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,(S=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ 1 CM Muck(A9)(LRR I,J) El Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox(Al6)(LRR F,G,H) El Black Histic(A3) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Dark Surface(S7)(LRR G) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(Fl) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16) ❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR F) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ (LRR H outside of MLRA 72&73) El 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑ Depleted below Dark Surface(All) ® Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) El Thick Dark Surface(Al2) El Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G,H) El High Plains Depressions(F16 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR F) (MLRA 72&73 of LRR H) be present,unless distributed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) El Surface Water(AI) ❑ Salt Crust(611) ❑ Surface Soil(racks(B6) ❑ High Water Table(A2) El Aquatic Invertebrates(BI3) El Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) ❑ Saturation(A3) El Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(CI) ❑ Drainage patterns(Bl0) El Water Marks(Bl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) El Sediment Deposits(B2) ® Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) (where tilled) ❑ Drift Deposits(B3) (where not tilled) ® Crayfish Burrows(C8) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(84) El Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Iron Deposits(B5) El Thin Muck Surface ® Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) El Water Stained Leaves(B9) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes? El No?® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Moist soil—many crayfish burrows,floodplain of Denton Creek. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Great Plains Region Project/Site: TXU ROW Trail City/County: Coppell Sampling Date: 4/27/2012 Applicant/Owner: Coppell State: Texas Sampling Point 7 Investigator(s): Rudi Reinecke Section,Township,Range: Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope%: Subregion(ERR): J Lat: 32.965407 N Long: -96.953398 W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Frio silty clay,occasionally flooded NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ® No ❑ Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area ® Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No within a wetland? Yes El No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) Coverage Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBI,FACW,or FAC 1. (excluding FAC-): 0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species 3. Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That =Total Cover Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A/B) 5aolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15x15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply By: 2. OBL species 40 x l= 40 3. FACW species 5 x 2= 10 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FAQ species 60 x 4= 240 5 =Total Cover UPI species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5x5 ) Column Totals: 105 (A) 290 (B) 1. Sparabalus rryptandrus 60 Yes FAQ- 2. Carexhibi/aides 20 No OBI Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.76 3. Pospulum trillions 20 No OBL — 4. lippanod/flora 5 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 6. 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. 2- Dominance Testis>50% B. X 3- Prevalence Index is<3.0' 9. 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data 10 in Remarks or an a separate sheet) 105 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ =Total(over Present? %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks: Mowed area. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 SOILS Sampling Point 7 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) oh Type' Lac' Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR3/2 90 CLAY 10YR4/2 10 CLAY 'Type: (=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pare Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(54) ❑ 1 CM Muck(A9)(LRR I,J) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Sandy Redox(55) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox(Al6)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Dark Surface(57)(LRR 6) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑ High Plains Depressiens(F16) ❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR F) El Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ (LRR H outside of MLRA 72&73) ❑ I cm Muck(A9)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Reduced Vertic(Fl8) ❑ Depleted below Dark Surface(All) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) El Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑l Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) El Other(Explain in Remarks) El 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G,H) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must El 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR F) (MLRA 72&73 of LRR H) be present,unless distributed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks:No redox features. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) El High Water Table(A2) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(813) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(88) ❑ Saturation(A3) El Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Drainage patterns(Bl0) ❑ Water Marks(RI) El Dry-Season Water Table(C2) El Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) ❑ Sediment Deposits(B2) El Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) (where tilled) El Drift Deposits(83) (where not tilled) ® Crayfish Burrows(C8) El Algal Mat or Crust(84) El Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Iron Deposits(B5) ❑ Thin Muck Surface ® Geomorphic Position(D2) El Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(117) El Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Water Stained Leaves(B9) El Frost-Heave Hummocks(07) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes? El No?® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? Yes? El No?® Depth(inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Few crayfish burrows,near wetland line. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Great Plains Region Project/Site: TXU ROW Trail City/County: Coppell Sampling Date: 4/27/2012 Applicant/Owner: Coppell State: Texas Sampling Point: 8 Investigator(s): Rudi Reinecke Section,Township,Range: Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope%: Subregion(LRR): 1 Lot: 32.957637 N Long: -96.958238 W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Seagoville clay,occasionally flooded NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ® No ❑ Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area within a wetland? Yes ® No 1:1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) Coverage Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC 1. (excluding FAC-): (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species 3. Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That =Total Cover Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: (A/B) Saalina/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15x15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply By: 2. OBL species x 1= 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FAN species x 4= =Total Cover UPI.species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5x5 ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Lyropusamericana 5 No OBL 2. E/eorarispa/ustris 75 Yes OBL Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Lyropussp. 10 No 4. Typha 5 No OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 6. X 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7• 2- Dominance Testis>50% 8. 3- Prevalence Index is<3.0' 9• 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data ID in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 95 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) disturbed or problematic. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No El=Total Cover Present? %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 SOILS Sampling Point:8 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redax Features (inches) Color(moist) '/o Color(moist) '/o Type' Lac' Texture Remarks 0-1 mud/organic 1-3 10YR3/2 95 10YR4/6 5 C PL/M CLAY 3-16 10YR4/2 80 10YR4/6 20 C PL/M 'Type: (=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. =Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) El Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ 1 CM Muck(A9)(LRR I,J) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Sandy Redox(55) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Dark Surface(57)(LRR G) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(Fl) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16) El Stratified Layers(AS)(LRR F) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 8 73) ❑ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Reduced Vertic(FI8) ❑ Depleted below Dark Surface(All) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ® Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) ❑ Rodeo Depressions(F8) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(52)(LRR G,H) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must El 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR F) (MLRA 72&73 of LRR H) be present,unless distributed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor((l) ❑ Drainage patterns(BI0) ® Water Marks(Bl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) El Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) ❑ Sediment Deposits(82) ® Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) (where tilled) ▪ Drift Deposits(B3) (where not tilled) ❑ Crayfish Burrows(C8) El Algal Mat or Crust(B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Iron Deposits(05) ❑ Thin Muck Surface ® Geomorphic Position(D2) ® Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Water Stained Leaves(89) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes? El No?® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? Yes? ® No?❑ Depth(inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Water level appears to have been much higher based on wetland line on slopes.Possibly a beaver/nutria dammed this area a while back. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Great Plains Region Project/Site: TXU ROW Trail City/County: Coppell Sampling Date: 4/27/2012 Applicant/Owner: Coppell State: Texas Sampling Point: 9 Investigator(s): Rudi Reinecke Section,Township,Range: Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.), Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope%: Subregion(LRR): J Let: 32.956989 N Long: -96.958541 W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Seagoville clay,occasionally flooded NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ® No ❑ Are vegetation, ❑ Soil, ❑ Or hydrology ❑ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area within a wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Higher position in landscape—possibly edge of former inundated area. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Number of Dominant Species That Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30x30 ) Coverage Species? Status Are OBL,FACW,or FAC 1. (excluding FAC-): 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species 3. Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That =Total Cover Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 66.7 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15x15 ) Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Barrharissahr/na 50 Yes FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply By: 2. Papulus de/loides 10 No FAC OBL species x l= 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 60 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5x5 ) Column Totals: (A) (B) I. Barchorissulkino 50 Yes FAC 2. Sa/idagogigontea 10 No FAC Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Sorghumhalepense 30 Yes TACO 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 6. 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2- Dominance Testis>50% 8. 3- Prevalence Index is<3.0' 9. 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data 10 in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 90 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: _ 30x30 ) disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No El =Total Cover Present? %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 SOILS Sampling Point:9 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) °/a Color(moist) % Type' Loc7 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR3/2 20 10YR 4/6 80 C PL/M CLAY dry clay 'Type: (=Concentration, D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: El Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(54) ❑ 1 CM Muck(A9)(LRR I,J) ❑l Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Sandy Redox(55) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) El Dark Surface(S7)(LRR G) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(Fl) ❑ High Plains Depressions(F16) ❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR F) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ (LRR H outside of MLRA 72&73) ❑ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR F,G,H) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑ Depleted below Dark Surface(All) ® Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) El Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TFI2) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) El Redox Depressions(F8) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(52)(LRR G,H) ❑ High Plains Depressions(Fl6 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must El 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3)(LRR F) (MLRA 72&73 of LRR H) be present,unless distributed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No El Remarks:Redox features in a depressed area. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(011) El Surface Soil Cracks(B6) El High Water Table(A2) El Aquatic Invertebrates(013) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(08) ❑ Saturation(A3) El Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) El Drainage patterns(010) ❑ Water Marks(Bl) El Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) ❑ Sediment Deposits(82) ® Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) (where tilled) ❑ Drift Deposits(83) (where not tilled) El Crayfish Burrows(C8) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Iron Deposits(115) El Thin Muck Surface ® Geomorphic Position(02) El Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(07) El Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(05) El Water Stained Leaves(B9) El Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes? El No?® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? Yes? ❑ No?® Depth(inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Dry area—possibly a relic condition of the former hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains—Version 2.0 ATTACHMENT D Historical Aerial Photographs S r , t.-1 i ._ t • 0r 1 ',r — - _ �.a. . I•fie" # itt f! . f f1 e 1;• `.44.'''''...v•-• y' 1 A t {. . `yam +J` 'Aj, z)I �� ■k.l y<,vo /l f t � i!1 f t �.i.. . • P}� r +w 1 ' , 1�� •tti r # � , f / � N� t � -,II Y,yj `T •.ty,. « ,t,i, Fa+ 4 s J + µti . . . t , .Ili , „. 4 .,r� / .Y �t, �9, .Sr1'�•"e, r` y` n At....., ,kt ii, ' ‘' , 40i '. i ' ' t.,.:, i 1 it r ` 1! : }p .... .r Al ., •', pV J et.A t r ii1 Y. t J ♦+ .r ,w• t),.. Y., • 'r: -'R wP.-w mil' ..1 :+ f.I+ tt ItIH/ • 1 y 1..:1-' Dt ate' J 1: 4 .w.. •;� t .;fN .f f`., �p a » 0, r• .,• , _ T J i t V k E S i i � , u V .ti1� 4 ! "r)i' M Tom, f•['/, X','°4 �tA•� 111 +y )M ; ar i .;$ 414#' y '4, .R'*•+ 11+ ate , a,. 4 ,�.., .4.R ,i.J� L7. ,,jam {4 f 1 ! '=`--- _ '11.1 1 r"k>,,,„. 14 1 • f'' s wki 1�' qt y.lielivw 211 - t } 1/.,t• 1 ..► i ,,,, I i, , ;,. ----",, „.414,,,....4„10.01, "'y J !V 'J' I x K Tom_ --- L 0. t ; ,,,g i,, r te. T"rc rA t'i.t .. ��" ........w..s .. ~ t i INQUIRY#: 3329244.1 YEAR: 1942 N ) �� . .. �.. `^ = 750' ,, ., * �r". 4. e ` F:tr .. t III,. . ... , .... . .,„ , ..., , ,..... - -.,..,.._,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,, , , ...,...,4 4P1.'41;,„.2*„." f .. <. , , / 4 mow , Ili `M* `,y i a, - n III-,$ '4' foilmegk ''. ***. '''' ''.. It f, ' 7. . x .. ,.., , ., .,, ,,..,11 , ,,. 1 ' 0- ' ' .. / ,3,,,, tr. v. , . A .., ..,,,,.. , `mow' ,. INQUIRY#: 3329244.1 ,� 4 N .. .„. „. ,.....,YEAR: 1958 ..C 4=.,fr -, 1 = 750' 4 .'. ,... ....... . ....-1 " 4 .• ,. 1 1 i f 4, ,. 3., .. , . . .,• ,„.,. ,!...t,.:-.:.,„. -... , ..... -., , .., .. ,. i .. ,. . „ o , o , • , , , ., .,... ,.. , INQUIRY#: 3329244.1 -1. N YEAR: 1968 1 _ 750' 1 r _ y w * t+ f tff� ' '''''.1*?' 8 '' .•° " tai « • } � i 4. • t R&. a * }^ r # t ■ i" ,. wj1C gyp E / �+ . ... + „ �F a'�pi aR' ,+ ., t J q°* ' °a .,yrJf .,....._ . 4. y f/ 4 i:# r '«tor «.7 �A 4 t i '�'• by ,u;:caxdt '1. * / 1 .#. + oe' M w • y it a1 it "t, i *. r.' M"1 #.n r r 4 m t .. *'i yp..k o- Y" ° "s ter` , \ �._ 4 . rM"L ' y Y N., INQUIRY#: 3329244.1 � a r_ ,. �" YEAR: 1972 7 N = 750. _I�'"' # f. -. a 4 5 T v� _ ,,,.w.:_ 1 a �( R ' t d • it, �ea t r..,. ,6:. ,. ig.,....... ?„,-k--7...,-Iff.:ii- ' '`'.* _ Ill '' '__ 3atIEli : ,I 1'..,, - - . ,,,,'1'a�- ..,...,. ,,..\,.., ,,_:.....;„..-7. .'.....', ■ rt;.„. ... . f a .<rt . ` ... 113 { 4, '''4 •I 1 ( ��' " • . '.(0„,...if,.,..,4;.„ .,.,..,‘ . r t . d ,. , , ...... .., ., ,, .... ,„ , ... . ,, „,„ , . .1,'-'1,,t4 , 1101 i -,- . x 4.11.* . , 4 ' ''' ' :Iihn'''`Iiill -- d, ,,..:,,,,,,,,,..- „,„,,,,,:,,,;:„.--....,s4-r.., :..., 4 x s. .. .. , INQUIRY#: 3329244.1 YEAR: 1984 V = 750' . tip, s 0111,14 4 ilititill .s • .1 : 1.41 .. . . ,,. ,, ,. ,„ . 4.44„ ... k i . 0, „ . , , ... _ . , ...., . . .., ( . \..„,.. , .. .. , ... . ., ,. . . y .„6,,, .. . ..... ...,. . . . . , . . „,.............41....c..t........ ,. .„1.....„.,? . , a . ... _ . . . . _.,„— - ) ' 4 ' ' I - - / °. . A 4 Milli w x+y Y E s~ L a Itl +. l y d 0 � `y 4 + `5! ` . w F t i " _ t� .' ' f * : ""41:1120,„..,'' 4. ' '..' .'.. ' „„,FF , 4 , , dia .... ._...,.. . I„„ !”.' 1,..it. , ..;,„ -*,-, '", —;* - ‘,...' . $ + /d + a i J e INQUIRY#: 3329244.1 'ij' YEAR: 1995 I = 750' •.4 . yn : 1 : * � �� . . . �� . . . �. � ^ \ / , �� y*> 1 } ~ V s » . INQUIRY% 339241 N YEAR: 200 | | — 750 ♦ w4 .� ' * :,.. ..1, * e** t, .,.. ,t ,fAM+ rvx �►"I 4 t - r _ ` .: i N e# � . fw. r•. p* Pry T ., .fi q�t ^i. , N „' w .yy ' r " '` • - b ; `a „s ,s?"' ' dir f t '.' Ar^r 7, 0 . ,� ,. .i , . i # .. .M'^'^4 iF T .,, a «i �n t t ,. , R ,a -# ' � i'iR '' n` "... ,. 4, ►t r ,L . .- _ ,�,, 4, , 1 .„.„4 ,,,,,t,:::, / T of � t vH INQUIRY#: 3329244.1 ` 4 N „ ,� YEAR: 2005 E 1 = 500' �' *., rr 4 f • ...�'. ' f f 3,'yf.k ' M x. CIE I E I. s _ ... , S .. ! r ' • - '0 . 0 I 11;11, ' ' 4* t 11! ' It It* • ' i , 111111111P' 41"16111* IS * : . , ':::4'',,. „ie, r :00, ! 'ii 1... ' 1 47 ',,„,_.,‘ Ac-.e.. It" '''', -; 1 I,' 5, , , „,, d_ �. ' eti ,41/ ,, '1" 1,'" $ ' - . . '-76 -in. io, .- , ,,,. ,,„,, • ,, • , , .,-*,,, • • r ,s. . -.- . slim rigi,A0 -, . „ , kAtiiit„ ,,,, . - e. „ .. 4ep, . . „..„.„. .,...,,,_„,... ,. ,. ,,,,- : . , feL , t. ..:...11..:: ' I* ' ' ''' dr . '.. )11 '': $ 999 f .. k • 004' 744 44' t ' ''' • .• .6.. %ie.!' ' A f....,....‘,4 . mik ... ..,.'" 'Ir ,A,Assio pay yore or _ ,,,,,, ,,„.,.., ,,.,.: , . ti.&,zto t . 1 - . . ,:, ;,.t. , ;. ,.. . ,it. A,-, - , ,......, ..„. y 'n • .-...„,,- . .. A INQUIRY#: 3329244.1 i N YEAR: 2006 ' r .. I = 500'