Mount Hood National 

Forest Land Exchange 

Wetland Inventory 

Prepared for: 

USDA Forest Service 

Mt. Hood National Forest

16400 Champion Way

Sandy, OR 97055

Submitted by: 

Watershed Professionals Network LLC 

5805 Billings Road 

Mount Hood Parkdale, OR 97041 

April 2010 
Contents 

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Project Area ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Topography ...........................................................................................................................................1

Hydrology..............................................................................................................................................1

Soils.......................................................................................................................................................9

Wetland Assessment Guidance.............................................................................................................. 9

Wetland Inventory and Wetland Delineation Explained ......................................................................9

Methods ....................................................................................................................... 11

Remote Sensing Methods ...................................................................................................................... 11

Field Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................................. 11

Vegetation...........................................................................................................................................12

Soil.......................................................................................................................................................13

Hydrology............................................................................................................................................13

Wetland Functional Assessment Methods........................................................................................... 14

Wetlands................................................................................................................................................... 15

Cooper Spur Wetlands........................................................................................................................15

Government Camp Wetlands .............................................................................................................22

Non-Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 30

Cooper Spur ........................................................................................................................................30

Government Camp..............................................................................................................................32

Hunchback Mountain East..................................................................................................................32

Hunchback Mountain West ................................................................................................................36

Assessment of Functions and Values.................................................................................................... 38

Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 43

References................................................................................................................... 44

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

ii 

Appendices 
Appendix A – Government Camp Wetland Delineation Report Maps 

Appendix B – Field Data Forms 

Appendix C – Wetland Functions and Values Data and Calculations

List of Tables 

Table 1. Parcels proposed for transfer................................................................................................... 2

Table 2. Photo points................................................................................................................................ 8

Table 3. Sample points............................................................................................................................. 8

Table 4. Definitions of Hydrophytic Wetland Plant Indicator Categories....................................... 13

Table 5. List Functions and Values Assessed........................................................................................ 14

Table 6. Determined Wetland Attributes............................................................................................. 15

Table 7. Example of Assessment results for Wetland 1....................................................................... 38

Table 8. Function and Values Score Summary for Cooper Spur...................................................... 39

Table 9. Function and Values Score Summary for Government Camp......................................... 40

Table 10. Comparison of total Functional Capacity Units................................................................ 41

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Location Map............................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Hunchback Mountain West..................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3. Hunchback Mountain east..................................................................................................... 4

Figure 4. Government Camp. ................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 5. Cooper Spur North. .................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 6. Cooper Spur South................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 8. Wetland 1 ................................................................................................................................ 17

Figure 9. Photo Point 2: Wetland 2....................................................................................................... 18

Figure10. Wetland 2 ............................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 11. Photo Point 1: Wetland 3..................................................................................................... 20

Figure 12. Wetland 3 .............................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 13. Photo Point 19: Wetland 5, swale wetland complex with Alder................................... 22

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

iii 

Figure 14. Wetlands 5 and 11................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 15. Photo Point 23: Wetland 9, small wetland with Alder..................................................... 24

Figure 16. Wetlands 9 and 18................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 17. Photo Point 16: Wetland 10, Mosaic, swale wetland with skunk cabbage ................ 26

Figure 18. Wetland 10. ............................................................................................................................ 27

Figure 19. Photo Point 17: Wetland 10, Mosaic, swale wetland with alder................................... 28

Figure 20. Photo Point 20: Wetland 11, emergent/forested wetland mosaic............................... 29

Figure 21. Photo Point 4: Intermittent stream with subsurface flows (same location as PP3)...... 31

Figure 22. Photo Point 7: Steep slope with vine maple (Acer circinatum).................................... 31

Figure 23. Photo Point 8: Opening, a blow down.............................................................................. 32

Figure 24. Photo Point 13: Big leaf maple regrowth on clearcut .................................................... 33

Figure 25. Photo Point 14: Intermittent Creek Channel .................................................................... 34

Figure 26. Photo Point 15: Alder with sword fern, hazelnut and vine maple................................. 35

Figure 27. Photo Point 21: site with shallow enough groundwater to support alder, no surface 

hydrology.................................................................................................................................................. 36

Figure 28. Photo Point 22: Alder stands with sword fern understory on slopes, no hydrology.... 37

Figure 29. Weighted Comparison of Locations ................................................................................. 42

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

iv 
Introduction 

This report documents a wetland inventory and functional assessment of four land parcels 

located in Clackamas and Hood River counties, Oregon. Watershed Professionals Network 

LLC (WPN) and Naiad Aquatic Consultants, LLC (NAC) conducted the study. The land 

parcels included in the study are part of the proposed Hunchback Mountain and 

Government Camp/Cooper Spur land exchanges. This report details the approximate 

boundaries, acreage, classification, functions and cultural values of wetlands to facilitate 

the land exchange feasibility analysis being conducted by the U.S. Forest Service, Mount 

Hood National Forest. 

Project Area 

The project area includes four parcel locations: Cooper Spur, Government Camp, 

Hunchback Mountain East and Hunchback Mountain West. Figure 1 presents the project 

area location map, and Table 1 provides a description of the proposed parcels being 

considered for transfer.  Figure 2 through Figure 6 show the four separate project locations 

with the land exchange parcels are marked in red.  A description of photo points identified 

on the maps is given in Table 2, and sample point locations are given in Table 3.

Topography 

The topography in each of the parcels contain slopes ranging from 5‐ 40%. The Cooper 

Spur parcels are on a north‐facing slope of Mount Hood with a number of deep valleys. The 

Government Camp parcels are on a west‐facing slope of Mount Hood with numerous 

swales. The two Hunchback Mountain west parcels are separated by a deep drainage. The 

southern parcel has more rolling topography, and the northern parcel is a very steep hill.  

The Hunchback Mountain east parcel has a very large steep rocky scarp. 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

1 

Hydrology 

The Cooper Spur parcels (mean elevation 3,300’) and Government Camp parcels (mean 

elevation 3,900’) are located at within the Cascade Crest Montane Forest ecoregion (Woods 

et al. 2003).  Snowpack generally persists throughout the winter months, and spring 

snowmelt has a significant impact on local hydrology.  Peak stream‐flows are generally 

driven by wintertime rain‐on‐snow events.   The complex soils and geology, with areas of 

high to low permeability, drive the occurrence of springs and seeps within this area.   
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

2

Map ID General Location Current owner Proposed transfer Acres (GIS)

1 Cooper Spur n/a (inholding) n/a (inholding)  2.5

2 Cooper Spur Mt Hood Mead

od Mead

mas Co.

ows

ows

USFS 610.8

3 Cooper Spur Mt Ho USFS 159.6

4 Hunchback Mountain East

in West

in West

Clacka USFS 184.3

1

5 Hunchback Mounta USFS Clackamas Co 40.1

6

7

8

Hunchback Mounta

Government Camp

Government Camp

USFS

USFS

USFS

Clackamas Co

Mt Hood Meadows

Mt Hood Meadows

21.0

81.0

40.7

Table 1. Parcels proposed for transfer. 

Figure 1. Location Map 
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

3 

Figure 2. Hunchback Mountain West
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

4 

Figure 3. Hunchback Mountain east.
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

5 

Figure 4. Government Camp. 
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

6 

Figure 5. Cooper Spur North. 
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

7 

Figure 6. Cooper Spur South 
Table 2. Photo points. 

Map ID Description 

1  Wetlands 40‐120' wide 

2  Wetlands 40‐120' wide 

3  Intermittent stream, w/subsurface flows, becomes perennial, tiny wetlands 

4  Intermittent stream, w/subsurface flows, becomes perennial, tiny wetlands 

5  Riparian wetlands 

6  Perennial stream , steep channel, with discontinuous small abandoned terraces

Douglas fir, pine, bracken fern and vine maple 

7  Steep slope with vine maple 

8  Opening ‐ a blow down with larch,

9  Drainage a 60/40 wetland mosaic

10  Narrow, steep drainage with alder 

FAC plant community 

FAC plant community 

11  Old borrow pit, no hydrology, no soils,

12  Old borrow pit, no hydrology, no soils,

13  Big leaf maple re‐growth on clear‐cut 

ine maple 

14  Intermittent creek channel 

nut, and v

cabbage 

15  Alder with sword fern, hazel

16  Stringer wetland with skunk

17  Stringer wetland with alder

18  Stringer wetland with alder

19  Wetland complex; stringer wetlands with alder or skunk cabbage

tors of surface hydrology 

20  Wetland complex: big emergent wetland and stringer wetlands 

gh groundwater to support alder, no indica

fern understory, on slopes. No hydrology 

21 

22 

23 

Alder with shallow enou

Alder stands with sword

>0.5 acre alder wetland 

Table 3. Sample points. 

Map ID Sample Point 

1  2:U1* 

2  2:W1 

3 

4 

3:W1

1:W1 

5  1:U1 

6  10:U1 

7 

8 

10:W1

5:U1 

5:W1 

11:W1 

9 

10 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

8 

*(2:U1 is Wetland Number: Upland Data Plot and plot number if more than one plot/wetland)
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

9 

The Hunchback Mountain West (mean elevation 700’) and Hunchback Mountain East 

(mean elevation 1,900’) parcels are located within the Western Cascades Lowlands and 

Valleys ecoregion (Woods et al. 2003).  Snowpack is generally absent within these areas, 

and local hydrology is dominated by wintertime rainfall events, with only the largest peak 

flows being driven by rain‐on‐snow events. 

Soils 

Although the Hood River County and Clackamas County soil survey (USDA 1981, 1985) do 

not describe the soils in the vicinity of Mount Hood, field data indicate that the area 

predominantly consists of andisols derived from ash, pumice, cinders and mud flows. 

Wetland Assessment Guidance 

The primary objectives of the Mt Hood USFS wetland assessment were to determine the 

presence, approximate location, and extent of waters of the US and wetlands on the 

property consistent with current regulatory guidance as articulated in the Interim Regional 

Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, 

Valleys, and Coast Region (ACOE 2008).  

Wetland Inventory and Wetland Delineation Explained 

A wetland inventory uses existing information which can include: USFWS National Wetland 

Inventory maps (NWI), NRCS soils maps, remote sensing data (LiDAR and Aerial imagery), 

existing GIS layers (streams, county wetland surveys, culvert and bridge locations) and 

other existing wetland delineation reports  Using these data, potential wetlands are located 

and a field effort determines if these areas meet the three wetland parameters articulated 

in the Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE) Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of 

Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

(ACOE 2008).   During the field effort, the field team follows the guidelines in the ACOE 

Manual to determine wetland presence/absence and provide supporting data in the 

approved determination datasheets. If the field team determines that a wetland is present, 

they refine the inventory draft field map to more closely match field conditions.  

If the exact location and size of the wetlands is needed (e.g. the wetland will potentially be 

impacted by development or the values of a property is dependent on buildable land), then 

a wetland delineation is required. During a wetland delineation, the field team would use 

all the above information to determine the presence of a wetland, however at this point 
they would also use guidelines provided in the ACOE Manual to delineate and mark the 

edge of the wetland.  These marks are generally surveyed by a licensed surveyor and maps 

with calculated areas are provided in a wetland delineation report.  

For this wetland inventory, some wetlands were mapped as complexes and then wetland 

coverage was estimated within that complex to be certain that all wetland areas within a

large grouping of small, yet connected wetlands were included in our mapping. A Wetland 

Delineation would provide accurate wetland areas that would likely be less than our 

estimated coverage. It should be noted that delineation can be time consuming and 

therefore more expensive.  

Whether conducting an inventory or a delineation, the wetland presence is determined by 

the profession field team. However they do not have the authority to verify that the 

wetland (or other regulatory waters such as streams and lakes) exists in a regulatory 

context.  Only regulatory agencies have the authority to designate jurisdictional wetland 

boundaries.  Generally this is Army Corps of Engineers, but sometimes they give the

authority to state land managers such as the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL).   

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

10 
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

11 

Methods 

Remote Sensing Methods 

The forested nature of the parcels presented a challenge for finding wetland habitats using 

remote sensing methods. Combinations of remote sensing methods were used to find and 

map potential wetland habitats. 

Aerial photographs were obtained from the USFS. A stereoscope was used to view the 

parcels in stereo. A deciduous plant signature on the photos was used to locate the 

presence of potential wetlands. Areas with potential wetland habitats were digitized as 

polygons into ArcGIS software and field maps were created from the new data layers.  

Other data layers added to ArcGIS included the National Wetland Inventory wetland 

mapping, a stream layer, light detection and ranging (LiDAR) (where available), and an 

orthorectified air photo layer. The LiDAR data was used in the remote sensing process to 

look for depressional areas which could contain wetland habitats.  

A wetland delineation report entitled ‘Wetland Delineation Report for Upper Camp Creek 

Area, Government Camp, Clackamas County, Oregon’ by Terra Science, 2006 was obtained 

from Mount Hood Meadows Ski Resort. This report is for the Government Camp parcels 

and was obtained after the field data collection was completed. Maps from this report are 

included in Appendix A. The full report can be found with the digital version of this report.  

Field Data Collection Methods 

WPN and NAC staff members, Ms. Nancy Napp and Mr. William Kleindl, performed a 

wetland determination in areas of interest identified by the remote sensing assessment.  

Potential wetlands and other waters of the US in the study area were assessed using the 

routine determination methods as outlined in the Interim Regional Supplement to the 

Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast 

Region (ACOE 2008). 

To make the wetland determinations, data was collected at locations that represent typical 

wetland or upland characteristics.  The field data collected can be found on the field data 

forms contained in Appendix B.  To be considered a wetland, under normal circumstances, 

an area must have (1) wetland vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology 

(ACOE 2008).  Areas that do not support indicators for one or more of these three 
Mt. Hood Nation

Vegetation 

The dominant plants and the wetland indicator status for each were evaluated to 

determine whether the vegetation was hydrophytic.  To meet the hydrophytic vegetation 

criterion, more than 50 percent of the dominant plants must be Facultative, Facultative 

Wetland, or Obligate, based on the wetland indicator categories that the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Reed 1997, and Table 4) assigned to each plant species.  

Scientific and common plant names used are consistent with Flora of the Pacific Northwest 

(Hitchcock and Cronquist 1991).   

al Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

12 

parameters generally are not regulated as wetlands.   Sites that include a combination of 

wetland and upland conditions are referred to a wetland complexes or mosaics. They are 

generally indicated by a percent wetland/upland.  

In polygons where wetland habitats were present, we used the following methods:  

• The dominant plant species in each stratum were recorded with their percent cover.  

Percent cover estimates were made using ocular survey techniques.  Once these 

dominant plants were recorded, their wetland indicator status was found using The 

National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed, 1988).   

• Soil conditions were described at plot locations.  The soil pit was dug and 

characterized using a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Macbeth, 1994) and by noting other 

soil characteristics.   

• Hydrologic indicators were evaluated.  

• A representative upland plot was taken for each polygon containing wetland 

habitats. 

• Sample plots were located using a GPS unit. 

• We took photographs of each wetland habitat (See Section 3 for Photos). 

• Wetlands are numbered based on their original polygon number. 

The field data was collected from October 9th through October 12th.  The weather was 

clear and cool except on October 12th, which was cold with an unusually early snowfall 

event.   
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

13 

Table 4. Definitions of Hydrophytic Wetland Plant Indicator Categories 

Wetland Indicator 

Category 

Symbol Definition 

Obligate Wetland Plants  OBL  Plants that almost always (>99% of the time) occur in wetland

but which may rarely (<1% of the time) occur in non‐wetland

s,

s. 

Facultative Wetland Plants  FACW Plants that often (67‐99% of the time) occur in wetlands

sometimes (1‐33% of the time) occur in non‐wetlands. 

, but 

Facultative Plants 

ts 

FAC  Plants with a similar likelihood (33‐67% of the time) of 

occurring in both wetlands and non‐wetlands. 

s, 

.  Facultative Upland Plan

Upland Plants 

FACU

UPL 

Plants that sometimes (1‐33% of the time) occur in wetland

but occur more often (67‐99% of the time) in non‐wetlands

Plants that rarely (<1% of the time) occur in wetlands, and 

almost always (>99% of the time) occur in non‐wetlands. 

Source:  Reed 1997.

Soil 

Generally, an area must have hydric soil to be a wetland.  Hydric soils form when soils are 

saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic 

conditions in the upper part.  Indicators of hydric soil become visible when anaerobic 

biological activities result in distinct soil colors.  Typically, low chroma colors and mottles 

of bright color form within the matrix.  The color pattern is one of several possible 

indicators of hydric soil.  Other indicators include high organic matter content in the 

surface horizon, odors of reduced sulfur, and staining by organic matter in the subsurface 

horizon.  Specific hydric soil attributes unique to the western region are articulated in the 

Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Manual (ACOE 2008). 

Project staff examined soils by digging sample pits to a depth of 18 inches or more (where 

possible) to observe soil profiles and determine hydrologic conditions.  Munsell color 

charts (Macbeth 1994) were used to describe soil colors. 

Hydrology 

Project staff examined areas for evidence of wetland hydrology.  An area is considered to 

have wetland hydrology when soils are ponded or saturated for at least 5 percent or in 

some cases 12.5 percent of the growing season.  Primary indicators of wetland hydrology 

include surface inundation and saturated soils.  Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology 

include drainage patterns, watermarks on vegetation, water‐stained leaves, and oxidized 

root channels.  

In north‐central Oregon, some seasonal wetlands begin to dry out by mid‐May, and may 

lack standing water or wetland hydrology consistent with delineation procedures (ACOE 
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory

14 

2008).  Areas with wetland soils and wetland vegetation meet the wetland criteria, and 

under normal circumstances are wetlands even though the wetland hydrology parameter 

may be seasonally absent. 

Wetland Functional Assessment Methods 

A variety of assessment methods have been developed throughout the Pacific Northwest 

that address wetland conditions, functions, and cultural values. These methods have been 

developed to address projects that are specific to region, scale, permit requirements and 

various management and planning priorities. Given the assessment requirements of this 

project a regional approach was chosen that most closely matches the USFS team’s 

management goals.  The Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) 

Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (Null et al, 2000) provides an 

assessment of functions and values appropriate for the region (Table 5) that is based on 

best‐professional‐judgment at a resolution and inquiry appropriate for the project.   

Table 5. List Functions and Values Assessed 

Flood Flow Alteration Habitat for Amphibians 

Sediment Removal  

ant Removal 

Habitat for Wetland Mamm

irds 

als 

Nutrient & Toxic Habitat for Wetland B

Erosion Control 

nsport 

General Fish Habitat 

Organic production and tra Native Plant Richness 

General Habitat Suitability  Educational or Scientific Value 

Habitat for Aquatic Vertebrates  Uniqueness and Heritage 

The WSDOT method (attached to the digital media copy of this report) provides the field 

assessment teams a guided series of questions and required observations to determine the 

presence of physical attributes necessary to support various functions and values. The 

WSDOT document was modified slightly to provide a method to compare sites within the 

study area.  These project specific datasheets are also included in Appendix C. With this 

modification, the Oregon field teams use the results of the guided questionnaire to provide 

a “Low, Medium, or High” result for each function or values assessed in each wetland.  

These field results were later converted to a semi‐quantitative score of 1, 3, and 5 for the 

respective low, medium, and high results. These scores were then multiplied by the 

wetland area to determine comparable functional capacity units (FCU) for each site. This 

approach has been used by various HGM methods (Brinson et al. 1995) through the United 

States to assist in impact assessment for Clean Water Act section 404.  
Fifteen potential wetland polygons were identified by remote sensing methods. Five areas 

were identified on Cooper Spur parcels, six areas on Government Camp parcels, two areas 

on Hunchback East parcels, and two areas on Hunchback West parcels.  Of the fifteen 

polygon areas that were field assessed, eight contained wetland areas. Five of the wetland 

areas are located on the Government Camp parcels and three are located on the Cooper 

Spur parcels. The areas that were determined wetlands under the guidance provided in the 

ACOE Manual are shown in green on Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6.  Also see Table 6 for 

Determined Wetland Attributes.  

Table 6. Determined Wetland Attributes 

Wetland

ID

Cowardin 

Class 

HGM 

Class 

ne

Assessment

area 

Polygon 

Acreage

Percent 

wetland 

Approximate 

Wetland

Acreage

1  PFO1C/PEM1C  Riveri Cooper Spur  3.7  70  2.6 

2 

3 

PSS1B/PEM1B 

PSS1B/PEM1B 

Slope 

Slope 

Cooper Spur 

Cooper Spur 

2.0 

2.4 

100 

100 

2.0 

2.4 

Land Tract Total: Cooper Spur 7.1 

5  PSS1B  Slope  Gov't Camp  1.1  80  0.9 

9 

10 

PSS1B 

PFO1B/PSS1B 

PFO1B 

Slope 

Slope 

Gov't Camp 

Gov't Camp 

0.2 

8.8 

100  0.2 

60  5.3 

11 

18 

PEM1B/

PFO1B 

Slope 

Slope 

Gov't Camp 

Gov't Camp 

9.4 

2.9 

70 

20 

6.6 

0.6 

Land Tract Total: Government Camp 13.5 

Wetlands 

Areas that were determined to have all three wetland parameters (wetland soil, hydrology, 

and vegetation) on the Government Camp and Cooper Spur parcels are described below.   

Cooper Spur Wetlands 

There are three wetland habitats located on the Cooper Spur parcels. Each wetland is 

described below.  

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

15 
Wetland 1

Wetland 1 is a wetland complex located in a deep ravine. The valley walls are forested with 

approximately 40% slopes. There is a floodplain at the bottom of the canyon that allows for 

development of a Riverine forested/emergent wetland complex comprised of 

approximately 70% wetlands and 30% uplands. The depositional riparian area on the 

valley bottom is approximately 75 feet wide. Wetland areas are confined to open areas on 

the valley floor. The forested portions of the complex are dominated by alder (Alnus

incana).  The emergent portions of the complex are dominated by forbs such as coltsfoot 

(Petasites frigidus) and willow herb (Epilobium glabberimum) (Figure 7). Soils are 

comprised of sands with low chroma and redox features in the upper six inches. Hydrology 

indicators included saturation at nine inches with water table present at twelve inches. The 

wetland mosaic size is about 3.7 acres and about 2.6 acres are likely wetland) (Figure 8). 

Figure 7. Photo Point 9: Wetland 1, a 70/30 WL/UL mosaic. 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

16 
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

17 

Figure 8. Wetland 1 
Wetland 2

Wetland 2 is located near the Cooper Spur Inn. Wetland 2 is a shrub‐scrub/emergent slope 

wetland, dominated by cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) and alder (Alnus

incana) with an emergent understory dominated by small‐fruited bulrush (Scirpus

microcarpa), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) and mannagrass (Glyceria elata). Soils are fine 

sandy loams with thick dark surface layer indicating hydric soils. Hydrology is indicated by 

the presence of saturation at six inches.  

Uplands in the vicinity of Wetland 2 are characterized by trees such as western larch (Larix

occidentalis) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata), shrubs include creeping blackberry 

(Rubus ursinus) and mountain alder (Alnus incana) with understory plants such as timothy 

(Phleum pratense) and pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea; Figure 9). Wetland 2 is 

located along a tributary to Tilly Jane Creek. The wetland size is approximately 2.0 acres 

(Figure 10).  

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

18 

Figure 9. Photo Point 2: Wetland 2 
Figure10. Wetland 2 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

19 
Wetland 3

Wetland 3 is also located near the Cooper Spur Inn, downstream of Wetland 2 (Figure 11 

and 12). Wetland 3 is a shrub‐scrub/emergent slope wetland, dominated by alder (Alnus

incana) with an emergent understory dominated by small‐fruited bulrush (Scirpus

microcarpa), and mannagrass (Glyceria elata). Wetland 3 is located along a tributary to 

Tilly Jane Creek, just downstream of Wetland 2. The wetland size is approximately 2.4 

acres. Soils are histosols with hydrology indicators of saturation at the surface and water 

table visible at four inches.  

Figure 11. Photo Point 1: Wetland 3 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

20 
Figure 12. Wetland 3 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

21 
Government Camp Wetlands 

There are five wetland habitats located on the Government Camp parcels. Each wetland is 

described below.  

Wetland 5

Wetland 5 is located on the eastern parcel at Government Camp (Figures 13 and 14). It is a 

wetland mosaic comprised of 80% wetland/20% upland, approximately 1.1 acres in size 

(approximately 0.9 acres of wetland).  Dominant wetland features are located in swales 

that drain snowmelt off of the slopes of Mt. Hood. Dominant plant species include alder 

(Alnus incana), with an understory of skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) and ladyfern 

(Athyrium felix­femina;). Soils are comprised of organic matter (histosols) with a sulfidic 

odor.   Hydrology indicators included saturation at the surface with water table present at 

18 inches.   Uplands in the vicinity of Wetland 5 are dominated by mountain hemlock 

(Tsuga mertensiana), huckleberry (Vaccinium occidentale) and beargrass (Xerophyllum

tenax).  

Figure 13. Photo Point 19: Wetland 5, swale wetland complex with Alder

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

22 
  

Figure 14. Wetlands 5 and 11 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

23 
Wetland 9

Wetland 9 is an approximate 0.2 acre wetland found in the western parcel of Government 

Camp (Figures 15 and 16). The wetland is dominated by alder and is somewhat disturbed, 

due to it’s location between roads and trails. Past land use history may also contribute to 

the disturbed nature of this wetland. Functional assessment data was not taken at this 

wetland because of its size. 

  

Figure 15. Photo Point 23: Wetland 9, small wetland with Alder 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

24 
Figure 16. Wetlands 9 and 18 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

25 
Wetland 10

Wetland 10 is a forested/shrub‐scrub slope wetland mosaic located south on the western 

Government Camp parcel (Figures 17, 18, and 19). It is approximately 8.8 acres. The 

wetland mosaic is 60% wetland/40% upland (approximately 5.3 acres of wetland). This 

mosaic is characterized by swales that are dominated by either shrubby alder stands (Alnus

incana) or emergent skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) and ladyfern (Athyrium felixfemina). Soils are characterized by having a histic epipedon 12 inches deep over a loamy 

sand with gravels. Hydrology indicators are saturation at five inches with water table 

present at 12 inches. Wetland 10 is a series of swales are found winding through forested 

areas dominated by mountain hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western redcedar (Thuja

plicata). 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

26 

Figure 17. Photo Point 16: Wetland 10, Mosaic, swale wetland with skunk cabbage 
Figure 18. Wetland 10. 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

27 
Figure 19. Photo Point 17: Wetland 10, Mosaic, swale wetland with alder

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

28 
Wetland 11

Wetland 11 is a forested/emergent slope wetland mosaic located on the eastern 

Government Camp parcel. It is approximately 9.4 acres in size (See Figures 13). The 

wetland mosaic is 70% wetland/30% upland (approximately 6.6 acres of wetland). This 

mosaic is characterized by a large emergent wetland area dominated by water sedge (Carex

aquatilis; Figures 20). Soils are characterized as a histosol, with hydrology indicators of

saturation at the soil surface with water table present at five inches. In the forested areas 

around this large emergent area are swales similar to Wetlands 5 and 10. The swales are 

dominated by shrubby alder stands beneath forests of western redcedar (Thuja plicata) 

and mountain hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). 

Figure 20. Photo Point 20: Wetland 11, emergent/forested wetland mosaic

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

29 
Wetland 18

There are several small wetlands in a mosaic located on the west side of the western 

Government Camp parcel (See Figure 16). These wetlands were delineated and surveyed 

by Terra Science, Inc and total 0.6 acres. Collectively the upland/wetland mosaic in that 

area comprised of 20% wetland and 80% upland totaling approximately 2.9 acres. This 

mosaic is identified by the Wetland Delineation Report for Upper Camp Creek Area, 

Government Camp, Clackamas County, Oregon (Terra Science, 2006).  This wetland was 

located using the wetland delineation report entitled ‘Wetland Delineation Report for 

Upper Camp Creek Area, Government Camp, Clackamas County, Oregon’ by Terra Science, 

2006, and not investigated in the field. 

Non-Wetlands 

Photos and discussion of the non‐wetland habitats on the Cooper Spur, Government Camp, 

and Hunchback Mountain parcels are included here. Potential wetland habitats were 

identified during the remote sensing. It is difficult to determine deciduous uplands from 

wetlands using remote sensing. The non‐wetlands were frequently deciduous uplands. 

Photos were taken at each potential wetland site and are shown below. 

Cooper Spur 

Potential wetland polygons were visited, in addition to the creeks in the Cooper Spur 

project area. Below are photos points in the areas that had potential wetland signatures in 

the remote sensing assessment but were found to not contain the three wetland 

parameters.  There are potential waters of the United States due to these small streams 

connecting to navigable waters (Figures 21, 22 and 23). See Figure 5 and Figure 6 for photo 

point locations. 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

30 
Figure 21. Photo Point 4: Intermittent stream with subsurface flows (same location as PP3) 

Fi

  

gure 22. Photo Point 7: Steep slope with vine maple (Acer circinatum) 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

31 
Figure 23. Photo Point 8: Opening, a blow down 

Government Camp 

Each potential wetland habitat investigated on the Government Camp parcels was 

determined to be wetlands.  

Hunchback Mountain East 

Two potential wetland habitat areas and one creek were visited to investigate for wetlands. 

No wetland habitats were determined. Photos of the non‐wetland habitats are shown  in 

(Figures 24, 25 and 26).  below.  Refer to Figure 3 for photo point locations. 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

32 
Figure 24. Photo Point 13: Big leaf maple regrowth on clearcut 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

33 
Figure 25. Photo Point 14: Intermittent Creek Channel 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

34 
Figure 26. Photo Point 15: Alder with sword fern, hazelnut and vine maple 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

35 
Hunchback Mountain West 

Two potential wetland habitat areas (one in each parcel) were visited to investigate for 

wetlands. No wetland habitats were determined. Photos of the non‐wetland habitats are 

shown in (Figures 27 and 28).  below.  Refer to Figure 2 for photo point locations. 

Figure 27. Photo Point 21: site with shallow enough groundwater to support alder, no surface 

hydrology

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

36 
Figure 28. Photo Point 22: Alder stands with sword fern understory on slopes, no hydrology 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

37 
Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

38 

Assessment of Functions and Values 

The intention of the study was to determine if there is a potential loss or gain of overall 

wetland functions and values following potential land exchanges.  To accomplish this, a 

modified version of the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) 

Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (Null et al, 2000) was used to 

assess the functions and values of these wetlands. The original method was modified 

slightly so that the Oregon field team could assign a “Low, Medium, or High” result for each 

function or value assessed using the original document’s guided assessment along with 

best professional judgment. These field results were later converted to a semi‐quantitative 

score of 1, 3, and 5 for the respective low, medium, and high results.  Table 7 provides an 

example of this assessment for Wetland 1.  The results of all wetlands are provided in 

Appendix C and the assessment methodology is provided as a separate document. 

Table 7. Example of Assessment results for Wetland 1. 

 Assessment Questions 

Functions and Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Functions 

Rating 

SemiQuantitative 

Score 

Flood Flow Alteration  Y  Y  N  N  Y  N N M  3 

Sediment Removal  N  N  Y  N N Y M  3 

Nutrient & Toxicant Removal  N  Y  N  Y Y M  3 

Erosion Control  N  Y  Y  M  3 

Organic production and 

transport  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  H  5 

General Habitat Suitability  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  H  5 

Habitat for Aquatic Vertebrates Y  Y  N  Y  Y  Y  H  5 

Habitat for Amphibians  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  H  5 

Habitat for Wetland Mammals  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y H  5 

Habitat for Wetland Birds  N  Y  Y  Y  Y Y Y Y H  5 

General Fish Habitat  Y  Y  N  Y Y H  5 

Native Plant Richness  Y  Y  Y  Y  H  5 

Educational or Scientific Value  N  N  Y  L  1 

Uniqueness and Heritage  N  N  N  N  N  N    L  1 

To provide a comparable measurement of function and values between land tracts, 

functional capacity units (FCU) were determined for each site.  The FCU method has been 

used by various hydrogeomorphic approaches (HGM) to wetland functional assessment 

(Brinson et al. 1995) through the United States to assist in impact assessment and proper 

mitigation for Clean Water Act section 404 permits.   For each function the wetland’s 

individual FCU was determined by multiplying the semi‐qualitative score with the 
wetland’s acreage.  Then, for each land track, the FCUs were simply totaled for the area. 

Table 8 and Table 9 provide a summary of these calculations for each land tract.  

Table 10 below provides a side‐by‐side comparison of each land tract.  For each land tract

the FCUs for each wetland are summed by function and these numbers are totaled to 

provide a comparable score for each tract.  Cooper spur has a total of 337 FCUs and 

Government Camp has 625 FCUs. Of the total 962 FCUs, Cooper spur contains 35% and 

Government Camp has 65%. 

Table 8. Function and Values Score Summary for Cooper Spur

Land Tract Cooper Spur 

Wetland Number WL 1 WL 2 WL 3

Wetland Acreage 2.6 2.0 2.4 

Function and Value

n

s Rating Score FCU Rating Score FCU Rating Score FCU

Flood Flow Alteratio M  3  7.8  M  3  6.1  M 3  7.3 

Sediment Removal  

ant

M  3  7.8  L 1  2.0  L 1  2.4 

Nutrient & Toxic

Removal 

Erosion Control 

M  3  7.8  H  5  10.2  H  5  12.2 

M  3  7.8  H  5  10.2  H  5  12.2 

Organic production and

ability 

transport

General Habitat Suit

H  5  13.0  H  5  10.2  H  5  12.2 

H  5  13.0  H  5  10.2  H  5  12.2 

Habitat for Aquatic

ns 

Vertebrates 

Habitat for Amphibia

H  5  13.0  H  5  10.2  H  5  12.2 

H 5 13.0  H  5  10.2 H  5  12.2

Habitat for Wetland

rds

Mammals  H  5  13.0  L 1  2.0  L 1  2.4 

Habitat for Wetland Bi H 

H

5 

5

13.0 

13.0 

M 

L

3 

1 

6.1 

2.0 

M 

L

3 

1 

7.3 

General Fish Habitat 2.4 

Native Plant Richness  H  5  13.0 M  3  6.1  M 3  7.3 

Educational or Scientific 

Value 

e

L 1  2.6  L 1  2.0  L 1  2.4 

Uniqueness and Heritag L 1 2.6

40.7

L 1 2.0

9.6

L 1 2.4

Total FCU By Wetland   1 8 107.4

Total FCU BY Land Tract 337.8 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

39 
Table 9. Function and Values Score Summary for Government Camp 

Land Tract Government Camp 

Wetland

Number WL 5 WL 10 WL 11 WL 18 

Wetland

Acreage 0.9 5.3 6.6 0.6

Function and 

Values

Rating Score FCU Rating Score FCU Rating Score FCU Rating Score FCU 

Flood Flow

Alteration L 1 0.9  L 1 5.3  L 1 6.6  L 1 0.6 

Sediment 

Removal  

l

L 1  0.9  L 1  5.3  M  3  19.7  L 1  0.6 

Nutrient &

Toxicant Remova

Erosion Control 

Organic 

M

M 

3

3 

2.7 

2.7 

L

M 

1

3 

5.3 

15.8 

H

M 

5

3 

32.9 

19.7 

L

M 

1 

3 

0.6 

1.7 

production and 

transport

t 

H 

M 

5 

3 

4.6 

2.7 

M 

H 

3 

5 

15.8 

26.3 

H 

H 

5 

5 

32.9 

32.9 

M 

H 

3 

5 

1.7 

2.9 

General Habita

Suitability 

Habitat for 

Aquatic 

Vertebrates  M 

H

3 

5

2.7 

4.6 

M 

H

3 

5

15.8 

26.3 

M 

H 

3 

5 

19.7 

32.9 

M 

H 

3 

5 

1.7 

2.9 

Habitat for 

Amphibians

Habitat for 

Wetland 

Mammals 

s

M  3  2.7  M  3  15.8  H  5  32.9  M  3  1.7 

Habitat for 

Wetland Bird M  3  2.7  H  5  26.3 H  5  32.9 H  5  2.9 

General Fish 

Habitat  M  3  2.7  L 1  5.3  L 1  6.6  L 1  0.6 

Native Plant

Richness  H  5  4.6  H  5  26.3  H  5  32.9  H  5  2.9 

Educational or 

Scientific Value 

d

M 3 2.7  H 5 26.3 H  5  32.9 H  5  2.9 

Uniqueness an

Heritage  L 1 0.9  L 1 5.3  L 1 6.6  L 1 0.6 

Total FCU By

Wetland  

Total FCU BY

Land Tract 625.1 

38.3 220.8 342.1 23.9

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

40 
Table 10. Comparison of total Functional Capacity Units 

Total for Cooper Spur Total for Government Camp 

Functions and Values 

 

Total FCU by 

Function 

Weight

Score

Total FCU by 

Function 

Weight

Score

Flood Flow Alteration  21.2  3.0  13.3  1.0 

Sediment Removal   12.2  1.7  26.5  2.0 

Nutrient & Toxicant Removal 

rt

30.2  4.3  41.5  3.1 

Erosion Control 30.2  4.3  40.0  3.0 

Organic production and transpo

ty 

35.3  5.0  54.9  4.1 

General Habitat Suitabili 35.3  5.0  64.8  4.9 

Habitat for Aquatic Vertebrates 

als 

35.3  5.0  40.0  3.0 

Habitat for Amphibians 

amm

rds

35.3  5.0  66.6  5.0 

Habitat for Wetland M 17.4  2.5  53.1  4.0 

Habitat for Wetland Bi 26.4  3.7  64.8  4.9 

General Fish Habitat

alue 

17.4 2.5  15.1  1.1 

Native Plant Richness 

ific V

26.4 3.7 

1.0 

1.0 

66.6  5.0 

4.9 

1.0 

Educational or Scient 7.1  64.8 

Uniqueness and Heritage 7.1  13.3 

Total Wetland Acres  7.1  13.5 

Total Functional Capacity Units  337  625 

Ratio of Total FCU Score  35% 65%

To compare wetland condition amongst tracts, a weighted semi‐quantitative score was 

determined by dividing the land tract’s total FCU for each function or value by the total 

acreage of the land track. Figure 29 shows these weighted semi‐quantitative scores in a

graph form with the ‘High, Medium and Low’ approximated by the color bars.  

Cooper Spur’s wetlands consisted predominately of riparian wetlands or slope wetland 

with a small open water channel within the wetland. Government Camp consists primarily 

of slope wetland with limited open water. Because Cooper Spur has open water channels, it 

scores higher on the functions driven by surface water flux such as flood flow alterations, 

toxicant removal, erosion control, organic matter transport and aquatic vertebrates and 

fish habitat. Because the wetlands at Government Camp generally have more of a diverse 

plant communities and forested buffer it scored higher in the general habitat functions.  

Government Camp also has easier access to the wetlands than Cooper Spur which drove the 

score for the educational value higher. 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

41 
Figure 29. Weighted Comparison of Locations 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

42 
Conclusions 

Eight wetland habitats were located and determined in this study.  Five of the wetland 

habitats are located on the Government Camp parcels and three are located on the Cooper 

Spur parcels. Government Camp has about 13 acres of wetland and Cooper Spur has about 

7 acres.  When the functional capacity is weighted by the acreage of wetland the ratio of the 

total units is about 65% (Government Camp) to 35% (Cooper Spur).  Not the ideal 50/50 

relationship, and therefore there will be a loss of both wetland area and wetland functions 

and values if the land exchange will occur.  

The Hunchback Mountain East and Hunchback Mountain West parcels did not contain 

wetland habitats.  

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

43 
References 

Brinson, M. M., F. R. Hauer, L. C. Lee, W. L. Nutter, R. D. Rheinhardt, R. D. Smith, D. Whigham. 

1995. A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic assessments to riverine wetlands. 

Technical Report WRP‐DE‐1, Wetlands Research Program, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.  

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. 

Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report Y‐87‐1. 

Washington D.C. 20314‐1000. 

Hitchcock, C. L., and Cronquist, A. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest, University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, Wash. 

Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Kollmorgen 

Corporation, Baltimore, Md. 

Null, W.S.; G. Skinner, and W. Leonard. 2000. Wetland functions characterization tool for 

linear projects. Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs 

Office, Olympia. 

Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. US Fish and Wildlife 

Publication NERC‐88/18.37. St. Petersburg, Florida. 

Terra Science. 2006. ‘Wetland Delineation Report for Upper Camp Creek Area, Government 

Camp, Clackamas County, Oregon’. Report to Mount Hood Meadows Ski Area, September 

2006. 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

44 

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS 39180‐6199 
USDA, National Resource Conservation Service.   Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the 

United States, Version 5.9  

USDA, 1981.  Soil Survey of Hood River County Area, Oregon, USDA Soil Conservation 

Service. 

USDA. 1985.  Soil Survey of Clackamas County Area, Oregon, USDA Soil Conservation 

Service. 

Vepraskas, M. J. 1999. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Technical 

Bulletin 301, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Whitson, T. D. ET. Al. 1992. Weeds of the West. University of Wyoming, Pioneer of Jackson 

Hole, Jackson, Wyoming. 

Woods, A., S. Bryce, J. Omernik.  2003.  Level III and IV Ecoregions of Oregon.  U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR.  Online 

lingkage: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iv.htm 

USF&WS Interactive Wetland Mapper: http://wetlands.fws.gov/ 

Mt. Hood National Forest Land Exchange Wetland Inventory 

45 
Appendix A

Government Camp Wetland Delineation Report Maps
This page intentionally blank 



Appendix B

Field Data Forms
This page intentionally blank 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

1. Thuja plicata 30 * FAC

2. 

Number of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 

3. 

4. 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 5 (B) 

30 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80% (A/B) 

5. Acer circinatum 25 * FAC- Prevalence Index worksheet: 

6. Ribes sp. 10 N/I Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

7. Alnus cf. rubra 25 * FAC OBL species x1 = 

8. FACW species x2 = 

9. FAC species x3 = 

60 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

10. Petasites frigidus 50 * FACW- Column Totals: (A) (B) 

11. Epilobium glaberrinum 20 * FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 

12. Gallium boreale 10 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

13. Fragaria virginiana 10 FACU* Dominance Test is >50% 

14. Viola sp. 5 N/I Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

15. Lactuca serriola + FACU 

16. Mimulus guttatus + OBL 

 Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

17. Osmorhiza longistylis + FACU Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

18. Scirpus microcarpus + OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

19. Luzula sp. + N/I 

20. Pyrola sp. + N/I 

95+ = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur City/County: Hood River 

County Sampling Date: 10/11/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 1:W1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T1S R10E S31 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drainage Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10% 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: None 

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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 1:W1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-6 7.5YR 2.5/2 96 10YR 3/3 4 C M sand 

6-9 10YR 2/2 100 sand Lenses of organics interspersed with sand 

9-15 10YR 4/1 100 sand 

15-18 10YR 3/3 100 sand 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): - 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12” 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 9” Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

21. Tsuga heterophylla 60 * FACU22. 

Number of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 

23. 

24. 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 5 (B) 

60 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) 

25. Rosa sp. 10 * N/I Prevalence Index worksheet: 

26. Rubus cf. ursinus 5 FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

27. Acer circinatum 10 * FAC- OBL species x1 = 

28. Ribes sp. 5 N/I FACW species x2 = 

29. Corylus cornuta 10 * FACU FAC species x3 = 

40 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

30. Achlys triphylla 10 UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 

31. Linnaea borealis 30 * FACU- Prevalence Index = B/A = 

32. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

33. Dominance Test is >50% 

34. Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

35. 

36. Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

37. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

38. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

39. 

40. 

40 = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur City/County: Hood River 

County Sampling Date: 10/11/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 1:U1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T1S R10E S31 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 40% 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A 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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 1:U1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-3 organic 100 organic OI 

3-5 10YR 3/2 100 Loamy sand AC 

5-18 10YR 4/2 100 sand BWC 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: Andic, ashy 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

41. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 40 * FAC

42. Larix occidentalis 10 FACU+ 

Number of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 

43. Alnus incana 10 FACW 

44. 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 4 (B) 

60 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 

45. Prevalence Index worksheet: 

46. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

47. OBL species x1 = 

48. FACW species x2 = 

49. FAC species x3 = 

 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

50. Scirpus microcarpus 30 * OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 

51. Agrostis alba 10 FAC* Prevalence Index = B/A = 

52. Juncus effusus 20 * FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

53. Stachys emersonii 10 FACW Dominance Test is >50% 

54. Carex mertensii 5 FAC Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

55. Agropyron riparium 10 FAC 

56. Glyceria elata 25 * FACW+ Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

57. Carex sp. 10 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

58. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

59. 

60. 

120 = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur City/County: Hood River 

County Sampling Date: 10/9/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 2:W1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T2S R10E S6 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5% 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: None 

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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 2:W1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-2 organic 100 organic OE 

2-6 10YR 3/2 100 Fine sandy 

loam

A 

6-18 10YR 3/1 100 Fine sandy 

loam

BW - andesol 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 6” Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30X30) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

61. Larix occidentalis 5 FACU+

62. Pinus ponderosa 5 FACUNumber of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 

63. Thuja plicata 10 * FAC 

64. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 5 FAC 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 5 (B) 

25 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40% (A/B) 

65. Acer circinatum 10 FAC- Prevalence Index worksheet: 

66. Alnus incana 20 * FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

67. Ribes 5 N/I OBL species x1 = 

68. Rubus ursinus 15 FACU FACW species x2 = 

69. Thuja plicata + FAC FAC species x3 = 

50 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

70. Athyrium felix femina 10 FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 

71. Phleum pratense 20 * FAC- Prevalence Index = B/A = 

72. Anaphalis margaritacea 20 * UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

73. Hypericum formosum 20 * FAC- Dominance Test is >50% 

74. Bromus carinatus 10 Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

75. Cornus canadensis 10 

76. Achillea millefolium + Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

77. Luzula sp. 10 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

78. Gallium boreale + Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

79. Aster sp. + 

80. 100+ 

 = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur City/County: Hood River 

County Sampling Date: 10/9/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 2:U1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T2S R10E S6 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Vallley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5% 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: None 

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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 2:U1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-2 organic 100 OI 

2-5 10YR 3/3 100 Fine sandy 

loam A – ash inclusion 

5-8 10YR 4/3 98 10YR 4/4 2% C PL Fine sandy 

loam 1BW – ash predominant deposit 

8-18 10YR 4/3 95 10YR 4/4 5% C PL Fine sand 2BW – charcoal in it 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: Hole is at same elevation as the stream in the floodplain, but plant community drier, no hydrology but soils are hydric 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

81. Alnus incana 20 * FACW

82. 

Number of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 

83. 

84. 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 4 (B) 

20 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B) 

85. Rubus ursinus 10 * FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 

86. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

87. OBL species x1 = 

88. FACW species x2 = 

89. FAC species x3 = 

10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

90. Scirpus microcarpus 30 * OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 

91. Glyceria elata 40 * FACW+ Prevalence Index = B/A = 

92. Lysichitum americanum 10 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

93. Aster sp. + N/I Dominance Test is >50% 

94. Agrostis alba 10 FAC Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

95. Alopecuris pratensis 5 FACW 

96. Achillea millefolium + FACU Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

97. Caltha leptosepala + OBL Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

98. Veronica americana + OBL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

99. Epilobium glaberrinum + FACW 

100. 

95+ = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur City/County: Hood River 

County Sampling Date: 10/9/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 3:W1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T2S R10E S6 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: None 

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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 3:W1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-5 organic 100 hemic 

5-16 organic 100 sapric 

16-18 10YR 3/2 100 sand BW-Ash fine sandy 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): w/in plot 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4” 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Cooper Spur 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: ) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

101. 

102. 

Number of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 

103. 

104. 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 4 (B) 

 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 

105. Alnus incana 80 * FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 

106. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

107. OBL species x1 = 

108. FACW species x2 = 

109. FAC species x3 = 

80 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

110. Lysichitum americanum 25 * OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 

111. Athyrium felix-femina 10 * FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 

112. Scirpus microcarpus 10 * OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

113. Dominance Test is >50% 

114. Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

115. 

116. Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

117. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

118. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

119. 

120. 

 = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp City/County: Clackamas Co. Sampling Date: 10/13/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest State: OR Sampling Point: 5:W1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T3S R8E S14 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 10% 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: PSS1B 

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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 5:W1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-3 organic 100 OA 

3-18 organic 100 OE 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 18” 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

121. Tsuga mertensiana 50 * FACU

122. Abies lasiocarpa 20 * FACU 

Number of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 

123. Thuja plicata 10 FAC 

124. 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 5 (B) 

80 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20% (A/B) 

125. Vaccinium occidentale 30 * FAC+ Prevalence Index worksheet: 

126. Sorbus scopulina 10 FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

127. Tsuga heterophylla 15 * FACU- OBL species x1 = 

128. FACW species x2 = 

129. FAC species x3 = 

55 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

130. Xerophyllum tenax 40 * UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 

131. Cornus canadensis 10 FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 

132. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

133. Dominance Test is >50% 

134. Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

135. 

136. Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

137. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

138. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

139. 

140. 

50 = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp City/County: Clackamas Co. Sampling Date: 10/13/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest State: OR Sampling Point: 5:U1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T3S R8E S14 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 10% 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: None 

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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 5:U1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-2 organic 100 organic 

2-8 10YR 5/3 100 Sandy loam 

8-18 10YR 3/3 100 Sandy loam 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

141. Tsuga mertensiana 60 * FACU

142. Thuja plicata 10 FAC 

Number of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 

143. 

144. 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 4 (B) 

70 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) 

145. Vaccinium occidentale 80 * FAC+ Prevalence Index worksheet: 

146. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

147. OBL species x1 = 

148. FACW species x2 = 

149. FAC species x3 = 

80 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

150. Cornus canadensis 20 * FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 

151. Clintonia uniflora 10 UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 

152. Xerophyllum tenax 10 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

153. moss 20 * N/I Dominance Test is >50% 

154. Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

155. 

156. Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

157. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

158. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

159. 

160. 

60 = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp City/County: Clackamas Co. Sampling Date: 10/13/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest,USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 10:U1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T3S R8E S13 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 10% 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: None 

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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: Previously delineated wetland 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 10:U1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-2 organic 100 organic OI 

2-3 organic 100 organic OE 

3-5 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam A mucky 

5-18 10YR 3/2 100 Loamy sand BWC predominantly ash + 10% cobble 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: Occasional buried lenses in 5-18” profile 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

161. Tsuga mertensiana 10 * FACU

162. Thuja plicata 15 * FAC 

Number of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 

163. 

164. 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 6 (B) 

25 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (A/B) 

165. Vaccinium occidentale 10 * FAC+ Prevalence Index worksheet: 

166. Abies lasiocarpa 5 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

167. OBL species x1 = 

168. FACW species x2 = 

169. FAC species x3 = 

15 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

170. Lysichitum americanum 40 * OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 

171. Athyrium felix-femina 20 * FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 

172. Caltha leptosepala 10 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

173. Moss 20 * N/I Dominance Test is >50% 

174. twisted stalk 10 Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

175. 

176. Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

177. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

178. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

179. 

180. 

100 = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp City/County: Clackamas Co Sampling Date: 10/13/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 10:W1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T3S R8E S13 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10% 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: None 

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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 10:W1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 organic 100 OA 

12-18 10YR 3/3 95 10YR 3/4 5 c m Loamy sand BWC w/5% gravels 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12” 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 5” Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants 

Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) Absolute 

% Cover

Dominant 

Species?

Indicator 

Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 

181. Thuja plicata 5 * FAC

182. 

Number of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 

183. 

184. 

Total Number of Dominant Species Across 

All Strata: 3 (B) 

5 = Total Cover 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) 

Percent of Dominant Species That Are 

OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 

185. Spiraea douglasii 5 FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 

186. Betula pumila 5 OBL Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

187. Vaccinium occidentale 20 * FAC+ OBL species x1 = 

188. FACW species x2 = 

189. FAC species x3 = 

30 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = 

Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 20X20) UPL species x5 = 

190. Carex aquatilis 60 * OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 

191. Caltha leptosepala 10 OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 

192. Juncus sp. 5 N/I Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 

193. Parnassia fimbriata + OBL Dominance Test is >50% 

194. Juncus effusus + FACW Prevalence Index is <3.01

 

195. 

196. Morphological Adaptations1

 (Provide supporting data in 

Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

197. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

198. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1

 (Explain) 

199. 

200. 

75 = Total Cover

1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 

unless disturbed or problematic. 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 

1. 

2. 

 = Total Cover 

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 

Hydrophytic Vegetation 

Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp City/County: Clackamas Co. Sampling Date: 10/13/2009 

Applicant/Owner: Mt. Hood National Forest, USFS State: OR Sampling Point: 11:W1 

Investigator(s): Kleindl, Napp Section, Township, Range: T3S R8E S13 

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5% 

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: 

Soil Map Unit Name: N/A NWI classification: PEM1B/PFO1B 

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 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes No 

Remarks: 
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast – Interim Version 

SOIL Sampling Point: 11:W1

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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-18 organic 100 organic OE 

 

1

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 Soils3: 

 Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) 

 Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) 

 Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 

 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

 Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 

 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 

problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if present): 

Type: 

Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 

 Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

 Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

 Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

 Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 

 Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) 

 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) 

 Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) 

 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5” 

Saturation Present? 

(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 

Remarks: 

Project Site: Government Camp 
Appendix C

Wetland Functions and Values Data
This page intentionally blank 

   
Wetland Functions and Values

Wetland ID 1Cowardin Class PFO/EM1CHGM Class RiverinePolygon Size 3.7 Wetland Complex (wet/up) 70/30Wetland Size 2.6Date 10/11/2009

Question: 12345678 Comments 

Flood Flow Alteration Y Y N N Y N N Evidence that this is a sediment Sediment Removal N N Y N N Y Nutrient & Toxicant Removal N Y N Y Y Erosion Control N Y Y Organic production and transport YYYYYY General Habitat Suitability YYYYYY Habitat for Aquatic Vertebrates Y Y N Y Y Y Habitat for Amphibians YYYYYY Habitat for Wetland Mammals YYYYYY Habitat for Wetland Birds N YYYYYYY General Fish Habitat Y Y N Y Y Native Plant Richness YYYY Educational or Scientific Value N N Y Uniqueness and Heritage NNNNNN 

Wetland ID 2Cowardin Class PSS/EM1BHGM Class SlopePolygon Size 2.0 Wetland Complex (wet/up) 100Wetland Size 2.0Date 10/9/2009

Question: 12345678 Comments 

Flood Flow Alteration Y N N Y Y N Y Sediment Removal N N Y N Y N Nutrient & Toxicant Removal N YYYY 

Erosion Control Y Y Y Organic production and transport Y Y Y N Y Y General Habitat Suitability N YYYYY 

Habitat for Aquatic Inverts Y Y N Y Y Y Habitat for Amphibians YYYYYY Habitat for Wetland Mammals Y N Y Y N N Habitat for Wetland Birds N YYYYYYY General Fish Habitat Y N N Y N Native Plant Richness Y Y Y N This applies to the characteristic plant Educational or Scientific Value N N Y Uniqueness and Heritage NNNNNN 
Wetland ID 3

Cowardin Class PSS/EM1BHGM Class SlopePolygon Size 2.4 Wetland Complex (wet/up) 100Wetland Size 2.4Date 10/9/2009

Question: 12345678 Comments 

Flood Flow Alteration Y N N Y Y N Y Sediment Removal N N Y N Y N Nutrient & Toxicant Removal N YYYY 

Erosion Control Y Y Y Organic production and transport Y Y Y N Y Y General Habitat Suitability N YYYYY 

Habitat for Aquatic Inverts Y Y N Y Y Y Habitat for Amphibians YYYYYY Habitat for Wetland Mammals Y N Y Y N N Habitat for Wetland Birds N YYYYYYY General Fish Habitat Y N N Y N Native Plant Richness Y Y Y N This applies to the characteristic plant Educational or Scientific Value N N Y Uniqueness and Heritage NNNNNN 

Wetland ID 5Cowardin Class PSS1BHGM Class SlopePolygon Size 1.1 Wetland Complex (wet/up) 80/20Wetland Size 0.9Date 10/13/2009

Question: 12345678 Comments 

Flood Flow Alteration Y N N N Y N N Sediment Removal N N Y N N N Nutrient & Toxicant Removal N N Y Y Y Erosion Control N Y Y Organic production and transport Y Y Y N Y Y General Habitat Suitability N Y Y Y N N Y Habitat for Aquatic Inverts Y N N Y N Y Habitat for Amphibians Y N YYYY 

Habitat for Wetland Mammals Y N Y Y N N Y Habitat for Wetland Birds N Y Y Y N Y Y Y General Fish Habitat Y N N Y N Native Plant Richness YYYY Educational or Scientific Value N Y Y Uniqueness and Heritage NNNNNN 
Wetland ID 10

Cowardin Class PFO1B/PSS1BHGM Class SlopePolygon Size 8.8 Wetland Complex (wet/up) 60/40Wetland Size 5.3Date 10/13/2009

Question: 12345678 Comments 

Flood Flow Alteration Y NNNNNY 

Sediment Removal NNNNNY 

Nutrient & Toxicant Removal N N N Y Y Erosion Control N Y Y Organic production and transport Y Y N N Y Y General Habitat Suitability YYYYYYY Habitat for Aquatic Inverts N Y N Y Y Y Habitat for Amphibians N YYYYY 

Habitat for Wetland Mammals N N Y Y N Y N Habitat for Wetland Birds N Y Y Y N Y Y Y General Fish Habitat N N N Y N Native Plant Richness YYYY Educational or Scientific Value Y Y Y Uniqueness and Heritage NNNNNN 

Wetland ID 11Cowardin Class PEM1BHGM Class SlopePolygon Size 9.4 Wetland Complex (wet/up) 70/30Wetland Size 6.6Date 10/13/2009

Question: 12345678 Comments 

Flood Flow Alteration Y NNNNNN 

Sediment Removal N N Y Y N N Nutrient & Toxicant Removal N YYYY 

Erosion Control N Y Y Organic production and transport YYYYYN General Habitat Suitability YYYYYYY Habitat for Aquatic Inverts Y NNNNY Habitat for Amphibians YYYYYY Habitat for Wetland Mammals N Y Y Y N Y Y Habitat for Wetland Birds N Y Y Y N Y Y Y General Fish Habitat N N N Y N Native Plant Richness YYYY Educational or Scientific Value N Y Y Uniqueness and Heritage NNNNNN 
Wetland ID 18

Cowardin Class PFO1BHGM Class SlopePolygon Size 2.9 Wetland Complex (wet/up) 20/80Wetland Area 0.6Date 10/13/2009

Question: 12345678 Comments 

Flood Flow Alteration Y NNNNNY 

Sediment Removal NNNNNY 

Nutrient & Toxicant Removal N N N Y Y Erosion Control N Y Y Organic production and transport Y Y N N Y Y General Habitat Suitability YYYYYYY Habitat for Aquatic Inverts N Y N Y Y Y Habitat for Amphibians N YYYYY 

Habitat for Wetland Mammals N N Y Y N Y N Habitat for Wetland Birds N Y Y Y N Y Y Y General Fish Habitat N N N Y N Native Plant Richness YYYY Educational or Scientific Value Y Y Y Uniqueness and Heritage NNNNNN