julie dalsoglio-epa sandy stash - aerl robin bullock - aerl pam...

ARCO .^W. ARCO Environmental ^ ^ Remediation, L.L.C.

307 East Park Street, Suite 400 Anaconda, Montana 59711 Telephone (406) 563-5211 Facsimile (406) 563-8269

1097968-R8 SDMS

ENVfRONMENTAL PRO

March 19, 1999

••r-K! AGENCY

MAR 2 2 1999

MCNTAiMA OFFICE

CERTIFIED - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Charlie Coleman EPA Region VIII Montana Office 301 South Park. Drawer 10096 Helena, MT 59624

Matt Marsh MDEQ 2209 Phoenix Avenue P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901

D. Henry Elsen, Esq. EPA Region VIII, Montana Office 301 South Park. Drawer 10096 Helena, MT 59624

Mary Capdeville MDEQ 2209 Phoenix Avenue P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901

RE: Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Wetlands Mitigation Process, Step 4 - Confirmation of Response Actions

Dear Sirs and Madam:

Enclosed please find one copy each of the draft Wetlands Mitigation Process, Step 4 -confirmation of Response Actions Report for the Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area and Operable Unit. This report was prepared in order to meet substantive requirements of Executive Order 11990, which established a national policy of minimizing losses of and adverse impacts to wetlands; and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of dredge or fill materials into aquatic ecosystems. This report will be included in the accounting of losses and gains of wetland function in mitigating a "no net loss of wetlands" from pre-to post-remediation condidons throughout the Upper Clark Fork River SuperfLind sites which have been addressed by ARCO.

It is anticipated that habitat provided by wetland areas within the OW/EADA site will improve over time as vegetation matures. These areas will be reassessed in 10 years following completion of all remedial action construction (scheduled for fall 1999) and finalization of this step 4 analysis will occur at that time.

If you have any questions or require further explanation concerning the above information, please give me a call at (406) 563-5211, ext. 429.

485580 A subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company

Sincerely.

Mark A. Pokorny Project Manager Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit

Attacliment

cc: Robert Fox - EPA Julie DalSoglio-EPA Sandy Stash - AERL Robin Bullock - AERL Pam Sbar, Esq. - DG&S Caroline DeWitt - AERL Bill Duffy - DG&S BillOlsen-FWS Ken Brockman - EPA/BOR Duane Logan - PTI David Chapin - R2 Rich Rivers - OWGC Authority Carl Stetzner - ADLC Librar>' File: 72.03.110.1

72.03.60 OCDb Clironological

(w/o attachments) (w/o attacluTients) (w/o attacliments) (w/o attachments)

(w/o attacliments) (w/o attacliments)

(w/o attacliments)

(w/o attacliments)

(w/certs.) (w/o attacliments) (w/o attachments) (w/o attaclunents)

ENVIRONIW?-VTA( PflOTEC--'-- ^.^Y

2 2 1999

MONTANA oeHiCE

DR/\F7

ANACONDA SMELTER NPL SITE OLD WORKS/EAST ANACONDA DEVELOPMENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT

Wetlands Mitigation Process Step 4 - Confirmation of Response Actions

Prepared for:

AERL i>

ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. 307 East Park Street Suite 400 Anaconda, Montana 59711

March 1999

DRAFT

ANACONDA SMELTER NPL SITE OLD WORKS/EAST ANACONDA DEVELOPMENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT

Wetlands Mitigation Process Step 4 - Confirmation of Response Actions

Prepared for: Prepared by:

^ h k AERL ^? R2 Resource Consultants

ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. 307 East Park Street Suite 400 Anaconda, Montana 59711

15250 NE 95th Street Redmond, Washington 98052-2518

March 1999

AERL OW/EAD.4 Operable Unit Wetlands - Step 4

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 1

1.2 OBJECTIVES 2

1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION 2

1.4 SITE HISTORY 3

1.5 SITE REMEDIATION 4

1.5.1 Golf Course Area (Subareas 1 and 2) 4

1.5.2 Addendum "C" Industrial Areas (Subareas 3 and 4) 5

1.5.3 East Anaconda Yards (Subarea 5) 5

1.5.4 Drag Strip Subarea (Subarea 6) 6

1.5.5 Aspen Hills 6

1.5.6 Mill Creek Addition 6

2. METHODS 7

2.1 IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS. 7

2.1.1 Disturbed and Problem Area Delineation 8

2.1.2 Wetlands Survey 9

2.2 DETERMINATION OF WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUE 9

2.3 DETERMINATION OF FUNCTIONALLY EFFECTIVE WETLAND AREA 10

3. WETLANDS MITIGATION PROCESS TO DATE 11

3.1 STEP! 11

3.2 STEP 2 AND STEP 3 11

R2 Resource Consultants Hi March 1999 1134.03/old\vorks4.step4,doc

AERL OW.'EADA Operable Unit Wetlands - Step 4

3.3 REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES 12

3.4 PRE-STEP 4 STATUS 12

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14

4.1 DELINEATION OF WETLANDS 14

4.1.1 Subareas 1, 2, and 3 15

4.1.2 Subareas 3, 4, 5, and 6 18

4.1.3 Mill Creek Addition and Other Areas 18

4.2 FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION OF WETLANDS 19

4.2.1 Wami Springs/Mill Creeks Assessment Area 19

4.2.2 Upland Assessment Area 19

4.3 DETERMINATION OF FUNCTIONALLY EFFECTIVE WETLAND AREA 20

4.4 CONFIRMATION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS 21

5. SUMMARY 22

6. REFERENCES 23

APPENDIX A: Wetland Delineation Data Sheets APPENDIX B: Wetland Functional Evaluation Form

R2 Resource Consultants iv March 1999 1134.03/oldworks4.step4.doc

AERL OW/EADA Operable Unit Wetlands - Step 4

FIGURES

Figure 1. Operable unit and subarea boundaries ofthe Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit, Anaconda, Montana 24

Figures 2a, 2b. Step 1 pre-remedial jurisdictional wetlands in the Old Works/East Anaconda Area Operable Unit 25

Figures 3a, 3b. Step 4 post-remedial jurisdictional wetlands in the Old Works/East Anaconda Area Operable Unit 27

TABLES

Table 1. Summary of changes to wetlands in Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit following remedial action 15

Table 2. Sumniar)- of Post-Remedial Wetland Functional Evaluation for Old Works/East Anaconda Area Operable Unit.' 20

Table 3. Detemiination of Post-Remedial Functionally Effective Wetland Area In Two Assessment Areas of OW/EADA OU, Anaconda Smelter NPL Site 21

R2 Resource Consultants 1134.03/oldworks4.step4.doc

March 1999


\. INTRODUCTION

This report documents the results ofthe Step 4 (post construction) evaluation performed as part ofthe Four-Step Upper Clark Fork River (CFR) Wetlands Mitigation Process for the Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit (OW/EADA OU). Step 4, Confinnation of Remedial Action Impacts, is conducted following completion of remedial action construction at each operable unit within the CFR Superfund Sites to assess both improvement and negative effects upon wetland areas resulting from construction activity. Utilizing the approved U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria discussed in Section 1.1 below, this report provides an interim quantification and assessment of wetland area and function. It is anticipated that habitat provided by wetland areas within the site will improve over time as vegetation matures. Thus, ARCO proposes to reassess wetland area and function and finalize this Step 4 analysis at 10 years following completion of remedial action construction at the site.

LI REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Federal protection of wetlands is provided under Executive Order 11990 and Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA), which protect and regulate certain activities that may impact water of the United States, including wetlands. This report documents the final step in a four-step process ARCO followed to address substantive requirements ofthe executive order and Section 404 of the CWA during the course of remedial actions on CFR Superfiand sites. This process is described in ARCO's letter to the EPA of January 27, 1992 (ARCO 1992a) and consists ofthe following steps: (1) wetland identification and delineation, (2) preliminary analysis of impacts, (3) detailed analysis of impacts, and (4) confirmation of response action impacts.

Step 1 includes identification and delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and a functional evaluation of wetlands to determine Functionally Effective Wetland Area (FEWA) (defined as delineated wetland acreage adjusted by an overall rating for fianctional value). The functional evaluation follows the procedure detailed in the Evaluation for Determining Wetland Functional Value and Effective Wetland Area in Upper Clark Fork River Superfund Sites (ARCO 1992b). As outlined in the January 27, 1992 letter (ARCO 1992a) and in ARCO (1992b), the Step 1 report establishes the FEWA prior to selecting and implementing the selected remedial action.

Step 2 is the initial analysis of potential impacts to wetlands associated with remedial action alternatives. From the conceptual design of each remedial action altemative an estimate is made ofthe post-remedial wetland area and functional value. The estimate assesses how each alternative might physically, chemically, and biologically impact the wetland area and functional value.

R2 Resource Consultants 1 March 1999 1134.03/oldworks4.step4.doc

I AERL OW/EADA Operable Unit Wetlands-Step 4

Step 3 is a detailed analysis of potential impacts to wetlands from construction activities associated with the design ofthe selected remedial action altemative(s). Step 3 may include a Wetlands Mitigation Plan that addresses the substantive ARAR requirements for protection of wetlands and associated shallow water habitat. The Wetlands Mitigation Plan proposes practicable mitigation measures to minimize potential adverse impacts following guidelines set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 230, Subpart H.

Step 4 is conducted to confirm remedial action impacts to wetlands following completion of remedial actions. In this final step, final wetland acreage is totaled, modifications ofthe remedial action design and Wetland Mitigation Plan described, and post-response functional assessments conducted. (Essentially Step 4 is a repeat of Step 1 using the methods outlined for Stepl.) Comparisons are made ofthe pre- and post-remedial action functional assessments and FEWA in order to evaluate and summarize the success ofthe project in meeting the "no net loss" wetlands goal for CFR Superfund sites.

Species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as Threatened or Endangered are protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The results of a tlireatened/endangered species inventory are included in the Step 1 report and intended to provide the necessary information to assist remediation planners in avoiding and mitigating adverse impacts on these protected resources.

L2 OBJECTIVES

This Step 4 report confirms the post-remedial action occurrence of wetlands in the OW/EADA OU. The objectives of this report are to:

• Identify differences in the status ofthe site between the Step 1 and the Step 4 report, if any;

• Delineate areas where jurisdictional wetlands occur in the OW/EADA OU following remedial actions;

• Evaluate post-remedial functional value of wetlands in the site and detemiine FEWA; and

• Compare pre- and post- remedial action functional assessments and functionally effective wetland areas.

1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION

The OW/EADA OU is located in southwestern Montana, encompassing properties north and east ofthe town of Anaconda (see Figure 1). It includes the base of Stuckey Ridge, which rises to the

R2 Resource Consultants 2 March 1999 1134.03/old\vorks4.step4,doc

I I I I I I I I I

I

AERL OW/EADA Operable Unit Wetlands ~ Step 4

north, and a reach of Warm Springs Creek, which flows east through the site. Due to previous mine processing activities and infrastructure dating to 1884, as well as urban development in the town of Anaconda, portions ofthe site were impacted and retained little native vegetation. Warm Springs Creek, however, has an intact riparian corridor with a border of shrubs and trees, including alder (Alnus incana), Cottonwood {Populus balsamifera), birch (Betula occidentalis), and willows {Scdix spp.). Several seeps emerge from Stuckey Ridge within or near the OW/EADA OU and have associated clumps of willow and other hydrophytic species.

Average annual rainfall in the OW/EADA OU area is about 14.2 inches, with about two thirds of the annual precipitation in this region occurring during the months of April through September. Streaniflow in Wanii Springs Creek normally peaks in May and June in response to spring snowmelt. At the eastern end ofthe OW/EADA OU, Gardiner Ditch diverts approximately 30 cfs of water out of Wanii Springs Creek to the north for inigation in the Deer Lodge Valley.

The site is underlain by coarse textured alluvium and glacial outwash deposits, with the alluvial aquifer well below Wanii Springs Creek. Consequently, Warm Springs Creek is considered a losing reach, although groundwater recharge from the stream is relatively low (ARCO 1996).

The Mill Creek and Aspen Hills sections ofthe OW/EADA OU are located to the southeast of Anaconda at the base of Smelter Hill. This area includes the Mill Creek addition, which is approximately 140 acres in size, located two miles southeast ofthe OW/EADA OU adjacent to the Anaconda Smelter. The area also included a portion ofthe Aspen Hills subdivision area, which contains a portion ofthe fomier Smelter Hill railroad loop parallel to Mill Creek. Mill Creek has a well-developed riparian corridor within the Mill Creek addition and Aspen Hills area, similar to Wanii Springs Creek.

1.4 SITE HISTORY

An Administrative Order on Consent (Docket No. CERCLA-VIII-88-16) for the investigation and removal of contaminated soil and matter was issued by EPA in 1988. The OW/EADA OU Record of Decision (ROD) was issued by EPA and Montana Department of Enviromnental Quality (MDEQ) in 1994. A Unilateral Administrative Order (EPA Docket No. CERCLA-VIII-94-08) for remedial action design and remedial action was issued by EPA in April 1994.

A Remedial Action Work PlaiVFinal Design Report (RAWP/FDR) for the OW/EADA OU was completed on August 23, 1994, however preliminary designs for various subareas within the OW/EADA OU were not approved by EPA at that time and were subsequently submitted and approved at a later date. Addenda for the Addenduin "C" industrial areas (Subareas 3 and 4) Smelter Hill/East Anaconda Yards subarea (Subarea 5), Dragstrip subarea (Subarea 6), Aspen

R2 Resource Consultants 3 March 1999 1134.03/oldworks4.slep4,doc

I


Hills subdivision, and Mill Creek addition were completed from 1996 through 1998 (see Figure 1 for location of subareas).

Remedial Design/Remedial Action field activities were or are expected to be completed for the various subareas as follows:

Old Works Golf Course remediation area (Subareas 1 and 2) in 1997;

Addendum "C" industrial areas (Subareas 3 and 4) in 1996 and 1997;

East Anaconda Yards subarea (Subarea 5) in 1998;

Aspen Hills in 1998;

Drag Strip Subarea (Subarea 6) anticipated in June 1999; and

Mill Creek addition anticipated in June 1999.

L5 SITE REMEDIATION

1.5.1 Golf Course Area (Subareas 1 and 2)

A significant portion ofthe OW/EADA OU remedial action was designed around the construction ofthe 21-hole Old Works Golf Course. Remedial action and construction ofthe golf course began in June 1994 with clearing, grubbing, and mass shaping ofthe soils and waste materials on the site. This action shaped the surface ofthe golf course, consolidated waste material, and contoured the surface to minimize potential surface water infiltration. Concurrent with site grading. Sedimentation Ponds 1, 2, and 3 were constructed at the base of Stuckey Ridge along the northern boundary ofthe golf course. These ponds were built to prevent storm runoff and contaminated sediments from flowing across the golf course. Sedimentation Ponds 5, 6, and 7 were constructed east ofthe golf course to collect excess storm water from Stuckey Ridge, the east end ofthe golf course, and the ADLC landfill area.

Underdrain piping and an irrigation mainline were installed in the reshaped site soils. The underdrain piping system was used to collect surface water from the golf course and Sedimentation Ponds 1, 2, and 3 and route it to lakes on the golf course and to Sedimentation Ponds 5-8 east ofthe golf course. A total of 11 independent drainage networks were installed totaling approximately 65,000 linear feet of various diameter piping. The mainline irrigation system consisted of 27,500 linear feet of mainline piping.

Upon completion ofthe mass grading ofthe golf course area, an engineered soil cover was placed over specified areas. Although the original design called for 350 tons/acre limerock over the entire golf course area, much ofthe area consisted of clean alluvial soils. Limerock was not

R2 Resource Consultants 4 March 1999 1134.03/oldworks4.stcp4.doc


considered necessary over these areas, while areas identified as waste areas were covered with limerock. Limerock and alluvial soils were covered with a maximum of 22 inches of growth medium consisting of two types of soil: Type A with a high clay content and Type H, a sandy loam topsoil.

Two lakes were constructed on the golf course for collection and control of storm water runoff from the golf course and Sedimentation Ponds 1-3. Both lakes are lined with 60-mil HDPE to eliminate infiltration into the underlying waste materials. Lake 2 is also a water storage reser\'oir for the irrigation system.

Existing earthen dikes along Warm Springs Creek were protected from erosion using a combination of engineered improvements and existing channel riprap and vegetation. A significant portion ofthe north and south sides ofthe creek was protected with 18- to 24-inch diameter riprap, underlain by non-woven geotextile.

In addition to remedial actions and golf course construction, several measures were initiated to mitigate for removal of riparian trees along Warm Springs Creek. One of these measures was the reconstruction of approximately 700 linear feet ofthe creek channel at the west end ofthe site. This work created a more natural meander, improving associated wetlands and fish habitat. To date, over 1,800 trees, slirubs, and plants have been planted tliroughout the golf course area. Approximately 180 trees, including aspen, willow, birch, and poplar were planted along the Warm Springs Creek riparian area. Another mitigation measure is the initiation of wetlands within the two golf course lakes, primarily consisting of cattail {Typha latifolia) plantings.

1.5.2 Addendum "C" Industrial Areas (Subareas 3 and 4)

Remedial activities in the Addendum "C" industrial areas were completed in 1996 and 1997. These activities included management of waste materials in selected areas using a combination of revegetation and/or engineered covers. In addition, storm water management actions were implemented, consisfing of erosion protection, grading to manage runoff, and revegetation.

1.5.3 East Anaconda Yards (Subarea 5)

Remedial activities were completed in the East Anaconda Yards Subarea in 1998. These activities included management of waste materials in selected areas using a combination of revegetation and/or engineered covers. In addition, storm water management actions were implemented, consisting of erosion protection, grading to manage runoff, and revegetation.

R2 Resource Consultants 5 March 1999 1134.03/oldworks4.slep4.doc


1.5.4 Drag Strip Subarea (Subarea 6)

The majority of remedial activities in the Addendum "C" industrial areas were completed in 1996 and 1997. Remedial activifies in the Drag Strip Subarea are anticipated to be completed in June 1999. They include management of waste materials in selected areas using a combination of m situ reclamation and/or engineered covers. Erosion protection measures are also being implemented, consisting of grading to manage runoff and reclamation.

1.5.5 Aspen Hills

Remedial activities in the Aspen Hills area were completed in 1998. They consisted of:

• removal and consolidafion of railroad ballast,

• construction of an engineered cover over remaining railroad waste material having arsenic levels exceeding 1,000 ppm,

• treatment of impacted soils having arsenic levels exceeding 1,000 ppm in areas using in situ revegetation techniques, and

• construction of surface water controls to control erosion of waste material into Mill Creek and to minimize discharge of surface water from Smelter Hill to Mill Creek.

1.5.6 Mill Creek Addition

Remedial activities in the Mill Creek Addition are anticipated to be completed in June 1999. They include:

• treatment of soils having arsenic levels exceeding 1,000 ppm in recreational and potential commercial and industrial areas using industrial and cover soil caps and in situ revegetation techniques, and

• construction of surface controls to manage surface runoff from Smelter Hill and other areas to minimize discharge to Mill Creek.

R2 Resource Consultants 6 March 1999 1134.03/old\vorks4.step4.doc


2. METHODS

As in Step 1, Step 4 is comprised of two parts: delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and detemiination of functionally effective wetland area. Identification and delineation of wetlands according to criteria ofthe Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, hereafter referred to as the "COE Manual" (USAGE 1987), provides an areal measure of wetlands as they are defined for purposes of Section 404 ofthe CWA. Wetlands so defined, however, can differ considerably in their ability to carry out various functions and in their value to society. Consequendy, a functional evaluation is also conducted in this investigation that together with the wetland delineation provides a measure of FEWA. To complete Step 4, wetlands are delineated and evaluated following completion ofthe remedial actions.

2.1 IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS

Wetlands identified in the CFR Superfund OUs are divided into two categories: jurisdictional wetlands and shallow water areas. Jurisdictional wetlands are defined as:

"Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under nomial circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (USAGE 1987).

Shallow water areas (< 6.6 feet water depth) do not necessarily meet this definition but are considered wetlands under the USFWS system of wetland classification (Cowardin et al. 1979). As discussed in this report, shallow water areas are defined as areas with permanent, shallow standing water and lacking in vegetation. Examples of shallow water areas include beaver ponds and some man-made impoundments. In order to simplify the task of categorizing wetlands identified in this study, stream beds were classified as shallow water areas, whether vegetated or not. Shallow water areas and jurisdictional wetlands are often adjacent and can be considered as parts ofthe same ecosystem. Jurisdictional wetlands and shallow water areas are combined as "wetland habitat," which is subsequently used in determining total FEWA for each OU.

Because of changes in regulatory direction during the course of wetland studies in the CFR OUs, two slightly different procedures were used for identifying and delineating wetlands. When the Step 1 inventory of wetlands was initiated in 1991, the procedures outlined in the Federal hdamialfor Identifynng and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (referenced hereafter as "Federal Manual") (FICWD 1989), was required for delineating wetlands under Secfion 404. The Federal


I I I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I I i

.AERL OW/EADA Operable Unit Wetlands - Step 4

Manual outlines a three-parameter method for detemiination of whether or not sites are wetlands under jurisdiction of Secfion 404 ofthe CWA. Following this method, an area idenfified as a wetland existing under normal circumstances must exhibit hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The Federal Manual lists mandatory teclmical criteria for identification of these wetland parameters.

In August of 1991, most ofthe federal agencies that oversee wetland regulations reinstituted the COE Manual due to ongoing controversies related to the revision ofthe Federal Manual. The COE Manual will remain in effect indefinitely, pending adoption of a new revised manual. Although the COE Manual is also a three-parameter method, differences between it and the Federal Manual can result in differences in wetland detemiination, with the COE Manual usually being more restrictive (i.e., fewer areas being considered jurisdictional wetland).

As part ofthe agreement between ARCO and relevant agencies (Wetlands Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1992) implementing new wetland identificafion procedures, ARCO may revise, at its option, delineations that did not use the COE Manual. ARCO chose not to revise the delineations because it is likely any resulfing inconsistencies are small as applied to the upper Clark Fork River basin.

2.1.1 Disturbed and Problem Area Delineation

The Federal Manual outlines specific procedures for delineating wetlands in disturbed and problem areas. Disturbed areas are defined as areas that have been altered either recently or in the past in some way that makes wetland identification more difficult than it would be in the absence of such changes. Problem areas are defined as areas where wetland delineation is made particularly difficult because field indicators of one ofthe three technical criteria may be absent, at least at certain times ofthe year, due to normal environmental conditions. The COE Manual is not as clear or detailed as the Federal Manual when discussing problem areas but deals similarly with disturbed or "atypical situations."

In the Steps 1 and 4 inventories for several CFR OUs, the vegetadon and/or soils criteria were sometimes missing on floodplain deposits, areas affected by tailings deposition, or recently treated areas. These areas were usually identified as wetland if wetland hydrology was present, following Secfion 4.10 in the Federal Manual and guidance ofthe Amiy Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Tworek 1991).


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I


2.1.2 Wetlands Survey

Confinnation of wetlands generally involved reviewing pertinent documents and maps. Areas that were identified as possible wetlands during the document review were then examined in the field to confirm and/or detemiine their wetland status. The survey strategy for delineating wetlands differed somewhat depending on the size and nature ofthe project area.

The strategy generally involved a three-part process: (1) examining soils, vegetafion, and hydrology following the routine level ofthe three-parameter method along transects or in readily distinguishable vegetation units; (2) a pedestrian survey of areas between transects or sample points; and (3) concurrent inteipretation of aerial photos. While in the field, delineations were mapped directly onto overlays or natural color aerial photos. These delineafions were subsequenfiy digitized into a Geographic Infomiation System (GIS) database.

Areas surveyed were placed into one of four categories:

• Areas containing jurisdictional wefiands;

• Areas which contain no jurisdictional wetlands;

• Shallow water areas < 6.6 feet in depth; and

• Deep water areas > 6.6 feet in depth.

2.2 DETERMINATION OF WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUE

Determination of wetland functional value was conducted using the evaluation method and fomi developed specifically for Superfund sites in the CFR basin (ARCO 1992b). This assessment method was adapted from the Wetland Evaluation Teclinique (WET 2.0) of Adamus et al. (1987). For the purpose of the functional assessment, the OUs were divided into Assessment

Areas (AAs). These AAs were defined primarily by geographical location and similarity of wetland conditions and land-use characteristics.

The functional assessment methodology consists of completing an evaluation form divided into four parts: Part A, Definition ofthe Assessment Area, in which the precise boundaries ofthe AA are defined; Part B, Characteristics ofthe Assessment Area, in which a series of quesfions are answered to generally characterize the AA; Part C, Functional EvaluaUon, which depends largely on the infomiation contained in parts A and B; and Part D, Analysis of Evaluation Results, which includes a summary ofthe ratings given in Part C over all ten wetland function categories, arriving at an overall wetland rating. The functional value rating is determined on a qualitative scale of 0.5 to 3 (0.5 = Very Low functional value; 1 = Low; 2 = Moderate; 3 = High).


I I AERL OW/EADA Operable Unit Wetlands - Step 4

The Vk'etland functions evaluated include: hydrologic support; floodflow alteration; sediment stabilization and erosion control; water purification; production export/food chain support; aquatic diversity and abundance; wildlife diversity and abundance: breeding; wildlife diversity and abundance: migration; wildlife diversity and abundance: wintering; and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

The evaluation fomi was completed using infomiation gathered during the wetland inventory, including field notes, wetland delineation data sheets, and knowledge ofthe area gained during the field work. Additionally, interpretation of aerial photos and USGS topographic maps aided in the completion ofthe assessment.

2.3 DETERMINATION OF FUNCTIONALLY EFFECTIVE WETLAND AREA

The Overall Rating detemiined in the functional evaluation was used to detennine FEWA following the formula described in ARCO (1992b):

Functionally Effective Wetland Area = Actual Wetland Area x Overall Rating 3

This is the wetland area in acres delineated in an AA, adjusted by its Overall Rating for functional value as detemiined from the evaluation results. Functionally effective wetland area is a relative value and is not to be considered as actual acres of physical area. For all AAs within an OU, the acre units of functionally effective wetland were summed to arrive at a total FEWA for that OU. Functionally effective wetland area was calculated separately for jurisdictional wetlands and shallow water areas <6.6 feet in depth. These areas were summed for a total FEWA for each AA within the OU.

In Step 4 ofthe CFR Wetlands Mitigation Process, the FEWA units are compared to those under Step 1. The CFR Wetlands Mitigation Process also specifies that Step 4 FEWA should be compared to that of Step 3, the projected wetland area detemiined in the remedial design.

R2 Resource Consultants JO March 1999 1134.03/oldworks4.siep4.doc


3. WETLANDS MITIGATION PROCESS TO DATE

3.1 STEP 1

Step 1 for the OW/EADA OU was initiated in 1991 as a part of a larger wetlands study ofthe entire Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. Additional field work to refine the wetlands delineation and conduct a functional evaluafion for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site was conducted in 1993, with a Step 1 report produced in 1994 (ARCO 1994). In 1998-1999, the 1994 Step 1 report for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site was revised (ARCO 1999).

The 1999 revision separated the analysis for the OW/EADA OU from the Anaconda Regional Water, Waste, and Soils (.ARWWS) OU and updated the area ofthe OW/EADA OU to include the Aspen Hills and the Mill Creek addition. Another update, was the incorporation of three areas at the base of Stuckey Ridge into the OU that were technically just outside ofthe OW/EADA and within the ARWWS OU. These areas were in the location of future Sedimentation Basins #1, #2, and #3 constmcted as part ofthe OW/EADA OU.

The Step 1 analysis, as revised in 1999, resulted in 68.8 acres of jurisdictional wetland and 9.9 acres of shallow water wetland in the OW/EADA OU (Figures 2a, 2b). These wetlands were included in two AAs: The Warm Springs/Mill creeks AA, including the wetlands in the vicinity of Wann Springs and Mill creeks, and the Upland AA, which included the wetlands associated with ravines and seeps on the south slope of Stuckey Ridge. The Warm Springs/Mill Creeks AA had an Overall Rating of 2.32 and total FEWA of 45.6 units. The Upland AA had an Overall Rating of 1.50 and total FEWA of 7.7 units. The total FEWA for the area was 53.3 units.

3.2 STEP 2 AND STEP 3

Step 2 for OW/EADA OU was not fomially conducted. However, evaluation of wetland impacts was considered as part ofthe Feasibility Study (FS) for this OU. Detailed analysis of potential impacts to wetlands (Step 3), as detennined by the altemative selected in the OW/EADA ROD, was addressed in the OW/EADA Remedial Action Work Plan/Final Design Report (RAWP/FDR). The RAWP/FDR developed plans to minimize impacts to affected wetlands and surrounding shallow water areas. Constmction activities implemented as a result ofthe ROD were estimated to enhance and create wetiands. Streambank stabilization activities using a combination of engineered improvements, existing channel riprap, and vegetation were expected to enhance existing wetlands along Wann Springs Creek. An extensive tree mitigation plan was developed to offset losses of some riparian trees along Wann Springs Creek. Creation of sediment ponds as part ofthe golf course construction is expected to create additional wetlands



within the OW/EADA OU. The newly created wetlands will need to be evaluated as part of Step 4 ofthe Wetland Mitigation Process.

3.3 REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES

A summary' of remedial activities conducted within the OW/EADA OU can be found in Section 1.4. Briefly, the main elements ofthe remediation in the golf course area (Subareas 1 and 2) consisted oft

• regrading the surface topography ofthe area to shape the surface ofthe golf course, consolidate waste materials, and minimize surface infiltration;

• constructing sedimentation ponds to control storm water runoff and excess irrigation water;

• covering the site with an engineered soil cover;

• developing golf course lakes, which function to collect storm water mnoff and store irrigation water;

• perfomiing erosion protection measures along Warm Springs Creek; and

• developing several tree and wetlands mitigation measures including, reconfiguration of a portion of Wami Springs Creek, planting over 1,800 trees, shrubs, and plants, and initiating wetlands in the golf course lakes.

Remediation in Subareas 5 and 6 largely consisted of storm water management actions and management of waste materials in selected areas using a combination of w situ revegetation and/or engineered covers. In the Aspen Hills area, remedial actions included removal and consolidation of railroad ballast and construction of an engineered cover over remaining railroad waste material. Also in the Aspen Hills area, there was treatment of soils in recreational and potential residential areas and construction of stomi water measures to control erosion of waste material and discharge of surface water into Mill Creek. In the Mill Creek addition, remedial actions included treatment of soils in potential commercial and industrial areas using industrial cover soil caps and in situ revegetation teclmiques and construction of surface controls to manage surface rtmoff and minimize discharge to Mill Creek.

3.4 PRE-STEP 4 STATUS

The area included within the OW/EADA OU that is addressed in Step 4 is equivalent to that evaluated for the revised 1999 Step 1 analysis. Since the Step 4 analysis covers this same area, no adjustments to the area ofthe OW/EADA OU are necessary to make the Step 1 and 4 analyses comparable. Changes to the original OW/EADA OU, including addition of lands in the

R2 Resource Consultants 12 March 1999 1134.03/oldworks4.siep4.doc


Mill Creek and Aspen Hills area and future Sedimentation Basins #1, #2, and #3, were already accounted for in the revised 1999 Step 1 analysis. Confimiation of remedial actions and impacts to wetlands within the area covered in the revised 1999 Step 1 analysis will be addressed in this Step 4 report.

R2 Resource Consultants 13 March 1999 1134.03/old\vorks4.slep4.doc


4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Remedial actions in the OW/EADA OU that affected wetlands were primarily in conjunction with construction ofthe Old Works Golf Course. Other areas affected by remedial action for the OW/EADA OU were located south ofthe OW/EADA OU in and around Smelter Hill and Mill Creek.

4.1 DELINEATION OF WETLANDS

Delineation of wetiands for Step 4 included field inspection of hydrology, soils, and vegetation of potential wetland areas on September 2, 1998 and interpretation of aerial photographs (true color, 1:4,800 scale taken November 1, 1996 and 1:31,600 scale taken June 30, 1998). Wetland boundaries detennined in Step 4 were incorporated into a GIS database of post-remedial wetland areas. This was accomplished by modifying the pre-remedial wetiand database according to wetland boundaries determined in the 1998 field work and aerial photograph interpretation.

Existing wetlands identified in the Step 1 inventor)' that were potentially affected by constmction ofthe Old Works Golf Course included several seeps on the slopes of Stuckey Ridge and riparian wetlands along Warm Springs Creek. All of these wetlands are within Subareas 1, 2, and 3 ofthe OW/EADA OU. New wetlands are associated with sedimentation ponds and water hazard areas created as part ofthe Old Works Golf Course (ARCO 1998). No changes in wetland area were found in Subareas 3, 4, 5, and 6, the Aspen Hills area, or in the Mill Creek addition ofthe OW/EADA OU during the 1998 Step 4 field w-ork. A summary of wetiand changes in each of these areas is shown in Table 1, and locations of wetlands are shown in Figures 3a and 3b.

I R2 Resource Consultants 14 March 1999 1134.03/old\vorks4.step4.doc


Table 1. Summarj' of changes to wetlands in Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit following remedial action.

Location

Sedimentation Pond 1








Golf Course Lake 1

Golf Course Lake 2

Warm Springs Creek

Smelter Hill/Mill Creek sites

Wetland Changes

Created wetland behind bemi. Area is outside of official OW/EADA OU boundar)', but included within Steps 1 and 4 for this OU.

Ponded area behind bemi is within previously delineated wetland; bemi overlies previously delineated wetland that extends up gulch, resulting in small wetland loss.

Wetland area behind and below berm was preexisting. Berm construction avoided seep but filled small area of wetland downslope, resulting in small wedand loss.

No jurisdictional wetlands present under pre- or post-remedial conditions.


No jurisdictional wetiands present under pre- or post-remedial conditions.


Shallow water area and fringe wetlands created as a result of construction.



No changes in wetland area.

No changes in wetland area.

4.1.1 Subareas 1, 2, and 3

4.1.1.1 Sedimentation Ponds

I I

The bemi creating Sedimentation Pond 1 has blocked intemiittent flow that drains down a gulch to the north ofthe west end of OW/EADA OU. The area behind the bemi of Sedimentation Pond 1 had ponded water for a substantial portion ofthe 1998 growing season, as evidenced by the cracked, dried mud surface and the lack of perennial plants. Kochia {Kochia scoparia), an annual plant with indicator status of facultative (FAC), was colonizing the pond margins; and redtop (also referred to as fioren bentgrass, Agrostis stolonifera), a facultative wetland (FACW) species, was present on slightly higher areas around the pond. From this investigation, it appears that this area now meets the criteria of jurisdictional wetland (0.24 acres). Although it

R2 Resource Consultants 1134.03/old\vorks4.siep4.doc

15 March 1999


technically lies outside the boundary ofthe OW/EADA OU, it has been included as part ofthe OW/EADA OU wetlands because it was created as a result of remedial action in this OU.

Sedimentation Pond 2 was created to collect mnoff from a small watershed on Stuckey Ridge that emerges from a gulch to the east of Sedimentation Pond 1, also along the margin ofthe OW/EADA OU. A portion of this gulch upslope ofthe OW/EADA OU was delineated as wetland in the pre-remedial wetland inventory. This area was originally within ARWWS OU, but in the 1999 revised Step 1 wetlands report for the Smelter Hill NPL site, it was moved to the OW/EADA OU. This was done because impacts to this wetland were anticipated as a result of remediation for the OW/EADA OU.

Sedimentation Pond 2 had surface water approximately 6 inches deep at the time ofthe wetlands survey (2 September 1998). Similar to Sedimentation Pond 1, kochia and redtop were colonizing the shoreline ofthe pond. The area behind the Sedimentation Pond 2 berm appears to meet jurisdictional wetland criteria. Since the pond area and the benn overlie areas previously delineated as wetland, there has actually been a small net loss of wetland (0.11 acres) where the berm has filled previously occurring wetiand. The filled wetiand area is at the lower end ofthe wetland.

Sedimentation Pond 3, located along the margin ofthe OW/EADA OU to the east of Sedimentation Pond 2, collects mnoff from a couple of small gulches and perennial springs. There was a small pond of water behind the bemi at the time ofthe September 1998 wetiand survey, which is likely due to the small, but persistent flow of water emerging from some springs just upslope ofthe bemi. Since the basin behind Sedimentation Pond 3 is about 50 acres (ARCO 1998), stomi water and snov 'inelt mnoff within this basin is not likely by itself to support Vv'etland. Redtop, Baltic rush {Juncus balticus), and willow (Salix exigua, S. lutea), all of which are FACW or obligate (OBL) species, dominate the margins ofthe pond and continue upslope for 10 to 20 meters where seepage was occurring. Berai construction was moved downslope to avoid the seep area; however, a patch of willow continues below the bemi, some of which was covered by berm construction. Due to the peremiial nature ofthe spring, the upper end of this willow area was likely wetland prior to construction ofthe Sedimentation Pond 3 berm, although it was missed in the 1993 inventory. A revision ofthe pre-remedial Step 1 wetiand inventory for the OW/EADA OU has included this area as wetlands (ARCO 1999). Although the boundaries of this wetland prior to construction ofthe bemi are not known with certainty, it is estimated that 0.28 acres of wetland were filled as a result ofthe bemi construction. No new area of wetiand was created, since the area was wetland prior to construction.

Sedimentation Pond 4 lies to the east of Sedimentation Pond 3 along the north margin ofthe OW/EADA OU. Prior to construction, drainage off Stuckey Ridge in this area was blocked by a

R2 Resource Consultants 16 March 1999 1134.03/old\vorks4.step4.doc

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

AERL OW/EADA Operable Unii Wetlands-Step 4

railroad bemi. In contrast to the relatively sparse surrounding vegetation, the area behind that benn has a relatively dense vegetation cover of redtop and Great Basin wildr)'e {Leymus cinereus), which has a wetland indicator status of FAC-. Also present are two species characteristic of upland conditions: green rabbitbrush {Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) and leafy spurge {Euphorbia esula). The presence of these two latter species suggests that wetland conditions are not present in Sedimentation Pond 4, and the thick vegetation cover of marginally hydrophytic species composition suggests that ponded water does not persist for significant periods during the growing season. Since the area draining into Sedimentation Pond 4 is relatively small (approximately 70 acres), the volume of runoff during periodic rain events or spring snowmelt is probably not sufficient to create conditions of wetland hydrology behind the benn. This area was concluded not to be jurisdictional wetland, although it is evidently much more moist than the surrounding slopes that support a sparse cover of rabbitbmsh.

Sedimentation Pond 5 collects runoff from Stuckey Ridge east ofthe golf course; Sedimentation Ponds 6 collects stomi water runoff from the eastern end ofthe golf course; and Pond 7 collects flows from the closed east half of the ADLC landfill area. Sedimentation Ponds 5, 6, and 7 were not found to be wetlands. .All three of these pond areas were dominated by spotted biapweed (Centaurea maculosa), which is a common no.xious weed in western Montana and is characteristic of upland conditions. These ponds receive intemiittent stonn runoff but are unlined and apparently do not hold ponded water for a sufficient portion ofthe growing season to support wetland vegetation.

Sedimentation Pond 8, located toward the east end ofthe golf course south of Wami Springs Creek, collects surface runoff from the golf course nursery area. Green #10, and Hole #11. The pond is lined with a geosynthetic clay liner, preventing infiltration to subsoils, and limiting water loss to evapotranspiration or overflow through the outlet. A cover soil was placed over the geosynthetic clay liner. This pond had surface water approximately 12 to 18 inches deep during August and early September 1998. A narrow (approximately 6 feet wide) fringe of vegetation dominated by redtop and fo.xtail barley {Hordeum jubalum), a FAC- species, occurs along the relatively steep-sloped pond margin. Although quite narrow, this fringe of wetland meets criteria as a jurisdictional wetland (0.02 acres), and the relatively pemianent ponded water is considered a shallow water area (0.27 acres) (ARCO 1992a).

4.1.1.2 Golf Course Lakes

Two lakes were constructed on the Old Works Golf Course, functioning both as water hazards and as stomi water catcliments. Lake 2 also ftinctions as a reservoir for the golf course irrigation system. Since the lakes are lined with HDPE, there is no loss of water by infiltration, and both


.JERL OW/EADA Operable Unit Wetlands - Step 4

lakes retain water through the growing season. Both lakes have emergency spillways, and Lake 1 has an outlet with a manually controlled overflow valve.

There are several patches of cattail {Typha latifolia) that were planted and have spread along the shoreline ofthe two lakes. Other portions ofthe golf course lake shorelines lack vegetation. The patches of cattail meet criteria as jurisdictional wetlands (0.32 acres), and the permanent shallow water area are considered shallow water area (5.12 acres) (ARCO 1992).

4.1.1.3 Warm Springs Creek

Wami Springs Creek runs along the southem edge ofthe golf course. In some locations, erosion protection measures were implemented, primarily consisting of rip-rap underlain by geotextile fabric. Some riparian trees were removed to provide open sightlines and better playability on some holes and for construction ofthe six bridges (including the Arbiter Bridge) across the creek. A tree mitigation plan to mitigate for trees removed in the Warm Springs Creek riparian zone has been implemented. This included over 1,800 plantings of trees, shrubs, and plants tliroughout the Old Works Golf Course area, including approximately 180 in riparian areas along Wann Springs Creek. In addition, about 700 linear feet of stream east of Cedar Park Homes was rebuilt to alleviate flooding during high flows. None of these activities resulted in measurable changes in wetland area along the riparian zone of Warm Springs Creek.

4.1.2 Subareas 3, 4, 5, and 6

There were no obser\'ed changes in wetland area within Subareas 4, 5, and 6 in the analysis of wetland impacts for Step 4.

4.1.3 Mill Creek Addition and Other Areas

Several other areas in the Mill Creek addition and on and around Smelter Hill where remedial activities associated with the OW/EADA OU took place were examined in the course ofthe 1998 wetiands field survey. No changes in jurisdictional wetlands due to remedial action were evident in any of these areas. These areas (see Figures la and lb for location) and observed impacts to wetlands to each included:

Area A: A channel recently created to carry water from this drainage away from Smelter Hill to the valley bottom. This channel was recently constructed and has not had time to develop any significant riparian vegetation. However, if the flow of water is of long enough duration during the growing season, wetlands may develop along the banks and perhaps within the channel itself


I I AERL OW/EADA Operable Unit Wetlands - Step 4

Area B: Spring emerging along the edge ofthe road on the east side of Smelter Hill. This area does not appear to have been affected by any recent activity.

Area C: Railroad grade switchback loop crossing Mill Creek to the south of Smelter Hill. Recent activity in this area does not appear at this time to have affected wetlands. A culvert plugged as part of this action may in time cause an increase in wetland area, although storm water entering the small basin behind this culvert has apparently been diverted away from the basin. This area is within the Mill Creek addition.

Area D: Mill Creek Detention Area (east of Smelter Hill and west ofthe Anaconda Ralston Road). Construction of this stomi water detention area was not completed at the time ofthe 1998 wetiand survey. Depending on the volume and timing of stomi water eventually being diverted to this area, it is possible that wetlands could develop within the retention ponds. No wetlands occur in the area presently. This area is also within the Mill Creek addition.

4.2 FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION OF WETLANDS

The OW/EADA OU was divided into two assessment areas for the 1999 revised Step 1 and the Step 4 analyses. The Wami Springs/Mill Creeks AA includes the riparian wetlands along Warm Springs and Mill creeks. Upland AA includes the wetlands associated with the ravines and seeps on Stuckey Ridge and the sedimentation ponds and golf course lakes created by remedial actions at the Old Works Golf Course.

4.2.1 Warm Springs/Mill Creeks Assessment Area

In temis of functional value, this AA is essentially unchanged from pre-remedial conditions (Table 2). Changes along the Wann Springs Creek - including removal and planting of some trees, reworking ofthe reach east of Cedar Homes, and erosion control in some areas - did not affect the outcome ofthe functional evaluation for this AA. It retains a moderately high Overall Rating of 2.32.

4.2.2 Upland Assessment Area

The wetlands and shallow water areas associated with the golf course sedimentation ponds and lakes, as well as previously occurring wetlands along Stuckey Ridge had an Overall Rating of 1.86, which is an increase compared to the pre-remedial rating of 1.50. The wetlands in this AA had High ratings for Hydrologic Support, due to the presence of groundwater discharge areas along Stuckey Ridge, and for Water Purification, consistent with their function to retain storm

R2 Resource Consultants 19 March 1999 1134.03/old\vorks4.siep4.doc


water and sediments. They also had Moderate ratings for Aquatic Diversity/Abundance, Wildlife Diversity/Abundance: Breeding, and Wildlife Diversity/Abundance: Migration due to the presence of relatively pemianent shallow water habitat associated with emergent and shmb vegetation.

Table 2. Summary of Post-Remedial Wetland Functional Evaluation for Old Works/East Anaconda Area Operable Unit.'

Wetland Function

Hydrologic Support

Floodflow Alteration

Sediment Stabilization Erosion Control

Water Purification

Production Export/Food Chain Support

Aquatic Diversit)'/Abundance

Wildlife Diversitj'/Abundance: Breeding

Wildlife Diversity/Abundance: Migration

Wildlife Diversity/Abundance: Wintering

TES Species Habitat

Overall Rating

Assessment Area

Warm Springs/ Mill Creeks

H

L

H

H

L

H

H

M

M

L

2.32

Upland

H

M

L

H

L

M

M

M

L

L

1.86 1 L = Low. M = Moderate, and H = High rating lor t'unctionai value.

4.3 DETERMINATION OF FUNCTIONALLY EFFECTIVE WETLAND AREA

As described in Section 2.0, FEWA is detennined using the area of jurisdictional wetland and shallow water areas together with the Overall Rating for each AA. The Step 4, post-remedial FEWA for the OW/EADA OU totals 60.2 FEWA units (Table 3). This compares with 53.3 FEWA units determined for pre-remedial wetlands determined in Step 1 (ARCO 1999), resulting in a gain of 6.9 FEWA units.

The change in FEWA includes small losses of wetland areas associated with constmction of Sedimentation Ponds 2 and 3 and gains in wetland and shallow water areas resulting from the construction of Sedimentation Ponds 1 and 8 and the two golf course lakes. In addition, the functional value ofthe Upland AA increased due to the addition of shallow water habitat and increased water purification capability.

R2 Resource Consultants 1134.03/oldworks4.siep4.doc

20 March 1999



Table 3. Determination of Post-Remedial Functionally Effective Wetland Area In Two Assessment Areas of Old Works/East Anaconda Area Operable Unit, Anaconda Smelter NPL Site.

Overall Rating for Functional Value

Delineated Wetland Area

Jurisdictional Wetland

Shallow Water < 6.6 feet deep

Total

Functionally Effective Wetland Area

Jurisdictional Wetland

Shallow Water < 6.6 feet deep

Total

Pre-Remediai OW/EADA OU'

Warm Springs/Mill Creeks AA

2.32

Upland AA

1.50

Total

Post-Remedial GW/EADA OU

Warm Springs/

Mill Creeks AA

2.32

Upland AA

1.86

Total

Pre-to Post-

Remedial Change

Acres

40.8

9.9

50.7

28.0

0.0

28.0

68.8

9.9

78.7

40.8

9.9

50.7

28.2

5.4

33.6

69.0

15.3

84.3

0.2

5.4

5.6

Acres

31.6

7.7

39.3

r > . * / ^ I T . 1 .

14.0

0.0

14.0

45.6

7.7

53.3 •\ . . ! - _1

31,6

7.7

39.3

17.5

3.4

20.9

49.1

11.1

60.2

3.5

3,4

6.9

Wetland areas for pre-remedial OW/EADA OU are those in the 1999 revised Step 1 repon for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site.

4.4 CONFIRMATION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS

Step 4 ofthe ARCO wetlands process was intended to account for any changes in estimated wetland area and functional value found in Steps 2 and 3 that are due to modifications from tbe remedial design during construction. Since a detailed estimate of post-remedial wetland area and functional value during the remedial design phase (i.e.. Steps 3) was not conducted for the OW/EADA OU, no modification of such estimates are pertinent for Step 4 in this OU. The wetlands examined in this 1998 Step 4 investigation were consistent with the constmction specifications described in the Final Remedial Action Completion Report for the OW/EADA OU (ARCO 1998).

R2 Resource Consultants 1134.03/old\vorks4.step4.doc

21 March 1999



5. SUMMARY

Wetlands in the OW/EADA OU were examined in the summer of 1998 to detemiine the area of jurisdictional wetland and shallow water and the fiinctional value of these wetlands following remedial actions. This work fulfills Step 4, Confirmation of Response Actions, ofthe CFR Wetlands Mitigation Process for this OU, as described in Section 1 and ARCO (1992a). Step 1 of this process (Wetland Identification and Delineation) in which Ftmctionally Effective Wetland Area (FEWA) is detemiined for pre-remedial action conditions for the OW/EADA OU is detailed in ARCO (1999).

Most ofthe remedial action in the OW/EADA OU was associated with constmction ofthe Old Works Golf Course and adjacent property. There was also some minor work conducted in areas around Smelter Hill and Mill Creek. Wetlands vv'ithin the riparian zone of Wami Springs and Mill creeks within the OU/EADA OU did not change in either jurisdictional wetland area or functional value as a result of remedial action. Approximately 5.6 of wetland and shallow water habitat were created as a result of constmction of sedimentation ponds and lakes at the Old Works Golf Course. In addition, the functional value ofthe wetiands is the Upland AA increased from 1.50 to 1.86 due to improved water purification capability and aquatic and wildlife habitat. Overall the cuirent total FEWA for post-remedial conditions in the OW/EADA OU was 60.2 FEWA units, compared to 53.3 FEWA units prior to remediation.



6. REFERENCES

ARCO. 1992a. Letter from Ms. Sandra Stash, ARCO, Anaconda, MT to Mr. Donald Pizzini and Mr. Robert Fox, USEPA, Helena, MT. Januar>' 27.

ARCO. 1992b. Evaluation Form for Detemiining Wetland Functional Value and Effective Wetland Area in Upper Clark Fork River Superfund Sites. Report submitted to U.S. EPA. Helena, MT. September.

ARCO. 1994. Anaconda Smelter NPL Site: Wetlands and Tlireatened/Endangered Species Inventory with Detemiination of Effective Wetland Area. Report submitted to U.S. EPA, Helena, MT. February.

ARCO. 1998. Final Remedial Action Completion Report for the Old Works /East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit. Report submitted to U.S. EPA, Helena, MT. April.

ARCO. 1999. Anaconda Smelter NPL Site: Anaconda Regional Water, Waste, and Soils Operable Unit, Old Works/East Anaconda Area Operable Unit. Wetlands and Threatened/Endangered Species Inventory with Detemiination of Effective Wetland Area. Revision of report submitted to U.S. EPA, Helena, MT. February 1994.

Cowardin, L.W., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats ofthe United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetiand Delineation (FICWD). 1989. Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Amiy Corps of Engineers, U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.

Tworek, J. 1991. Personal communication between Mr. Jerry Tworek, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; and Dr. David Chapin, EA Engineering, Science and Technology.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Teclmical Report Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.


Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area OU

Figure 1 Subarea Boundaries

LEGEND

/ '•- ' ' Streams or Drainage

Paved and Un paved Roads

/ V Railroads

r S / Operable Unit Boundary

/ • / OV^I^ADJ\ Subarea Boundaries

3 Subarea Nunnber

1 Inch = 1/2 Mile

i72

0.5

Miles

map_oweacla_sa.am!, 15 Mar 99

GIS Mapping and Database Development By: R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, WA


Figure 2a Step 1 - Pre-Remedial Jurisdictional Wetlands

LEGEND

Identified Wetlands

Streams and Ponds

/^-'^ Streams or Drainage

A / Paved Roads

A'y Unpaved Roads

/ V Railroads

• • Operable Unit Boundary

LOCATION MAP

Anaconda, Montana

X . • • ' • • • " • > . . . ../A

^ vim

• * ;>•

.J •••v

\

^

\ / /

1 Inch = 1/4 Mile

fZ2

0.25

Miles

map_oweada.aml(1n), 15 Mar 99



Figure 2b Step 1 - Pre-Remedial Jurisdictional Wetlands

LEGEND

identified Wetlands

Streams and Ponds

/^'-•^ Streams or Drainage

A / Paved Roads

• '""••' Unpaved Roads

/ V Railroads


LOCATION MAP

y-W^W^f^^

Anaconda, Montana

. • • • < . . ..'7\ y

— . ^

^ •J i^

.JI

\

^

H ^

1 Inch = 1/4 Mile

<i2

0.25

Miles

mapoweada.amMIs), 15 Mar 99



Figure 3a Step 4 - Post-Rennedial Jurisdictional Wetlands

LEGEND

I U Identified Wetlands

^ ^ B Streams and Ponds

/ " -' Streams or Drainage

A / Paved Roads

Unpaved Roads

/ V Railroads


( ^ Other Areas Examined in 1998

LOCATION MAP

^

Anaconda, Montana

. yA p-:-™

'

7

\ y ^

\ y \

\fr\

1 Inch = 1/4 Mile

<i2

0.25 w

Miles

map_oweada.aml{4n), 15 Mar 99



Figure 3b Step 4 - Post-Remedial Jurisdictional Wetlands

LEGEND

I j Identified Wetlands

^ ^ H Streams and Ponds

A . / Streams or Drainage

A / Paved Roads

/ V Unpaved Roads

A / Railroads


vQ) Other Areas Examined in 1998

LOCATION MAP

Anaconda, Montana

*•;• A

^

••

p-—. «^'^

^

.A

\

\y

i 1 Inch = 1/4 Mile

02

0.25

Miles

map_oweada.aml(4s), 15 Mar 99



APPENDIX A

Wetland Delineation Data Sheets

R2 Resource Consultants February 1999 1134.03/roclcer.slep4.3.doc

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

VEGETATION

Proiect/Site: 0 ( 7 L J ^ / t ^ S ^ O / / M ^ ' p ^ P* /

ApDlicant/Owner: , , Investigator: V c / (Co

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? ( 7 ^ B ^ ^ ° Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? X ^ No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (^No)

(If needed, explain on reverse.)

Date: ^ / ^ / f 9 County: State:

Community ID : Transect ID: Plot ID:

fL^s ^-zj^r

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

3.

4.

5,

6.

7.

8.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-).

Remarks: ^fock. A_ ^ f 0 y A : -fv h 'S-A ' ^

Dominant Plant Species

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Stratum Indicator

17% <*mtu !.'•.•( A^ AyÂ I'iy.A ' Pt

HYDROLOGY

Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauqe Aerial Photographs

^ Other K, No Recorded Data Available

Field Observations:

Depth of Surface Water: (in.)

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)

Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)

Remarks: ^ : _ - p ^ ^ - , 3 ^ ^ , ' '

'ûiM^J. 7 9^7L^ - cAckd/ 7yA7

Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators:

Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks)

'A-'if^-A Uf-'i 7 ^ 7 iÂ- 1^7 A '-' . ' ÂA

/ J

SOILS

Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):

Taxonomy (Subgroup):

Drainage Class: Field Observations

Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No

Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon

Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:

Histosol Histic Epipedon

_ SulfidicOdor W Aquic Moisture Regime

Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors

Concretions High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks)

Remarks: f^K^f

WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 7 ^ X No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? ' X^§7 ^° Hydric Soils Present? ^es .) No

(Circle)

Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? r Yes jNo

Remarks: /\/^7l '- ' Iv^. %<./K.

Approved by HQUSACE 3/92


VEGETATION

Proiect/Site: Old 7^lh-\ ^ 5 e J t ^ y i V ^ J * "2-AoDlicant/Owner: , , Investiqator: J) C / /CO

'

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? 7 ^ ) ^ ° Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 7 ^ No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ( ^


Date: - f / ^ / ^ ^ County: State:

Community ID : Transect ID: Plot ID:

? U 6^/


1. I\^]J>J7'^ 5- i7 . f jc If f tAuj

2. \'^(}7y- ^ytO'^.fic^ ^^ f ^ < A

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.



9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

15.

7ot

stratum Indicator

Remarks: 5 ^ . ^ ^ ^ ,4 , .^ / ' V W ' . ^ / Q I A J ,

HYDROLOGY

Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aenal Photographs

y ' other P\ No Recorded Data Available

Field Observations:

Depth of Surface Water: b

Depth to Free Water in Pit:

Depth to Saturated Soil:

Remarks: f i ^ u j i i I/JM^CI. ^ y i - '

(in.)

(in.)

(in.)

/ 7 /» ^

Wetland hydrology Indicators: Pnmary Indicators:

A Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks)

' i j / A "AA^A.. ^ r , ' \ yKfp~<j- fo

f£e7 7j j^~^

SOILS

Map Unit Name ^ ^ (Series and Phase): y

Taxonomy (Subaroup):

Drainaqe Class: Field Obsen/ations

Confirm Mapped Tvoe? Yes No II

Profile Deschption: Depth Matrix Co (inches) Horizon (Munsell

or Moist)

Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc


Histosol Histic Epipedon SulfidicOdor

XAquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors

^ " ^ ^ ^ 4 / Jjf^^J 7JA '•j-7^ i

Concretions High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks)

jTjy 7T4 . _


Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (X§5-.' No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? (Ye§/ No Hydric Soils Present? ^<ss~) No

Remarks:

g,iy^.^\^ 't'i



Proiect/Site: O A I-joy^-.- - V ^ ' ^ X / ^ ^ i ; ^ * 3 Applicant/Owner: _ / , Investiqator: i )C / ,c;.0

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area?


VEGETATION

7 ^ No ( T ^ No Yes ( ^ )

Date: 9 / ^ / f ?r County: State:

C Tr PI

Dmmunity ID: ansectID: otID:

'' l kb r-^3


i.A«/37i;c 77(^^>pi^ \i 7\(ty

3. S^.f'y ^y-'^-A'<- S o 7

4. 'AiA.. t>7'^^-PAf^7r S 7 '

5.

6.

7.

8.



9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

/od:;,

Stratum Indicator

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY

Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other

No Recorded Data Available

Field Observations:

Depth of Surface Water: (in.)




/ ( Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainaqe Patterns in Wetlands


Remarks: p ^ ^ j / ^y'X-r k?A.-^J '-•^'•~^, ,

SOILS





Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon

Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)

Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.


Histosol Histic Epipedon SulfidicOdor

y Aquic Moisture Regime 1 Reducing Conditions

Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors

Concretions High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydhc Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks)

Remarks: A ' ^ " ri— / • / / • / / / - . - " '

7i.._ k-lk^J n/jyA. 'S-^fpj ^ i ' \

• j ^ .


Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^ § 7 No (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? i ^ ^ No Hydric Soils Present? 1 ^ ^ ^ No

(Circle)

Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes^.-^o

Remarks % .

.A ' -'

/^'-A.,>„' jQ-p-fy

LxMy.J '' / ' ^^ i . 'B/A .4- ^/:u*,^y fo ^ l

' - f fyyi .c^^J fU. ^-^.

if'j\ 'JLJ ^'^'^ M - : 7 ^ J ^ ^ k ^ ui m U. y, jM/f" '^ ^ ^ '"^ " ''' • Lu;ii lA&i 7 i ^ U X ' ^ p r ^ f w^^a '^ l i -^^7^ ^v/^^*-^

a



Old UJlff-ibA -S^JiA-^JJ f-'A <yf it JA" Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator: V>C I jtC)

Date: ^/z./'^'^C County: State:

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area?


( S ^ No fYeO No ^Yes (Ho)

Community ID Transect ID: Plot ID:

VEGETATION "pLk 7 ' ' ,'7

' ' : / -

tjir^^

V i ' ^ ,


1. P/vîue. AÂ.'^h T A ( -

2. h((rAA ^McKA-:^. Tf^'-J J 1

3. AAr'.r-j(rr'yi A i >, \r\'Acli'^.A.- AjL

4. (Âî 'U./s i ' i - . , t^V-V-*- ' V ' -

5.

6.

7.

8.


Remarks: [ j P A k ^ ' A ^ V M « A . L V # - ' / t W 5^


9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

^ c f C

HYDROLOGY

Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs

u Other A No Recorded Data Available

Field Observations:

Depth of Surface Water: y (in.)


Depth to Saturated Soil: ' ' (in.)

Remarks: "ptJ^Lf ^ ^ J ^ J A y f ^ Mv




y Uy^y f iAc^^ ^ ' J ]hM,Ji,<7^,,

SOILS

Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): '7^!û Taxonomy (Subgroup):



Profile Description: Depth finches) Horizon


Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydnc Soil Indicators:

Histosol Histic Epipedon SulfidicOdor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors

Concretions High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydhc Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks)

Remarks: ^ ^ ^ y ^ / ^ ^ c^^f^yfj / y ^ ^ y f tfT^t^.


Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (J^P ' (Circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (M)iiM\i Hydhc Soils Present? Yes (f7o~j)'

Remarks ^ x/ 7 J.n f MÂ hJ ^ fÂ f r- - A- 2- w^ ' '^'..lH"- j / * r 4 4 / y ^ ' A . . r ^ U ^ ' ^ ^



VEGETATION

Proiect/Site: ( I d i^f^/U^ - % ( ( J i w 4 fA-Af " i Applicant/Owner: Investiqator:

Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? 0 ^ ' ^ No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? C ? ^ J ^ ^ Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ( ' ^ o ^


Date: 'A ' l>\ l^ ' '6 County: State:

Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID:

-v-/ 7


1. m io^ l v ^ . l ^ ^ ' ^ - 1- ftf^A —

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


Remarks: ^/glcw-s c U ^ ^ A ^ ^ " ^ ^ ' p - - ' ^ ^ " ^ '

/^}Q A^i-^4 L 'Z f l -H '^ X A C ^ A k


9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

HYDROLOGY

Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other

No Recorded Data Available

Field Observations:

Depth of Surface Water: ( t - f } ) (in.)



Wetland hydrology Indicators: Pnmary Indicators:


Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12" Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Sun/ey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks)

Remarks: ^ J ' ^ Ceil, A % 4 i^cx f ^ A / ^ ^ - ^ i u / , m ^ J yAA^^ yA^^.J i j / ^ ^ ( i ^

SOILS





Profile Deschption: Depth (inches) Horizon


Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)

Mottle Abundance/Contrast

Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc.


Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors

Concretions High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydhc Soils List Listed on National Hydnc Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks)

Remarks: A-i . I / / r y

{AA'AAA&( iVv¥ / iVfi A^


7.^ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (Ye§. Wetland Hydrology Present? fYe' Hydnc Soils Present? Ve^

No (Circle) No No

(Circle)

Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ,-'''Yes No Af_.

Remarks: ^ a^^^i^J f^-^

'•' 'A'yJ: L /

^^..X<t,



APPENDIX B

Wetland Functional Evaluation Form

R2 Resource Consultants February 1999 1134.03/rocker.step4.3.doc

D A T A S H E E T F O R W E T L A N D E V A L U A T I O N F O R M U p p e r C l a r k F o r k River Super fund Sites

Assessment Area: OUJ /^/^PA . U) ./> 5^. ,^ . A / I c ^ - ^ . f\^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ A J / o } y ^

P A R T B: C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F A S S E S S M E N T A R E A (AA)

Area

1. surface area

a.

b . X c. d.

2. watershed

a. b.

d.

Veaetation and Habitat

3. wetland system

a.

4. vegetation class a. b. ? lo c. C* ifr d. ? fe" vegetative cover

5. vegetation/water

a. )^

b. c.

6. vegetation class i

a._A_ b.

c.

1134\iDe)/ims/i.rfDc

SJ Ajr

ly sp.

/oo

interspersion

nterspersion

7.

8.

9.

vegetation form richness

a.

b.

(a) i^.^ cluster

(b) \y\0 oasis

width of vegetation j/fe.

Hvdro loev

10.

n.

12.

13.

inlet/outlet conditions a . . ^X^ b. c. X d.

channel xk ^

water velocity a. b. X c. d.

hydrologic alteration

a. KIO b. m c. j^d

XAbl' U

14. hydroperiod a. S b. c. d. T) e. f g-

Substrate

15. surface substrate a. b.

d.

e. f.

Disturbance

16. barren tailings 1 0

17. tilled, filled, bladed, or excavated uied, tilled, bladed, or excavated , / / j / "

18. sediment sources Wf b

19. frequent human activity

a. y^3 ^

I134\;tJef/7/Hs/i.rfoc

PART C: FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION

Hydrologic Support

2. ^0

3. j / ^ : ^ a. b.

d. e. other

4. _M_

Rating for Hydrologic Support #l-#4 are all no: Low #4 is yes; #1, #2,. and 3 are all no Moderate #1, #2, or #3 are yes: ( ^ 5 ^


5. ( (0^(3-4) (5-6)

b. . c.

d.

f.

Rating for Floodflow Alteration

0-2 of #5 are yes: (LO\VP

3-4 of #5 are yes: Modei"^ 5-6 of #5 are yes: High

7. A j ^

Rating for Sediment Stabilization and Erosion Control

Both #6 or #7 are no: Low Only #7 is yes: Modej Both #6 and #7 are yes: ^High

Water Purification

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

a. b. X c. d.

A9 a. b. c. d. e.

VeA:> a. b. c. A d. X e. X

f/iO

(a) j /f .5 (b) ^ 0

/€:>

Sediment Stabilization and Erosion Control

6. Y^b (open water wider than 100 ft)

1134\iveffintsJi.(toc

toSZ-ML

Rating for Water Purification # 12(b) is yes: Verj' Low # 12(b) is no and #11 is yes: Low #12(b)and#ll are no and

#8, #9, and #10 are all no Low #8, #9, or #10 are yes; # 12(a) or #13 are yes:...Moderate #8, #9, or #10 are yes and #12(a).^ and #13 are yes /High,

Production Export/Vood Chain Support

14. (all) (more than half) (half or less)

Riverine:

a. b. c.

Lacustrine: a. b. c. d. e.

Palustrine: a. b. c._X_ d._jL_

15. J/Pb

Rating for Production Export/Food Chain Support

#15 is no Low #15 is yes and

#14 is (half or less): .C.Low #14 is (more than half):,.ModeraTe #14 is (all): High

Aquatic Diversity and Abundance

16. A ^ T D

17. i\0

18. (all) (half or more) (less than half)

Riverine: List A a. b. c.

Lists a. b. c.


Palustrine: a. X b. X c. X d. e- .y

Rating for Aquatic Diversitj' and Abundance

#16 is no or #17 is yes Low #16 is yes and #17 is no and

Riverine: Any from List A in # 18 are no Low All from List A are yes and less than two from List B in #18 are yes Moderate All from List A are yes and at least two from List B #18 are yes High

ll'ii\wcijims]\.Aoc

( A ; S / / I C

Lacustrine and Palustrine: Less than two from list in #18 are yes Low Two to tliree from list in # 18 are yes Moderate At least four from list in #18 are, yes ii. High

Wildlife Diversity' and Abundance: Breeding

Rating for Wildlife Diversity' and Abundance: Breeding

#19 is yes Verj' Low #19 is no and #20 is yes Low #19 and #20 are no and

less than two of #21 are yes Low two to three #21 are yes Moderate at least four of #21 are yes jCVLigh,

Wildlife Diyersit>' and Abundance: 19. "^0 Migration

20. (AV a. b. c. d.

09

a. b.

21. At-

Riverine: a. b. c. d. e.

Lacustrine: a. b. c. d. e. f

24. _ ± a. b._A. c.

d.J<_

f

Rating for Wildlife Diversity and Abundance: Migration

#22 is yes: Ver>' Low #22 is no and #23 is yes: Low #22 and #23 are no and

Less than two #24 are yes: Low Two to tluee of #24 ^—^-.^^ are yes: ^Moderate} Four to six of #24 are yes: High

Palustrine:

a . j L _ b ._A_ c. A d. h

Wildlife Diversity and Abundance: Wintering

25. hO

n34\wctfimah.doc

UjSf/n(-

26. _J\0 a. b. c.

27. \/^.$'

28. 3 a.

c.

e.

g-

Rating for Wildlife Diversity and .Abundance: Wintering #25 is yes: Ver}' Low #25 is no and #26 is yes: Low #25 and #26 are no and

Less than four of #28 .UVIoderate^

four of #28 are true: High

are true: #27 is true and at least ^

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) Species Habitat

29. ^ ^

30. h o

31. Mo

32. _ ^ J

Rating for Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) Species Habitat

#29, #30, and #31 are all no; #32 is yes LLowy #30 or #31 is yes Moderate #29 is yes High

U34\wctfuiisJi.doc

USf^L

RATING SHEET FOR SUMMARIZING RESULTS OF WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION

Functional Category^

Hydrologic Support



Water Purification

Production E.xport / Food Chain Support

Aquatic Diversity/Abundance

Wildlife Diversity/Abundance: Breeding


Wildlife DiversitjVAbundaiice: Wintering

TES Species Habitat _

Total (sum of column (d))

Maximum Total (sum of Numeric Rating x Weight)

OVERALL RATING (TotalMaximum Total) x (3)

L. (.0 1.0

(a)

Rating

l\ L

A

1}

L

H

(t

/i /^

(b) Numeric Rating

3.0

10

5.d

3.0

Iv

3.0

3 0

l.o

1.0

(c)

Weight"

1.0

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.5

1.5

lo XJr-

(d)

Score

3 o

0 . ^

l o

l .o

lo

Of.%

Kr 5.0

1.0

Iv

33

2.3^

The category weight of 0.5 for floodflow alteration is based on the rationale that the floodflow function is generally of less importance on most Superfund site wetlands in the Upper Clark Fork Basin due to their position lower down in the watershed; and categor}' weights higher than 1.0 are based on the importance given by regional natural resource agencies to Upper Clark Fork Basin wetlands for wildlife migration, breeding, and fisheries habitat. If different weights are used, the rationale for these weightings shoudl be included within this evaluation.

Tl34\wetfimsh.doc

us/'h L-

DATA SHEET FOR WETLAND EVALU.A.TION FORM Upper Clark Fork River Superfund Sites

Assessment Area: 0 ( J / f / j i ) /^ U j ^ ( M - f ^ ^ ^ 4 ^ ^ , ^ ^ S i ^ ^

PART B: CHARACTERISTICS OF ASSESSMENT AREA (AA)

Area

1. surface area a.

c. d.

2. watershed a.

c. d.

Vegetation and Habitat

3. wetland system

a. b. D L.

4. vegetation class a. V '^I^'AJ.

b . p <jci^L,1,^i-A

c. P p^/-M d. vegetative cover

7 b ^

5 ^

p. •\Ali^J<,-,cie-j

: > ;

5. vegetation/water interspersion a . ^ A b. c.

6. vegetation class interspersion

a. b. A c.

7.

8.

9.

H>

10.

11.

12.

13.

vegetation form ricliness

a. b.

(a) X cluster (b) oasis

width of vegetation

drologs

inlet/outlet conditions

a.

c. d.

channel /^-^3

water \"elocitv a. b.

d.

hydrologic alteration a. tfo b. Mo C. //SO

1134\wetfuiish.doc

CUJ^VKJ

14. hydroperiod a. b.

d._ e. P f

Substrate

15. surface substrate a.

c. d. e. f.

Disturbance

16. barren tailings n ^

17. tilled, filled, bladed, or excavated (^0

18. sediment sources ^

19. frequent human activity a. j /e^ b. IAO_

- 7

1134\u<etfmisU.duc

Upk< A

PART C: FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION

Hydrologic Support

1. JAO_

3. \fe5 a. b.

- A d.__ e. other

4. _M_

Rating for Hydrologic Support #l-#4 are all no: Low #4 is yes; #1, #2, and 3 are all no Modera^te #],#2, or#3 are yes: ^THigh


5. (0-2){p^6-6) a.

b. A

d.

Rating for Floodflow Alteration 0-2 of #5 are yes: Low 3-4 of #5 are yes: (^Moderate 5-6 of #5 are yes: rrrrnTHlgh

Sediment Stabilization and Erosion

7. JlO_

Rating for Sediment Stabilization and „ __ -, Erosion Controlj^ r^ ' ^

Both #om- #7 are no: ^Low^ Only #7 is yes: Moderate Both #6 and #7 are yes: High

Water Purification

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

a / _ ^ b.

d.

h. K c. d. ^ e.

a . ' .X

b. x c. d. e. ys

\A0

(a) l/ C (b) 'ho

^ ^

Control

¥ '- 5 (open water vv'ider than 100 ft)

1134\wctfimskduc ^ i luj

Rating for Water Purification #12(b) is yes: Very Low # 12(b) is no and #11 is yes: Low # 12(b) and #11 are no and

#8, #9, and #10 are all no Low #8, #9, or #10 are yes; # 12(a) or # 13 are yes:... Moderate #8, #9, or #10 are yes and # n ( a l and #13 are yes /High)

17. ^-P

18. (all) (half or more) (less than half)

Riverine: List A a. b. c.

Production Export/Food Chain Support

14. (all) (more than half) (half or less)

Riverine: a. b. c.


Palustrine: a._A_ b. c. A.

ListB a. b. c.


Palustrine:

' • - ^

b-AC-c. d. e.

15.

d . j L

W

Rating for Production Export/Food Chain Support

#15 is no {.Low #15 is yes and

#14 is (half or less): Low #14 is (more than half):..Moderate #14 is (all): High

Aquatic Diversity and Abundance

Rating for Aquatic Diversitj' and Abundance

#16 is no or #17 is yes Low #16 is yes and #17 is no and

Riverine: Any from List A in #18 are no Low All from List A are yes and less than two from List B in #18 are yes Moderate All from List A are yes and at least two from List B # 18 are yes High

16. £Z

1134\u'e tfimsh. doc ( A J J ^

Lacustrine and Palustrine: Less than two from list in #18 are yes Low-Two to three from list in #18 are yes .uVIoderate At least four from list in #18 are" yes High

Wildlife Diversity and Abundance: Breeding

19. ftO

20.

21,

M a. b. c. d. e.

Riverine: a. b. c. d. e.

Lacustrine: a. b. c. d. e. f.

Rating for Wildlife Diversity and .\bundancc: Breeding

#19 is yes Very Low #19 is no and #20 is yes Low #19 and #20 are no and

less than two of #21 are yes Low t \•o to three #21 are yes .(TModerate at least four of #21 are yesTnmrlftglT

Wildlife Diversity and Abundance: Migration

22.

23.

24.

no

Ko a. b.

Z_ a. b. / c. d. X e. f

V c^eyJkiyi

Rating for Wildlife Diversity and Abundance: Migration

#22 is yes: Verj' Low #22 is no and #23 is yes: Low #22 and #23 are no and

Less than tv/o #24 are yes: Low Two to three of #24 are yes: k^oderate . Four to six of #24 are yes:....7rr7rHigh

Palustrine:

a..^L_ b . _ : ^ c.

djt.

Wildlife Diversity and Abundance: Wintering

25. hd

lt34\ wetfimsh.doc

UfiM

!

26.

b.

27. y^3

28. ^ a.

b - X -c. d. K e. f _ i _ g-

Rating for Wildlife Diversit}' and Abundance: Wintering #25 is yes: Very LQ; ^ .

#25 is no and #26 is yes: /fLo^v/ #25 and #26 are no and

Less than four of #28 are true: Moderate #27 is true and at least four of #28 are true: High

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) Species Habitat

29.

30.

31.

fVO

\M)

\6

32. 4 ^ Rating for Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) Species Habitat

#29, #30, and #31 are all no; ^ — \ #32 is yes LLow/ #30 or #31 is yes Moderate #29 is yes High

n34\ivetfimsh.doc i i

\

RATING SHEET FOR SUMMARIZING RESULTS OF WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION

Functional Category

(a)

Rating

Hydrologic Support



Water Purification

Production Export / Food Chain Support

Aquatic Diversity/Abundance

Wildlife Diversity/Abundance: Breeding


Wildlife Diversity/Abundance: Wintering

TES Species Habitat

Total (sum of column (d))

Maximum Total (sum of Nurneric Rating x Weight)

OVERALL RATING (TotalMaximum Total) x (3)

w a u 1+ L

Al

n i± L

L

(b) Numeric Rating

S.o

Z.O

1.0

3.0

io

Vo_

2..Q

10

(c)

Weight"

1.0

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.5

1.5

'I

1.0

(d)

Score

30

\.o

ro

3,0

10

2 .0

5 0

3.0

ID

/ 'O

iO.,0

3 3 ^

The category weight of 0.5 for floodflow alteration is based on the rationale that the floodflow function is generally of less importance on most Superfund site wetlands in the Upper Clark Fork Basin due to their position lower down in the watershed; and category weights higher than 1.0 are based on the importance given by regional natural resource agencies to Upper Clark Fork Basin wetlands for wildlife migration, breeding, and fisheries habitat. If different weights are used, the rationale for these weightings shoudl be included within this evaluation.

T134\wetfnnsh.doc

^ kji-cA

julie dalsoglio-epa sandy stash - aerl robin bullock - aerl pam...

Documents