Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 6511113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 6511 File Number: 2021-0867 ARCHIVED RPZD-2021-004: (SOUTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK RD.1RIVERSIDE VILLAGE): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED R-PZD 2021-004 FOR APPROXIMATELY 101.77 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF 2936 SOUTH BLACK OAK ROAD TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 2.2 ACRES FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND 97.8 ACRES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY TO FOUR -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND PARKLAND/OPEN SPACE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves R-PZD 2021-004 as described in Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" attached to the Planning Division's Agenda Memo which allows the development of 2.20 acres for commercial and multi -family residential uses, and 97.80 acres for single-family to four -family residential uses and parkland/open space. Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED on 12/7/2021 I IIIIIII IIIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII Doc ID: 020299130016 Type: REL Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 12/21/2021 at 09:25:20 AM Fee Amt: $90.00 Pape i of 16 Washington County, AR Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk File2021-00048608 Page 1 Printed on 1218121 Ordinance. 6511 File Number: 2021-0867 Attest: ` ctKara Paxton. City Clerk Treasurer 0%Aj%jI1 iuJf/i ��•�k,� `•I• •Rfgs��i4 �'v�FAYETjEViLLE, ice•. 9,q � P`' � _: �iiIII O Page 2 Printed on 1218121 PZD-2021-000004 Close Up View 1-2 Neighborhood Link Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District L - Planning Area L - Fayetteville City Limits - - Trail (Proposed) Riverside Village Feet 0 220 440 880 1,320 1 inch = 600 feet ►z-A 14 D-2021-000004 EXHIBIT 'A' RS1 -i NORTH sjM Residential -Agricultural R S F-4 1-2 General Industrial 1,760 P-1 RPZD-2021-000004 EXHIBIT 'B' PART OF THEE 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 AND PART OF THESE 1/4 OF SECTION 26 AND PART OF THEW 1/2 OF THE SW OF SECTION 25 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE 1318.68 FEET EAST; THENCE 1164.14 FEET NORTH TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING AN IRON PIN IN THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD #57, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD 93-63230; THENCE WITH SAID COUNTY ROAD #57, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD 93-63202 AND DEED RECORD 93-63230 THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: THENCE N42°03'46"W 124.60 FEET; THENCE N42°05'32"W 1129.42 FEET TO AN IRON PIN IN THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD #57; THENCE N42°20'42"W 370.42 FEET; THENCE N62°29'47"W 203.96 FEET TO THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD #57; THENCE LEAVING SAID COUNTY ROAD #57 N84°22'16"E 3345.86 FEET; THENCE S35°11'30"E 711.40 FEET; THENCE N89°36'30"W 325.72 FEET; THENCE S00°02'30"E 234.00 FEET; THENCE S00°02'30"E 903.16 FEET; THENCE N87'36'30"W 1631.00 FEET; THENCE N07°55'50"E 292.33 FEET; THENCE S64°12'15"W 616.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 96.76 ACRES, MORE OR LESS AND SUBJECT TO SOUTH BLACK OAK ROAD / COUNTY 57 ALONG THE WEST AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR FACT. RPZD-2021-000004 Planned Zoning District EXHIBIT V Riverside Village Ownership: Pamela Skipper Walter Skipper Pamela Skipper Joint Revocable Trust Jacki Mohney Representative: Jesse Fulcher 4058 N. College Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72703 Table of Contents PropertyDescription..................................................................................................................................................3 Scopeand Concept.....................................................................................................................................................4 DevelopmentStandards.............................................................................................................................................5 DevelopmentArea«A.................................................................................................................................................5 DevelopmentArea„B................................................................................................................................................. 6 Platting......................................................................................................................................................................7 Landscapeand Screening...........................................................................................................................................7 ComprehensiveLand Use...........................................................................................................................................8 Gradingand Utility.....................................................................................................................................................8 CityDepartment Requirements ..................................................................................................................................8 Streets.......................................................................................................................................................................8 RestrictiveCovenants.................................................................................................................................................8 Signs..........................................................................................................................................................................8 Phasing......................................................................................................................................................................8 ConceptPhasing Plan.................................................................................................................................................9 UtilityPlan...............................................................................................................................................................10 ZoningMap.............................................................................................................................................................11 MajorStreet and Highway Plan ................................................................................................................................12 FloodplainMap........................................................................................................................................................13 Elevations...........................................................................................................................................................14-15 Planned Zoning District 2 of 12 Property Description LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel Nos. 001-11269-001 and 001-11264-000 A part of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, a part of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, a part of the NW 1/4 of the SE I/4. a part of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a part of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and a part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 26 and a part of the NW 114 of the SW 1/4 and part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 25 all in Township 16 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas and more particularly described as beginningat an iron pin in County Road # 57 that is 1318.68 feet East and 1164.14 feet North of the SW comer of the SE 1/4ofthe SW 1/4 of said Section 26. thence S 87-45'20" E, 2986.0 feet; thence N 00002'30" W, 234.0 feet; thence S 89°36'30" E, 325.72 feet to the centerof West Fork of White River, thence down said River N 35°I 130" W. 711.4 feet; thence leaving said river, S 84°22'16" W, 3345.86 feet to the center of County Road # 57; thence with said road, S 62°2947" E, 203.96 feet; thence S 42°20'42" E 370.42 feet to the point of beginning and containing 50.57 acres more or less and subject to the right-of-way of County Road #57 and any casements of record. Parcel Nos. 001-11269002-001 and 001-11264-001 A part of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and a part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 26 and a part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 25 all in Township 16 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas and more particularly described as beginning at an iron pin in the center of County Road #57 that is 2159.24 feet East and 233.53 feet North of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 26; thence N-64'-121-15"-E, 616.0 feet; thence S-7°-55'-50"-W, 292.33 feet; thence5-87°- 36'-30"-E, 1631.0 feet; thence N-00-021-30"-W, 903.16 feet; thence N-87°45'-20"-W, 2986.0 feet to the center of County Road #57, thence along said road, 5-420-05'-32"-E, 1129.42 feet; thence S- 42°-03'-46"-E,124.6 feet to the point of beginning and containing 512 acres more or less and subject to the right of way of County Road #57 and any easements of record. X 'r r ` r P6t y» i i d t�t k III MM Planned Zoning District 3 of 12 Scope & Concept Riverside Village will be a conservation -style subdivision, located along the West Fork of the White River. The unique environmental features of the site formed the layout of the lots and streets. These include a Corp regulated stream that bisects the site, two non -regulated streams along the north property line, dense vegetation along the river and the floodplain of the river. The project consists of approximately 244 single-family lots, as well as a future commercial/office lot at the north entrance. Homes along Black Oak Road will be set back from the road, providing a large greenspace area that provides privacy for the homes, as well as an area for outdoor recreation. Other homes will face onto tree preservation areas and will be provided with front -door access to the walking trails. Two areas within the site will be developed with cluster housing with shared parking. Greenspace and outdoor recreation are the defining elements of this development plan. There will be approximately 17 acres of greenspace within the residential portion of the project and another 33 acres of open space that will be dedicated for a public park. In total, half of the entire property will be retained as greenspace and natural area. In addition to these valuable assets, residents will have access to several thousand feet of walking trails, including trail access to the banks of the river. While this property is located south of Commerce Park, the area is very quiet, with several existing homes on the west side of Black Oak Road. The project has been designed with large vegetative buffers along Black Oak Road, to provide privacy for the homes facing Black Oak, and to provide a buffer from properties on the west side of the road. A very large buffer has also been provided on the north side of the project, to separate it from existing, non-residential land uses. The Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as an Industrial Area, so the proposed, mixed -use project is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map. However, adding additional industrial uses across from several existing homes is not consistent or compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Nor is an industrial use of the property appropriate given the existing environmental resources. Further, there are multiple, undeveloped, industrial parcels within Commerce Park that have been vacate for decades. The fact is, Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas as a region need more housing. Specifically, housing that is priced for modest wage earners. According to Our Housing Future: A Call to Action for Northwest Arkansas, which was prepared by the Walton Family Foundation, there are nearly 80,000 families projected to move to Northwest Arkansas' four largest cities by 2040. Approximately half of the new homes that will be needed must serve workforce households earning $33,000-$78,000. The City of Fayetteville can impact certain housing, particularly by financially supporting institutions and non -profits. However, none of the cities in the region can meet the overwhelming demand for new housing, particular at an affordable price point. This must be addressed by the private sector. This development provides an opportunity to provide new housing, in a location that is convenient to jobs, downtown, the trail system, and will provide outdoor recreational opportunities for residents. Planned Zoning District 4 of 12 Development Standards This PUD shall be governed by the use and development regulations of the Fayetteville Zoning Code expect as provided as follows: Development Area A (Commercial) *All interior lots shall be provided access to a public street by access easement approved by the City of Fayetteville during development or platting review. Gross Land Area 2.86 Acres Use Units: 1, City-wide Uses by Right; 13, Eating Places; 15, Neighborhood Shopping; 25, Offices; 26, Permitted Uses Multi -Family; 40, Sidewalk Cafes; 46, Short Term Rentals Maximum Building Heights No to exceed 3 stories Minimum Lot Width 18 Feet Front Setback 10-25 Foot Build to Zone Rear Setback None, except 15 Feet when adjacent to a single-family zoning district. Side Setback None, except 15 Feet when adjacent to a single-family zoning district. Minimum Landscaping Per Unified Development Code for CS District Minimum & Maximum Parking Ratio As per applicable use unit Other Bulk and Area Requirements As required within the CS District Planned Zoning District 5 of 12 Development Area B (Residential) Gross Land Area 60.42 Acres Permitted Uses Use Units: 1, City-wide Uses by Right; 8, Single -Family; 9, Two -Family; 10, Three and Four Family; 41, Accessory Dwellings; 46, Short Term Rentals Maximum Number of Lots 250 Minimum Lot Width 40 Feet *Lots that front open space will be at least 40 Feet wide, but without direct frontage on a street. Minimum Lot Size 4,000 Square Feet Maximum Building Height 2 Stories and 35 Feet Off -Street Parking and Front Yard Coverage Minimum of 2 parking enclosed off-street spaces require per dwelling unit. Front Setback 0-25 Foot Build to Zone Rear Setback 5 Feet Rear Setback, From Centerline of an Alley 12 Feet Side Setback 5 Feet Existing County Zoning (Residential) Gross Land Area 101 Acres Permitted Uses Use Units: ;46, Short Term Rentals Maximum Number of Lots 439 Minimum Lot Width 75 Feet Minimum Lot Size 10,000 Square Feet Maximum Building Height 2 Stories and 35 Feet Off -Street Parking and Front Yard Coverage Minimum of 2 parking enclosed off-street spaces require per dwelling unit. Front Setback 25 Feet Rear Setback 20 Feet Side Setback 10 Feet Planned Zoning District 6 of 12 Purpose The purpose of using the Planned Zoning District ordinance, is to allow flexibility in the application of zoning standards, so that this property can be developed based on the unique site conditions instead of the constraints of a basic zoning district. As described throughout this application, the subdivision has been laid out to account for the major environmental features, so that hardscapes are in harmony with the softscapes. The development provides a variety of housing types, provides for future nonresidential uses, and multi -family uses, and places homes in walking distance of major employers. The layout also preserves approximately 35 acres of property along the West Fork of the White River. This will include an approximately 5-acre public park and an additional 30 acres of park property that will be dedicated to the City. We are also actively working with the Trails Department to connect the development to the extension of the Saint Paul Trail. Working together with staff, we will be able to preserve large areas of open space and natural features that will be beneficial to both the homes owners and the public. Architectural Standards Development in Planning Area A will comply with the design standards in Chapter 166.23 Urban Residential Design Standards, or Chapter 166.24 Nonresidential Design Standards. Lots with less than 50 feet of street frontage in Planning Area B shall comply with Chapter 164.23 Small Lot Design Standards. Cluster Housing Two areas will be devoted to a cluster housing development plan. The first area is located close to the stream that bisects the property and will include a small trail extension that provides a mid -block access to the north. A small parking lot will be provided for these homes and the homes will face towards a public street with a large green space in front of the homes. The second cluster area will be near the entrance to the park. These units will have a narrow, one - Planned Zoning District 7 of 12 way parking lot that will be screened from the street with landscaping and a short fence. These units will all face towards a common green that will be shared space for the residents. A smaller trail will connect these units together and provide a connection back to the park entrance. Cluster housing will comply with Chapter 164.22 Cluster Housing Development. Parks The Parks Department has indicated that they have plans for improving Combs Park, which will be directly north of the 35 acres of park land that we will dedicate to the city. The park will be mainly a nature park, since it's running along the White River. Long term plans include a hard surface trail following the river. Additionally, there will be nature trails along the river. The open space on the east side of Riverside Village will provide the Parks Department with an opportunity to provide a variety of recreational uses, based on input from the public. Trails Trails will be an important focus within this development. For the units that face out onto common property, these trails will be the pedestrian access to the front of the homes. Further, the trail system will provide a pedestrian linkage between every resident and the planned park. Two additional mid -block trail sections will be constructed to offer more walking -route options. All trails will be 8-10 feet wide and constructed with either asphalt or concrete. Landscaping and Screening A landscape plan shall be submitted to the City during the preliminary plat The plans will be designed to enhance the appearance of both the development and the Black Oak roadway frontage. Development Area "A": The commercial property shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 177 of the Unified Development Code. Development Area "B": The residential property shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 177 of the Unified Development Code. Tree preservation and removal shall be governed by the standards of Chapter 167 of the Unified Development Code. Planned Zoning District 8 of 12 Grading and Utility Plans Site grading and utility plans shall be submitted for review during the design phase of the development. All utilities are available to serve this development, including water and sewer. Drainage plans shall be prepared in accordance with City engineering requirements. City Department Requirements Unless specified otherwise within the PUD document, the development of this property shall be in compliance with other local, state and federal requirements, including those of the Fire Department and City Engineer. Streets Streets shall be constructed in accordance with City regulations. Parking Two car garages will be provided with each dwelling unit except for the cottage units, which will have parking areas to serve each of the units. Due to the unique design, with many homes fronting common property instead of public streets, parking pods have been provided throughout the site to allow for guest parking when needed. This will be in addition to on -street parking that will be allowed. Restrictive Covenants Restrictive covenants shall be adopted and recorded for the PUD with the subdivision plat. The maintenance of all common areas, including parks and entrances shall be the responsibility of the Homes Owners Association, or by the Fayetteville Parks Department, depending on final ownership. Signage Commercial signs shall be permitted in accordance with the standards of R-0, Residential Office regulations. Residential subdivision entrance signs shall be permitted along Black Oak Road, in accordance with the sign regulations for RSF regulations. Phasing Development will commence upon approval of the PUD, preliminary plat and construction plans, in accordance with City regulations. The development of each phase is subject to changes in market conditions, but will generally follow the schedule outlined below: Phase 1: 2022 Phase 2: 2023 Phase 3: 2024 Phase 4: 202S Development of the residential areas should occur in 3-5 phase. The commercial area will likely be developed during one the above phasing schedules. However, market conditions could expedite development or result in the commercial area being developed at a later date. Planned Zoning District 9 of 12 Trails Map '. �• Markham � Y r \budiett ureeK i ram Alignment Study Area ,U U 0 H n • °' Ze W ■ O A a Planned Zoning District r •- I wMi .j •� l 10 of 12 Ozark Regional Transit Route Map ST` J LgTHSi CO h pj E FAIRLAN 1' d 8j Cr I W R to E 14TR s a �- E 15TH ST � vi o Wt LL E ALMA 37. f= U� E 5TH ST w `" Q 2 � YY� �C1—T O ; E LEE ST 1 LH S C ITZ E Rp Industrial Park Deviation Route 20 will deviate to the Industrial o Park area from the intersection of Cur- tis Ave and Armstrong Ave on demand u°3 a only. 0 Please notify your driver of your desti- nation or call 479-725-0490 for pickup. KXRCHER albs p s o 0.25 � T�0.5 Miles Planned Zoning District 11 of 12 Planned Zoning District 12 of 12 Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 12/21 /2021 09:25:20 AM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2021-00048608 Kyle Sylvester - Circuit Clerk City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2021-0867 Agenda Date: 12/7/2021 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Ordinance Agenda Number: 13.2 RPZD-2021-004: (SOUTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK RD./RIVERSIDE VILLAGE): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED R-PZD 2021-004 FOR APPROXIMATELY 101.77 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF 2936 SOUTH BLACK OAK ROAD TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 2.2 ACRES FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND 97.8 ACRES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY TO FOUR -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND PARKLAND/OPEN SPACE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves R-PZD 2021-004 as described in Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" attached to the Planning Division's Agenda Memo which allows the development of 2.20 acres for commercial and multi -family residential uses, and 97.80 acres for single-family to four -family residential uses and parkland/open space. Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section 1 above. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 121812021 PZD-2021-000004 Close Up View I-2 &z'gCk Riverside Village P-1 R-A D-2021-000004I EXHIBIT 'A' RSF A& NORTH Residential -Agricultural Neighborhood Link RSF-4 Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District Feet 1-2 General Industrial Planning Area P-1 - - 0 220 440 880 1,320 1,760 L — Fayetteville City Limits - - - 1 inch = 600 feet Trail (Proposed) RPZD-2021-000004 EXHIBIT 'B' PART OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 AND PART OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26 AND PART OF THE W 1/2 OF THE SW OF SECTION 25 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE 1318.68 FEET EAST; THENCE 1164.14 FEET NORTH TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING AN IRON PIN IN THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD #57, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD 93-63230; THENCE WITH SAID COUNTY ROAD #57, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD 93-63202 AND DEED RECORD 93-63230 THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: THENCE N42°03'46"W 124.60 FEET; THENCE N42°05'32"W 1129.42 FEET TO AN IRON PIN IN THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD #57; THENCE N42°20'42"W 370.42 FEET; THENCE N62°29'47"W 203.96 FEETTO THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD #57; THENCE LEAVING SAID COUNTY ROAD #57 N84°22'16"E 3345.86 FEET; THENCE S35°11'30"E 711.40 FEET; THENCE N89°36'30"W 325.72 FEET; THENCE S00°02'30"E 234.00 FEET; THENCE S00°02'30"E 903.16 FEET; THENCE N87°36'30"W 1631.00 FEET; THENCE N07°55'50"E 292.33 FEET; THENCE S64°12'15"W 616.00 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 96.76 ACRES, MORE OR LESS AND SUBJECT TO SOUTH BLACK OAK ROAD / COUNTY 57 ALONG THE WEST AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR FACT. RPZD-2021-000004 Planned Zoning District EXHIBIT V Riverside Village Ownership: Pamela Skipper Walter Skipper Pamela Skipper Joint Revocable Trust Jacki Mohney Representative: Jesse Fulcher 4058 N. College Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72703 Table of Contents PropertyDescription..................................................................................................................................................3 Scopeand Concept.....................................................................................................................................................4 DevelopmentStandards.............................................................................................................................................5 Development Area"A"...................................................................................5 ............................................................ DevelopmentArea"B................................................................... ..............................................................................6 platting. ............................................ .............. ...................•.....................................................................................7 Landscapeand Screening........................... .......................................................................... .................. .................... 7 ComprehensiveLand Use...........................................................................................................................................8 Gradingand Utility.....................................................................................................................................................8 CityDepartment Requirements..................................................................................................................................8 Streets.......................................................................................................................................................................8 RestrictiveCovenants.................................................................................................................................................8 Signs..........................................................................................................................................................................8 Phasing......................................................................................................................................................................8 ConceptPhasing Plan.............................................................................................................................................9 UtilityPlan........................................................................................................................................................•......10 ZoningMap.............................................................................................................................................................11 MajorStreet and Highway Plan................................................................................................................................12 FloodplainMap........................................................................................................................................................13 Elevations...........................................................................................................................................................14-15 Planned Zoning District 2 of 12 Property Description LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel Nos. 001-11269-00t and 001-11264-000 Apart of the SE 14ofthe SW l/4,apart ofthe NE 1/4ofthe SW 1/4, apart of the NW 1/4ofthe SE 1/4. a part of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a part of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and a part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 26 and apart of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 25 all in Township 16 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas and more particularly described as beginning at an iron pin in County Road # 57 that is 1318.68 feet East and 1164.14 feet North of the SW comer of the SE 1/4ofthe SW l/4ofsaid Section 26,thence S 87°45'20" E, 2986.0 feet; thence N 00*02130" W, 234.0 feet; thence S 89°36'30" E. 325.72 feet to the centerof West Fork of White River, thence down said River N 35'1130" W, 711.4 feet; thence leaving said river, S 84°22' l6" W, 3345.86 feet to the center of County Road # 57; thence with said road, S 62°2947" E, 203.96 feet; thence S 42°20'42" E 370.42 feet to the point of beginning and containing 50.57 acres more or less and subject to the right-of-way of County Road #57 and any easements of record. Parcel Nos. 001-11269002-001 and 001-11264-001 A part of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and a part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 26 and a part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 25 all in Township 16 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas and more particularly described as beginning at an iron pin in the center of County Road #57 that is 2159.24 feet East and 233.53 feet North of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 26; thence N-64°-12'-15"-E, 616.0 feet; thence S-7°-55'-50"-W, 292.33 feet; thence 5-87°- 36'-30"-E, 1631.0 feet; thence N-0°-02'-30"-W, 903.16 feet; thence N-87'-45'-20"-W, 2986.0 feet to the center of County Road #57; thence along said road, S-42°-05'-32"-E, 1129.42 feet thence S- 42°-03'-46"-E, 124.6 feetto the point of beginning and containing 512 acres more or less and subject to the right of way of County Road #57 and any easements of record. Planned Zoning District 3 of 12 Scope & Concept Riverside Village will be a conservation -style subdivision, located along the West Fork of the White River. The unique environmental features of the site formed the layout of the lots and streets. These include a Corp regulated stream that bisects the site, two non -regulated streams along the north property line, dense vegetation along the river and the floodplain of the river. The project consists of approximately 244 single-family lots, as well as a future commercial/office lot at the north entrance. Homes along Black Oak Road will be set back from the road, providing a large greenspace area that provides privacy for the homes, as well as an area for outdoor recreation. Other homes will face onto tree preservation areas and will be provided with front -door access to the walking trails. Two areas within the site will be developed with cluster housing with shared parking. Greenspace and outdoor recreation are the defining elements of this development plan. There will be approximately 17 acres of greenspace within the residential portion of the project and another 33 acres of open space that will be dedicated for a public park. In total, half of the entire property will be retained as greenspace and natural area. In addition to these valuable assets, residents will have access to several thousand feet of walking trails, including trail access to the banks of the river. While this property is located south of Commerce Park, the area is very quiet, with several existing homes on the west side of Black Oak Road. The project has been designed with large vegetative buffers along Black Oak Road, to provide privacy for the homes facing Black Oak, and to provide a buffer from properties on the west side of the road. A very large buffer has also been provided on the north side of the project, to separate it from existing, non-residential land uses. The Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as an Industrial Area, so the proposed, mixed -use project is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map. However, adding additional industrial uses across from several existing homes is not consistent or compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Nor is an industrial use of the property appropriate given the existing environmental resources. Further, there are multiple, undeveloped, industrial parcels within Commerce Park that have been vacate for decades. The fact is, Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas as a region need more housing. Specifically, housing that is priced for modest wage earners. According to Our Housing Future: A Call to Action for Northwest Arkansas, which was prepared by the Walton Family Foundation, there are nearly 80,000 families projected to move to Northwest Arkansas' four largest cities by 2040. Approximately half of the new homes that will be needed must serve workforce households earning $33,000-$78,000. The City of Fayetteville can impact certain housing, particularly by financially supporting institutions and non -profits. However, none of the cities in the region can meet the overwhelming demand for new housing, particular at an affordable price point. This must be addressed by the private sector. This development provides an opportunity to provide new housing, in a location that is convenient to jobs, downtown, the trail system, and will provide outdoor recreational opportunities for residents. Planned Zoning District 4 of 12 Development Standards This PUD shall be governed by the use and development regulations of the Fayetteville Zoning Code expect as provided as follows: Development Area A (Commercial) *All interior lots shall be provided access to a public street by access easement approved by the City of Fayetteville during development or platting review. Gross Land Area 2.86 Acres Use Units: 1, City-wide Uses by Right; 13, Eating Places; 15, Neighborhood Shopping; 25, Offices; 26, Permitted Uses Multi -Family; 40, Sidewalk Cafes; 46, Short Term Rentals Maximum Building Heights No to exceed 3 stories Minimum Lot Width 18 Feet Front Setback 10-25 Foot Build to Zone None, except 15 Feet when adjacent to a single-family Rear Setback zoning district. None, except 15 Feet when adjacent to a single-family Side Setback zoning district. Per Unified Development Code for CS District As per applicable use unit Minimum Landscaping Minimum & Maximum Parking Ratio Other Bulk and Area Requirements As required within the CS District Planned Zoning District 5 of 12 ')evelopment Area B (Residential) Gross Land Area 60.42 Acres Permitted Uses Use Units: 1, City-wide Uses by Right; 8, Single -Family; 9, Two -Family; 10, Three and Four Family; 41, Accessory Dwellings; 46, Short Term Rentals Maximum Number of Lots 250 Minimum Lot Width 40 Feet *Lots that front open space will be at least 40 Feet wide, but without direct frontage on a street. Minimum Lot Size Maximum Building Height 4,000 Square Feet 2 Stories and 35 Feet Minimum of 2 parking enclosed off-street spaces require per dwelling unit. Off -Street Parking and Front Yard Coverage Front Setback 0-25 Foot Build to Zone 5 Feet 12 Feet 5 Feet Rear Setback Rear Setback, From Centerline of an Alley Side Setback Existing County Zoning (Residential) Gross Land Area 101 Acres Permitted Uses Use Units: ;46, Short Term Rentals Maximum Number of Lots 439 75 Feet Minimum Lot Width Minimum Lot Size 10,000 Square Feet Maximum Building Height 2 Stories and 35 Feet Off -Street Parking and Front Yard Coverage Minimum of 2 parking enclosed off-street spaces require per dwelling unit. 25 Feet Front Setback Rear Setback Side Setback 20 Feet 10 Feet Planned Zoning District 6 of 12 P";rp,0S The purpose of using the Planned Zoning District ordinance, is to allow flexibility in the application of zoning standards, so that this property can be developed based on the unique site conditions instead of the constraints of a basic zoning district. As described throughout this application, the subdivision has been laid out to account for the major environmental features, so that hardscapes are in harmony with the softscapes. The development provides a variety of housing types, provides for future nonresidential uses, and multi -family uses, and places homes in walking distance of major employers. The layout also preserves approximately 35 acres of property along the West Fork of the White River. This will include an approximately 5-acre public park and an additional 30 acres of park property that will be dedicated to the City. We are also actively working with the Trails Department to connect the development to the extension of the Saint Paul Trail. Working together with staff, we will be able to preserve large areas of open space and natural features that will be beneficial to both the homes owners and the public. Chiral Styndards Development in Planning Area A will comply with the design standards in Chapter 166.23 Urban Residential Design Standards, or Chapter 166.24 Nonresidential Design Standards. Lots with less than 50 feet of street frontage in Planning Area B shall comply with Chapter 164.23 Small Lot Design Standards. Cu fe OLl roll Two areas will be devoted to a cluster housing development plan. The first area is located close to the stream that bisects the property and will include a small trail extension that provides a mid -block access to the north. A small parking lot will be provided for these homes and the homes will face towards a public street with a large green space in front of the homes. The second cluster area will be near the entrance to the park. These units will have a narrow, one - Planned Zoning District 7 of 12 way parking lot that will be screened from the street with landscaping and a short fence. These units will all face towards a common green that will be shared space for the residents. A smaller trail will connect these units together and provide a connection back to the park entrance. Cluster housing will comply with Chapter 164.22 Cluster Housing Development. Parks The Parks Department has indicated that they have plans for improving Combs Park, which will be directly north of the 35 acres of park land that we will dedicate to the city. The park will be mainly a nature park, since it's running along the White River. Long term plans include a hard surface trail following the river. Additionally, there will be nature trails along the river. The open space on the east side of Riverside Village will provide the Parks Department with an opportunity to provide a variety of recreational uses, based on input from the public. Trails Trails will be an important focus within this development. For the units that face out onto common property, these trails will be the pedestrian access to the front of the homes. Further, the trail system will provide a pedestrian linkage between every resident and the planned park. Two additional mid -block trail sections will be constructed to offer more walking -route options. All trails will be 8-10 feet wide and constructed with either asphalt or concrete. Landscaping and Screening A landscape plan shall be submitted to the City during the preliminary plat The plans will be designed to enhance the appearance of both the development and the Black Oak roadway frontage. Development Area "A": The commercial property shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 177 of the Unified Development Code. Development Area "B": The residential property shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 177 of the Unified Development Code. Tree preservation and removal shall be governed by the standards of Chapter 167 of the Unified Development Code. Planned Zoning District 8 of 12 Grading and Utility Plans Site grading and utility plans shall be submitted for review during the design phase of the development. All utilities are available to serve this development, including water and sewer. Drainage plans shall be prepared in accordance with City engineering requirements. City Department Requirements Unless specified otherwise within the PUD document, the development of this property shall be in compliance with other local, state and federal requirements, including those of the Fire Department and City Engineer. Streets Streets shall be constructed in accordance with City regulations. Parking Two car garages will be provided with each dwelling unit except for the cottage units, which will have parking areas to serve each of the units. Due to the unique design, with many homes fronting common property instead of public streets, parking pods have been provided throughout the site to allow for guest parking when needed. This will be in addition to on -street parking that will be allowed. Restrictive Covenants Restrictive covenants shall be adopted and recorded for the PUD with the subdivision plat. The maintenance of all common areas, including parks and entrances shall be the responsibility of the Homes Owners Association, or by the Fayetteville Parks Department, depending on final ownership. Signage Commercial signs shall be permitted in accordance with the standards of R-O, Residential Office regulations. Residential subdivision entrance signs shall be permitted along Black Oak Road, in accordance with the sign regulations for RSF regulations. Phasing Development will commence upon approval of the PUD, preliminary plat and construction plans, in accordance with City regulations. The development of each phase is subject to changes in market conditions, but will generally follow the schedule outlined below: Phase 1: 2022 Phase 2: 2023 Phase 3: 2024 Phase 4: 2025 Development of the residential areas should occur in 3-S phase. The commercial area will likely be developed during one the above phasing schedules. However, market conditions could expedite development or result in the commercial area being developed at a later date. Planned Zoning District 9 of 12 Trails Map F \buDlett LreeK I rail Q Alignment Study Area • l y1 •.�•a Markham + W ■ i3 C7 ' + SON 8T! + • m + • Tsa La Gi Trail • • O � a U) ♦� VJ ■ ar . • a ri r � 'a • ■ TOW V Hraoc nT rail � .• a ■ E 7 • ac . Cr + 0 ■ + r ■� 1 Paul Trail �• All +B • �• s! • • rr + Trail a q "' 1 4 ' � 1 i< • Planned Zoning District 10 of 12 Ozark Regional Transit Route Map O H Q C OO E FAIRLAN r O r UE NAq-rJCK OR ST ■Q N � O E15M ST LV j o WI ff W 19TH ST CO) E Pump Srar(pp RD a a � U lm 0 to 4TH s E 5TH ST W LL+ Q Z� O O U i di E LEE ST 1 HELEN 01 �kA Industrial Park Deviation Route 20 will deviate to the Industrial Park area from the intersection of Cur- tis Ave and Armstrong Ave on demand only. Please notify your driver of your desti- nation or call 479-725-0490 for pickup. ,as l{7KNCNEIt � ,I�� S(1RICK J f F. 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 1 I t t 1 I( t 1 Planned Zoning District 11 of 12 Planned Zoning District 12 of 12 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2021-0867 Legistar File ID 11/16/2021 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Jonathan Curth 10/29/2021 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (630) Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: RPZD-2021-000004: Residential Planned Zoning District (SOUTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK RD./RIVERSIDE VILLAGE, 682/683): Submitted by RAUSCH COLEMAN HOMES, INC. for properties located SOUTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK RD. The properties are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contain approximately 101.77 acres. The request is to rezone the properties, once annexed, from R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL to RPZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? No Does item have a cost? No Budget Adjustment Attached? No Purchase Order Number: Change Order Number: Original Contract Number: Comments: Budget Impact: Fund Project Title Current Budget $ - Funds Obligated $ - Current Balance Item Cost $ - Budget Adjustment $ - Remaining Budget Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Approval Date: V20210527 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 TO: Mayor; Fayetteville City Council THRU: Susan Norton, Chief of Staff Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director FROM: Ryan Umberger, Senior Planner DATE: October 29, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEMO SUBJECT: RPZD-2021-000004: Residential Planned Zoning District (SOUTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK RD./RIVERSIDE VILLAGE, 682/683): Submitted by RAUSCH COLEMAN HOMES, INC. for properties located SOUTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK RD. The properties are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contain approximately 101.77 acres. The request is to rezone the properties, once annexed, from R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL to RPZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: City staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of RPZD-2021-000004 as shown in the attached Exhibits `A' and `B'. BACKGROUND: The subject property is in south Fayetteville off S. Black Oak Road, immediately south of Combs Park. The subject property is composed of four parcels, encompassing approximately 101.77 acres, that lie within unincorporated Washington County. An associated annexation request (ANX-2021-000003) is under consideration to incorporate the subject property. In terms of the natural features of the site, the property is undeveloped with most of the tree canopy present near the West Fork White River which generally forms the east boundary of the subject property. The eastern extent of property is encumbered by the floodway and floodplain of the river. An unnamed protected tributary of the West Fork White River is present in the northeast quadrant of the property. Proposal: The applicant requests to rezone the property to a Residential Planned Zoning District (RPZD) with two planning areas, described as follows: Development Area A — 2.20 acres: This planning nature with allowances for the following Use Units: 0 1, City-wide Uses by Right 0 13, Eating Places 0 15, Neighborhood Shopping 0 25, Offices 0 26, Multi -Family area is intended to be commercial in Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 0 40, Sidewalk Cafes 0 46, Short Term Rental. Setbacks include a front build -to zone 10-25 feet interior to the front property line and no setbacks on the side or rear, except when adjacent to a single-family, in which case the setbacks will be 15-feet. The applicant proposes a maximum building height of three stories and a minimum lot width of 18 feet. Other zoning and development requirements defer to the standards established in the CS zoning district. Development Area B — 97.80 acres: This planning area is intended to be residential and parkland/greenspace in nature with allowances for the following Use Units: 0 1, City-wide Uses by Right 0 8, Single -Family 0 9, Two -Family 0 10, Three and Four Family 0 41, Accessory Dwellings 0 46, Short Term Rentals The applicant proposes a maximum of 250 residential lots and suggests the development will be a conservation -style subdivision formed to the natural features of the area. They propose approximately 17 acres of greenspace and an additional 33 acres of open space to be dedicated for a public park. Setbacks are a front build -to zone 0-25 feet interior to the front property line, five feet on the sides and rear, or 12-feet on the rear when measured from the centerline of an alley. The applicant proposes a maximum building height of two stories and 35 feet. Minimum lot widths and sizes are 40 feet and 4,000 square feet, respectively, which aligns with the NC, Neighborhood Conservation zoning district. Lots fronting greenspaces and trails will not have direct street frontage but instead 40 feet of width measured along the greenspace, allowing housing to face these areas. A density limitation is not proposed. Two areas are identified for a cluster housing development plan. The first area is located close to the stream that bisects the property and will include a small trail extension that provides a mid -block access to the north. A small parking lot will be provided for these homes and the homes will face towards a public street with a large green space in front of the homes. The second cluster area will be near the entrance to the park. These units will have a narrow, one- way parking lot that will be screened from the street with landscaping and a short fence. These units will all face towards a common green that will be shared space for the residents. A smaller trail will connect these units together and provide a connection back to the park entrance. Cluster housing will comply with Chapter 164.22 Cluster Housing Development. Land Use Compatibility: Staff finds that the proposal is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. The area is almost entirely undeveloped to the east, south and west of the subject property. Those areas reside in unincorporated Washington County. Though generally rural in nature, the proposal introduces a residential development near employment centers and a City park. North of the property, in incorporated City limits are facilities for Black Hills, Lift It Moving and Storage, and those formerly occupied by Superior Industries Inc. Combs Park also abuts the property to the north. Development Area A would add roughly 2.2 acres of commercial or mixed -use property to the area. The presence of nearby services helps create a walkable neighborhood in an area that might otherwise be entirely vehicle dependent. Alley -loaded residences which require front build -to -zones instead of setbacks contribute toward creating an urban, pedestrian -friendly feel. In terms of the natural features of the site, the proposed development is contextually sensitive to its environment. Development is proposed to be concentrated in a way that leaves the eastern third of the property, the area immediately south of Combs Park, undisturbed. Greenspace and tree preservation areas are intermittently dispersed throughout the development along a protected stream and two non -regulated streams near the north property line. Greenspaces are proposed to be activated with walking trails which would ultimately connect to a proposed extension of the White River West off-street trail. While the development is beyond the periphery of City limits, staff finds the proposal would create a complete and connected neighborhood in an area that might otherwise be typified by suburban sprawl. On the other hand, regional access to the further extents of the City would likely be limited to vehicular travel. The nearest school is Happy Hollow Elementary which is nearly three miles north of the proposed development. The nearest grocery store is further removed, with the Walmart Neighborhood Market at 660 W. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Land Use Plan Analysis: Staff finds that the request is mostly inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map designation for the area and the City's adopted land use policies. The majority of the site is called out as an Industrial Area which is reserved for uses that could be considered a nuisance and require separation from other uses. Small portions of the site, along the river to the east, are designated as Natural Areas. The proposed development does not meet the intent of the Industrial Area designation which can be used to recruit and encourage new industry to locate in Fayetteville. The future land use designation, though, suggests green technologies and other remedial techniques should be taken to minimize noise, air, and water pollution. Staff finds the RPZD to be a more suitable transition to an area with significant ecological value. The proposed development meets the intent of the Natural Area designation in that those areas are to remain undeveloped. While Fayetteville does not include an adopted definition or standards for a conservation subdivision, the proposed RPZD could be construed as an example of one. Conservation subdivisions are specifically called out by the Natural Area future land use designation as a preferred development type. When considering if the development meets the goals in City Plan 2040 staff finds the proposal to be mixed. The infill score for this site is very low, which counters stated Goal #1 in City Plan 2040 Goal which is to make infill development a priority. Conversely, proximate employment centers and recreational facilities contribute toward meeting Goal #3, making compact and connected development the standard. Staff also finds that the urban design considerations on the site, such as the use of build -to -zones rather than front setbacks, alley -loaded development, and the addition of mixed -use services would meet the intent of Goal #4 to grow a livable transportation network. The Master Street Plan, however, does classify S. Black Oak Road as a Neighborhood Link Street, which calls for a design service volume of 6000 vehicle trips per day, indicating that future development could be absorbed should the street be redeveloped to those standards. Finally, regarding Goal #6 and the Enduring Green Network, the proposal pays much heed to protecting some of the most sensitive portions of the property, particularly in continuing the corridor along the West Fork of the White River. On the balance of considerations, staff finds the proposed RPZD to be compatible and consistent with existing land uses and adopted land use plans. CITY PLAN 2040 INFILL MATRIX: City Plan 2040's Infill Matrix indicates a varying score for the subject property, ranging from 0-3. The elements vary by the area of the property being considered, and include the following: • Near Park (Combs Park) • Near Water Main (8-inch main east of S. Black Oak Road) • Appropriate Fire Response (Station #3, 1050 S. Happy Hollow Road) • Near Paved Trail (St. Paul Trail) DISCUSSION: At the October 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission elected to hear both the associated annexation and planned zoning district request in tandem. The annexation was forwarded but the planned zoning district was tabled by the Commission until the October 25, 2021 meeting to allow time to revise the packet to create a more compatible request. In the intervening weeks the applicant included additional residential lots, clarification on permitted uses in each development area, diversified residential by -right uses in Development Area B, two areas identified for cluster housing, and specifications on the proposed trail system. Two members of the public spoke at the October 11 th meeting. The first was a representative of the sellers of the property who supported the proposal and discussed the shortage of affordable homes in Fayetteville. The second, a neighbor, did not indicate whether they opposed or supported the development but urged the Commission to consider their responsibility to protect the safety, heath, and welfare of the area. At the October 25, 2021 Planning Commission meeting Commissioners voted to forward the item to City Council with a recommendation of approval with a vote of 5-2-0. Commissioner Canada made the motion and Commissioner Winston seconded. Commissioners Johnson and Garlock voted against the proposal. Commissioners in support of the item appreciated that the proposal would locate residences near a large employment center and deceptively close to downtown. Commissioners in favor characterized the proposed development as workforce housing and suggested it would improve attainable housing in the Fayetteville. Commissioners opposed to the item cited concerns with sprawl, the remoteness of the area, environmental sensitives, and opportunity to further concentrate residential density among the reasons for their opposition. Commissioner Johnson felt the inclusion of Use Unit 26, Multi -family Dwellings in Development Area B was inappropriate as well. 0 BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A Attachments: Exhibit A Exhibit B Planning Commission Staff Report with RPZD Booklet PZD-2021-000004 Close Up View 1-2 e4gCk 0 _.. Neighborhood Link Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District — ` Planning Area •-- L — I Fayetteville City Limits Trail (Proposed) Riverside Village Subject Property Feet 0 220 440 880 1,320 1 inch = 600 feet RSF-4 i � r , NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 1-2 General Industrial 1,760 P-1 PART OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 AND PART OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26 AND PART OF THE W 1/2 OF THE SW OF SECTION 25 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE 1318.68 FEET EAST; THENCE 1164.14 FEET NORTH TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING AN IRON PIN IN THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD #57, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD 93-63230; THENCE WITH SAID COUNTY ROAD #57, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD 93-63202 AND DEED RECORD 93-63230 THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: THENCE N42°03'46"W 124.60 FEET; THENCE N42°05'32"W 1129.42 FEET TO AN IRON PIN IN THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD #57; THENCE N42°20'42"W 370.42 FEET; THENCE N62°29'47"W 203.96 FEET TO THE CENTER OF COUNTY ROAD #57; THENCE LEAVING SAID COUNTY ROAD #57 N84°22'16"E 3345.86 FEET; THENCE S35°11'30"E 711.40 FEET; THENCE N89°36'30"W 325.72 FEET; THENCE S00°02'30"E 234.00 FEET; THENCE S00°02'30"E 903.16 FEET; THENCE N87°36'30"W 1631.00 FEET; THENCE N07°55'50"E 292.33 FEET; THENCE S64°12'15"W 616.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 96.76 ACRES, MORE OR LESS AND SUBJECT TO SOUTH BLACK OAK ROAD / COUNTY 57 ALONG THE WEST AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR FACT. TO: THRU: FROM CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS Fayetteville Planning Commission Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director Ryan Umberger, Senior Planner MEETING: October 25, 2021 SUBJECT: RPZD-2021-000004: Residential Planned Zoning District (SOUTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK RD./RIVERSIDE VILLAGE, 682/683): Submitted by RAUSCH COLEMAN HOMES, INC. for properties located SOUTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK RD. The properties are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contain approximately 101.77 acres. The request is to rezone the properties, once annexed, from R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL to RPZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding PZD-2021-000004 to City Council with a recommendation of approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward PZD-2021-000004 to City Council with a recommendation of approval, with conditions as outlined by staff." October 11, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: On October 11th, the item was tabled by the Planning Commission until the meeting scheduled for October 25th. Commissioners requested that the applicant revise the PZD packet to create a more compatible request. In the intervening weeks the applicant revised the document to include: • Additional residential lots; • Clarification on permitted uses in each development area; • Diversified residential by -right uses in Development Area B; • Two area identified for cluster housing; and • Trail specifications BACKGROUND: The subject property is in south Fayetteville off S. Black Oak Road, immediately south of Combs Park. The subject property is composed of four parcels, encompassing approximately 101.77 acres, that lie within unincorporated Washington County. An associated annexation request (ANX-2021-000003) is under consideration to incorporate the subject property. In terms of the natural features of the site, the property is undeveloped with most of the tree canopy present near the West Fork White River which generally forms the east boundary of the subject property. The eastern extent of property is encumbered by the floodway and floodplain of the river. An unnamed protected tributary of the West Fork White River is present in the northeast quadrant of the property. Surrounding land uses and zoning is depicted in Table 1. Table 1: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction Land Use Zoning North Superior Industries Combs Park 1-2, General Industrial P-1, Institutional South Undeveloped Washington County East Undeveloped Washington County West Undeveloped Washington County Proposal. The applicant requests to rezone the property to a Residential Planned Zoning District with two planning areas, described as follows: Development Area A — 2.20 acres: This planning area is intended to be commercial in nature with allowances for the following Use Units: o 1, City-wide Uses by Right o 13, Eating Places o 15, Neighborhood Shopping o 25, Offices o 26, Multi -Family o 40, Sidewalk Cafes o 46, Short Term Rental. Setbacks include a front build -to zone 10-25 feet interior to the front property line and no setbacks on the side or rear, except when adjacent to a single-family, in which case the setbacks will be 15-feet. The applicant proposes a maximum building height of three stories and a minimum lot width of 18 feet. Other zoning and development requirements defer to the standards established in the CS zoning district. Development Area B — 97.80 acres: This planning area is intended to be residential and parkland/greenspace in nature with allowances for the following Use Units: o 1, City-wide Uses by Right o 8, Single -Family o 9, Two -Family o 10, Three and Four Family o 41, Accessory Dwellings o 46, Short Term Rentals The applicant proposes a maximum of 250 residential lots and suggests the development will be a conservation -style subdivision formed to the natural features of the area. They propose approximately 17 acres of greenspace and an additional 33 acres of open space to be dedicated for a public park. Setbacks are a front build -to zone 0-25 feet interior to the front property line, five feet on the sides and rear, or 12-feet on the rear when measured from the centerline of an alley. The applicant proposes a maximum building height of two stories and 35 feet. Minimum lot widths and sizes are 40 feet and 4,000 square feet, respectively, which aligns with the NC, Neighborhood Conservation zoning district. Lots fronting greenspaces and trails will not have direct street frontage but instead 40 feet of width measured along the greenspace, allowing housing to face these areas. A density limitation is not proposed. Two areas are identified for a cluster housing development plan. The first area is located close to the stream that bisects the property and will include a small trail extension that provides a mid -block access to the north. A small parking lot will be provided for these homes and the homes will face towards a public street with a large green space in front of the homes. The second cluster area will be near the entrance to the park. These units will have a narrow, one- way parking lot that will be screened from the street with landscaping and a short fence. These units will all face towards a common green that will be shared space for the residents. A smaller trail will connect these units together and provide a connection back to the park entrance. Cluster housing will comply with Chapter 164.22 Cluster Housing Development. Public Comment: Two members of the public spoke at the October 11t" Planning Commission meeting. The first was a representative of the sellers of the property who supported the proposal and discussed the shortage of affordable homes in Fayetteville. The second, a neighbor, did not indicate whether they opposed or supported the development but urged the Commission to consider their responsibility to protect the safety, heath, and welfare of the area. They indicated concerns with traffic, the presence of nearby floodplain, wildlife, and air quality and noise associated with the adjoining industrial park. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: The subject property has approximately 1,830 feet of frontage along the east side of S. Black Oak Road. This road is paved and approximately 23 feet wide, but is otherwise unimproved, and consists of open ditches on either side. Any street improvements required in these areas would be determined at the time of development proposal. It should be anticipated that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be required at the time of development proposal. This TIS should identify impacts to nearby streets due to increased traffic. Water: Public water is available to the subject property. An 8-inch diameter water main is located along the east side of S. Black Oak Road near the property's frontage. Sewer: Sanitary sewer is not available to the subject property. A main extension would be required with a future development. The nearest sanitary sewer main is approximately 1/4 of a mile to the northwest, at the intersection of S. Black Oak Road and E. Borick Drive. Drainage: A portion of the subject area lies within a FEMA floodplain, has hydric soils, and a protected stream is present in the area. No portion of the property is located within the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District. The portion of the subject area within the FEMA floodplain will necessitate the need for a floodplain development review at the time of permit or plan submittal. This will restrict the type of development and impact allowed in flood zones; and may require additional documentation such as flood studies or elevation certificates depending on the type of development. If a development impacts a floodplain, those impacts may require review and approval from FEMA. floodplain is present throughout the entirety of the subject property. Hydric soils are also present on the subject property. They are a known indicator of wetlands. However, for an area to be classified as wetlands, it may also need other characteristics such as hydrophytes (plants that grow in water), and shallow water during parts of the year. Hydric Soils can be found across many areas of Fayetteville, including valleys, floodplains, and open prairies. It is important to identify these natural resources during development, so when these soils are identified on a property, further environmental studies will be required at the time of development. Before permits will be issued for the property a statement/report from an environmental professional must be provided summarizing the existence of wetlands on the property. If this state ment/report indicates that wetlands may be present on site, a USACE Determination of Jurisdictional Wetlands will be required at the time of development submittal. Hydric soils are present throughout the entirety of the subject property. A protected stream is present in the subject area. Streamside Protection Zones generally consist of a protected area on each side of a stream or creek. This protected area is meant to preserve woody vegetation and natural areas along stream corridors to improve/protect stream health. At a minimum, the protected area will be 50 feet wide as measured from the top of bank but, depending on the shape and extent of the floodway, it could be substantially more. Certain construction activities such as trails and some utilities are allowed in these zones, but in general, improvements such as parking lots or buildings are prohibited. The streamside protection area is present on the east side of the subject property. Any additional improvements or requirements for drainage will be determined at time of development. Fire: Fire apparatus access and fire protection water supplies will be reviewed for compliance with the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code at the time of development. The primary fire and EMS response for this area is covered by the Round Mountain Fire Department (RMFD). RMFD is located approximately 7.6 miles away. The property is also covered by the Fayetteville Fire Department under an automatic aid agreement with RMFD. Per the agreement, if there is a reported structure fire in this area, RMFD is dispatched as well as the Fayetteville Fire Department. The Fayetteville Fire Department will respond with two fire companies and one command unit. This is a reduction of fire companies that are dispatched within the city limits of Fayetteville where five fire companies and one command unit are on the initial dispatch of a reported structure fire. EMS calls, service calls or other emergency calls types in this area will only get the response of RMFD. Police: The Police Department did not comment on this request. CITY PLAN 2040 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2040's Future Land Use Map designates the properties within the proposed rezone as Industrial and Natural Areas. Industrial Areas are those areas where buildings by their intrinsic functions, disposition or configuration, cannot conform to one of the other designated areas and/or its' production process requires the area to be separated from other uses. Natural Areas consist of lands approximating or reverting to a wilderness conditions, including those with limited development potential due to topography, hydrology, vegetation or value as an environmental resource. These resources can include stream and wildlife corridors, as well as natural hubs and cores, many of which are identified in the generalized enduring green network. A Natural Area designation would encourage a development pattern that requires conservation and preservation, prevents degradation of these areas, and would utilize the principles of low impact development stormwater infrastructure for all developments. Natural Areas are prime candidates for conservation subdivision design and/or clustered development patterns. CITY PLAN 2040 INFILL MATRIX: City Plan 2040's Infill Matrix indicates a varying score for the subject property, ranging from 0-3. The high score translates to a weighted score of 5 at the highest level. The elements vary by the area of the property being considered, and include the following: • Near Park (Combs Park) • Near Water Main (8-inch main east of S. Black Oak Road) • Appropriate Fire Response (Station #3, 1050 S. Happy Hollow Road) • Near Paved Trail (St. Paul Trail) FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: Land Use Compatibility: Staff finds that the proposal is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. The area is almost entirely undeveloped to the east, south and west of the subject property. Those areas reside in unincorporated Washington County. Though generally rural in nature, the proposal introduces a residential development near employment centers and a City park. North of the property, in incorporated City limits are facilities for Black Hills, Lift It Moving and Storage, and those formerly occupied by Superior Industries Inc. Combs Park also abuts the property to the north. Development Area A would add roughly 2.2 acres of commercial or mixed - use property to the area. The presence of nearby services helps create a walkable neighborhood in an area that might otherwise be entirely vehicle dependent. Alley -loaded residences which require front build -to -zones instead of setbacks contribute toward creating an urban, pedestrian -friendly feel. In terms of the natural features of the site, the proposed development is contextually sensitive to its environment. Development is proposed to be concentrated in a way that leaves the eastern third of the property, the area immediately south of Combs Park, undisturbed. Greenspace and tree preservation areas are intermittently dispersed throughout the development along a protected stream and two non -regulated streams near the north property line. Greenspaces are proposed to be activated with walking trails which would ultimately connect to a proposed extension of the White River West off-street trail. While the development is beyond the periphery of City limits, staff finds the proposal would create a complete and connected neighborhood in an area that might otherwise be typified by suburban sprawl. On the other hand, regional access to the further extents of the City would likely be limited to vehicular travel. The nearest school is Happy Hollow Elementary which is nearly three miles north of the proposed development. The nearest grocery store is further removed, with the Walmart Neighborhood Market at 660 W. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Land Use Plan Analysis: Staff finds that the request is mostly inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map designation for the area and the City's adopted land use policies. The majority of the site is called out as an Industrial Area which is reserved for uses that could be considered a nuisance and require separation from other uses. Small portions of the site, along the river to the east, are designated as Natural Areas. The proposed development does not meet the intent of the Industrial Area designation which can be used to recruit and encourage new industry to locate in Fayetteville. The future land use designation, though, suggests green technologies and other remedial techniques should be taken to minimize noise, air, and water pollution. Staff finds the PZD to be a more suitable transition to an area with significant ecological value. The proposed development meets the intent of the Natural Area designation in that those areas are to remain undeveloped. The proposed PZD could be construed as a conservation subdivision which is specifically called out by the future land use designation. When considering if the development meets the goals in City Plan 2040 staff finds the proposal to be mixed. The infill score for this site is very low, which counters stated Goal #1 in City Plan 2040 Goal which is to make infill development a priority. Conversely, proximate employment centers and recreational facilities contribute toward meeting Goal #3, making compact and connected development the standard. Staff also finds that the urban design considerations on the site, such as the use of build -to -zones rather than front setbacks, alley -loaded development, and the addition of mixed -use services would meet the intent of Goal #4 to grow a livable transportation network. The Master Street Plan, however, does classify S. Black Oak Road as a Neighborhood Link Street, which calls for a design service volume of 6000 vehicle trips per day, indicating that future development could be absorbed should the street be redeveloped to those standards. Finally, regarding Goal #6 and the Enduring Green Network, the proposal pays much heed to protecting some of the most sensitive portions of the property, particularly in continuing the corridor along the West Fork of the White River. On the balance of considerations, staff finds the proposed PZD to be compatible and consistent with existing land uses and adopted land use plans. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed zoning is not necessarily justified at this time. That said, residential density with the addition of non-residential uses in this area, added open space, and potential connection to a multi -use trail shows that this proposed development is contextually sensitive to the surroundings and future of the area. On a larger scale, and to the applicant's point, the case could be made that the proposal is justified through a larger need for housing. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed PZD will increase traffic, and possibly to a significant degree. With the addition of potentially 250 homes staff finds this may negatively contribute to the free flow of vehicle traffic on S. Black Oak Road, with residents having no viable alternative transportation option to access the broader region. That said, with the potential for nearby walkable services in the area, staff finds that the concern is somewhat alleviated. The proposal also provides an opportunity to construct a portion of the planned White River West multi -use trail. Since the only nearby trail connections are planned, though, the improvements would do little to provide multi -modal connectivity to the wider region in the short term. Given the proposed unit count the applicant will be required to submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) with any proposed preliminary plat, should the rezoning at this site be approved. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: Rezoning the property from its current zoning designation will significantly alter the potential population density in the area. Initial Engineering Division review indicates that utility extensions or upgrades are likely required, especially with regards to sanitary sewer service to the site, which would require a main extension. No comments were received from the Fayetteville Public School district. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A Sec. 161.35. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD) (B) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage comprehensively planned zoning and developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned development and to permit the concurrent processing of zoning and development. The City Council may consider any of the following factors in review of a Planned Zoning District application. (1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. (2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the community. (4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities. (5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the area; (6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas. (7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations. (8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural features and amenities. (9) Future Land Use Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the Future Land Use Plan. (10)Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic location, topography, size or shape. (11)Recognized zoning consideration. Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD. Findings: As outlined in previous findings, staff finds that the proposal is generally in line with the factors that may be considered with a Planned Zoning District. The proposed PZD is particularly well suited to meet the flexibility, harmony, open space, and natural feature tenets of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding PZD-2021-000004 to City Council, with a recommendation of approval, with conditions as outlined below. Conditions of Approval: 1. Revise the PZD booklet and plans to reflect the following: a. Identify the appropriate Use Units in the "Permitted Uses" row for each planning area; b. Revise the booklet to include Use Unit 46, Short Term Rentals as a permitted use in both Development Areas. 2. The conceptual site plan for the property shall be revised in accordance with Parks and Recreation staff comments, including: a. Setbacks in Development Area A shall be revised to match the CS standard, including no side or rear setbacks except in instances where a property abuts a residential district. In such cases side and rear setbacks are 15 feet; b. Setbacks and building height maximums in Development Area B are revised to match the NC standard, including five-foot side and rear setbacks or 12-foot rear setbacks from the centerline of an alley when applicable; c. Provide space to install a park sign on S. Black Oak Road; d. Include a 40-foot buffer from house property lines to the dedicated park area; e. Park access is provided on a typical Residential Link Street road section; f. Access to the park must be large enough to host a trailhead and parking for at least five vehicles. 3. Any proposed lots without frontage shall provide adequate access for water, sewer, and emergency services; 4. Proposed streets shall meet minimum 2040 Master Street Plan requirements for Residential Link Streets and alleys; additional variances will be needed for alternative street sections; 5. Proposed fire apparatus access roads shall meet requirements as stated by all applicable fire codes; 6. Traffic Impact Study (TIS) shall be provided at the time of development proposal; 7. A statement from an environmental professional regarding the presence of wetlands must be provided at the time of development proposal. Planning Commission Action: O Forwarded O Tabled O Denied Meeting Date: October 25, 2021 Motion: Second: Vote: BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • Applicant Request Letter • PZD Booklet • One Mile Map • Close Up Map • Current Land Use Map • Future Land Use Map August 26, 2021 Jessie Masters City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Armstrong Road Annexation and Planned Zoning District — Riverside Village Please accept this letter as a request to annex four parcels, containing approximately 101.77 acres, into the Fayetteville City limits. Additionally, we are requesting rezoning of the subject property to Planned Zoning District. The subject properties are located on Black Oak Road, are currently undeveloped, and historically been used as hay fields. The West Fork of the White River is located along the east boundary of the properties. Even though the property is outside of the city limits, the property is in a very convenient location. Downtown and the University Campus are only 3 miles away and Happy Hollow Elementary is about 2.5 miles away. Additionally, there are multiple parks in the area, including Walker Park, Combs Park, and White River Park, as well as Saint Paul Trail, which is planned to be connected to the Razorback Greenway and Town Branch Trail by 2026. Fire Station #3 is located less than 2 miles from the property. Utilities are also present. There is an existing 8-inch water line adjacent to the site and an 8-inch sewer line, just north of the property. There is an existing utility easement in place that can used to make the sewer connection. Upgrades to these utility lines are not expected. The property itself has many unique properties, including the White River and associated floodplain, forest, fields, and a small creek that bisects the property. The associated site plan, which is being submitted as a Planned Zoning District, has been laid out to account for these important environmental features. Also, included with this submittal is a delineation study of Waters of the United States. Consistent with the principles of a conservation subdivision, Riverside Village has been designed to: preserve native vegetation and tree canopy, protect, and preserve unique environmental resources, conserve open space, protect areas of significant riparian benefit and encourage recreation and exploration of environmental resources. River frontage is a great amenity for this property and future residents, but the layout was formed around a much smaller feature. Bisecting the property, is a small intermittent stream that is flanked on either side by a variety of trees and shrubs, including red cedar, sassafras, oaks, and blackberries. On either side of the tree line, a walking trail will be constructed, establishing the western portion of the trail system. This trail system will also serve as access to the front doors for many of the homes. Along the north property, there are two more intermittent streams that run through the trees. The entire north property line is being preserved to protect these streams and provide a natural buffer from the nonresidential land uses north of this site. Along Armstrong Road, a wide greenspace will remain in place to serve as a buffer from the street and to provide open space for the rear -loaded homes at the entrance. One unique aspect of this project is the various parking locations scattered throughout the project. There are approximately 57 lots that do not have direct street frontage, for on -street parking. Rather, these lots are alley -loaded and face onto common greens, pathways, or forest preserves. The parking pods are offered in strategic locations to provide guest parking for these residences. Additionally, a cottage development of approximately 11 units is being proposed. These units will be situated around a common green space and will have a trail system that connects to the larger, neighborhood trail system. These units will be subject to the cottage development ordinance. The goal of this development is to have a variety of housing styles and sizes and a wide range of price points that are appealing and affordable to a range of families. Additionally, the development will provide many options for outdoor recreation, including a series of connected trails, access to woods, fields, and the West Fork of the White River. According to the City's trail construction schedule, the St. Paul Trail will be built out and connected to the Razorback Greenway by 2026. The planned trail connection is just north of this property and provides an excellent opportunity to connect this community to the broader community. This project complies with most of the goals of City Plan 2040.The design is based on common principles of a conservation subdivision, by preserving open space, forests, and other natural resources. The project is surrounded on three sides by greenspace. The location of the subject property, while outside of the City limits, is very close to downtown Fayetteville and thousands of jobs. Pedestrian improvements within the subdivision and upcoming trail improvements from the City of Fayetteville Trails Department, will make this area extremely walkable and within close proximity to jobs and parks. The project is very connected and compact, while also respecting many of the natural features of the property. Housing is a mixture of front and rear loaded homes, to respond to a wide variety of market needs. House sizes will vary in size from 1,100 square feet to 2,400 square feet, providing a range of house sizes and prices. Every home will have convenient access to trails, park land and open space. Future commercial uses have also been contemplated. The area at the northwest corner of the property is being reserved for future commercial use. It's doubtful that a commercial business is viable in this location today. However, in several years when the project is fully developed and tied into the trail system, a combination of homeowners and employees in the area could prompt the need for services in the area. Walking and future trail access is very important component of this development plan. Approximately, 4,500' of walking trails are proposed for this development. We are also working with the Trails Coordinator to ensure a connection to the trail system when the St. Paul Trail is completed. Interior streets will have on -street parking, street trees and sidewalks, creating a welcome environment for pedestrians. Greenspace, tree preservation and outdoor recreation are at the heart of the Riverside Village concept. Homes are surrounded by open space and trees. Tree preservation will also far exceed minimum requirements. Trails are provided throughout the project, so that every resident can walk, run, or ride a bike and enjoy the outdoors. Access to the river is also being provided, so that residents can fish, or kayak. Regarding annexation policies, the subject property is adjacent to the city limits; the areas to be annexed include entire parcels and do not exclude any property; the boundaries follow the property lines; the properties do contain sensitive environmental areas and should therefore be annexed to protect these areas during development; public services are available to serve the property; utilizes are at are adjacent to the property; and upgrades to these utilities are not expected. The fact is, Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas as a region need more housing. Specifically, housing that is priced for modest wage earners. According to Our Housing Future: A Call to Action for Northwest Arkansas, which was prepared by the Walton Family Foundation, there are nearly 80,000 families projected to move to Northwest Arkansas' four largest cities by 2040. Approximately half of the new homes that will be needed must serve workforce households earning $33,000-$78,000. The City of Fayetteville can impact certain housing, particularly by financially supporting institutions and non -profits. However, none of the cities in the region can meet the overwhelming demand for new housing, particular at an affordable price point. This must be addressed by the private sector. This development provides an opportunity to provide new housing, in a location that is convenient to jobs, downtown, the trail system, and will provide outdoor recreational opportunities for residents. Sincerely, C)- JA _ Jesse Fulcher Planned Zoning District Riverside Village Ownership: Pamela Skipper Walter Skipper Pamela Skipper Joint Revocable Trust Jacki Mohney Representative: Jesse Fulcher 4058 N. College Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72703 Table of Contents PropertyDescription..................................................................................................................................................3 Scopeand Concept.....................................................................................................................................................4 DevelopmentStandards.............................................................................................................................................5 DevelopmentArea"A"...............................................................................................................................................5 DevelopmentArea"B.................................................................................................................................................6 Platting......................................................................................................................................................................7 Landscapeand Screening...........................................................................................................................................7 ComprehensiveLand Use...........................................................................................................................................8 Gradingand Utility.....................................................................................................................................................8 CityDepartment Requirements ..................................................................................................................................8 Streets.......................................................................................................................................................................8 RestrictiveCovenants.................................................................................................................................................8 Signs..........................................................................................................................................................................8 Phasing......................................................................................................................................................................8 ConceptPhasing Plan.................................................................................................................................................9 UtilityPlan...............................................................................................................................................................10 ZoningMap.............................................................................................................................................................11 MajorStreet and Highway Plan ................................................................................................................................12 FloodplainMap........................................................................................................................................................13 Elevations...........................................................................................................................................................14-15 Planned Zoning District 2 of 12 Property Description LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel Nos. 001-11264-001 and 001-11264-000 Apart of the SE 114 of the SW 114, a part of the NE 114 of the SW 114, apart of the NW 114 of the SE 1/4, a part of the SW 114 of the SE 114, a part of the NE 114 of the SE 114 and a part of the SE 114 of the SE 1/4 of Section 26 and a part of the NW 114 of the SW 114 and part of the SW 114 of the SW 114 of Section 25 all in Township 16 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas and more particularly described as beginning at an iron pin in County Road # 57 that is 1318.68 feet East and 1164.14 feet North ofthe SW corner ofthe SE 114 ofthe S W 1/4 of said Section 26; thence S 87"45'20" E, 2486.0 feet; thence N 00,102130" W, 234.0 feet; thence S 84°36'30" E, 325.72 feet to the center of West Fork of White River; thence down said River N 35 °11'30" W, 711.4 feet; thence leaving said river, S 84*2T 16" W, 3345.86 feet to the center of County Road # 57; thence with said road, S 62-2447" E, 203.46 feet; thence S 42°20'42" E 370.42 feet to the point of beginning and containing 50.57 acres more or less and subject to the right-of-way of County Road #57 and any easements of record. Parcel Nos. 001-11269002-001 and 001-11264-001 A part of the SW 114 of the SE 114 and a part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 114 of Section 26 and a part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 25 all in Township 16 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas and more particularly described as beginning at an iron pin in the center of County Road #57 that is 2159.24 feet East and 233.53 feet North of the SE 1/4 of the SW 114 of said Section 26; thence N-64°-12'-15"-E, 616.0 feet; thence S-70-55'-50"-W5 242.33 feet; thence S-87°- 36'-30"-E, 1631.0 feet; thence N-00-02'-30"-W, 403.16 feet; thence N-87°-45'-20"-W, 2486.0 feet to the center of County Road #57; thence along said road, S-420-05'-32"-E5 1124.42 feet; thence S- 42°-03'-46"-E,124.6 feet to the point of beginning and containing 51.2 acres more or less and subject to the right of way of County Road #57 and any easements of record. Planned Zoning District 3 of 12 Scope & Concept Riverside Village will be a conservation -style subdivision, located along the West Fork of the White River. The unique environmental features of the site formed the layout of the lots and streets. These include a Corp regulated stream that bisects the site, two non -regulated streams along the north property line, dense vegetation along the river and the floodplain of the river. The project consists of approximately 244 single-family lots, as well as a future commercial/office lot at the north entrance. Homes along Black Oak Road will be set back from the road, providing a large greenspace area that provides privacy for the homes, as well as an area for outdoor recreation. Other homes will face onto tree preservation areas and will be provided with front -door access to the walking trails. Two areas within the site will be developed with cluster housing with shared parking. Greenspace and outdoor recreation are the defining elements of this development plan. There will be approximately 17 acres of greenspace within the residential portion of the project and another 33 acres of open space that will be dedicated for a public park. In total, half of the entire property will be retained as greenspace and natural area. In addition to these valuable assets, residents will have access to several thousand feet of walking trails, including trail access to the banks of the river. While this property is located south of Commerce Park, the area is very quiet, with several existing homes on the west side of Black Oak Road. The project has been designed with large vegetative buffers along Black Oak Road, to provide privacy for the homes facing Black Oak, and to provide a buffer from properties on the west side of the road. A very large buffer has also been provided on the north side of the project, to separate it from existing, non-residential land uses. The Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as an Industrial Area, so the proposed, mixed -use project is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map. However, adding additional industrial uses across from several existing homes is not consistent or compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Nor is an industrial use of the property appropriate given the existing environmental resources. Further, there are multiple, undeveloped, industrial parcels within Commerce Park that have been vacate for decades. The fact is, Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas as a region need more housing. Specifically, housing that is priced for modest wage earners. According to Our Housing Future: A Call to Action for Northwest Arkansas, which was prepared by the Walton Family Foundation, there are nearly 80,000 families projected to move to Northwest Arkansas' four largest cities by 2040. Approximately half of the new homes that will be needed must serve workforce households earning $33,000-$78,000. The City of Fayetteville can impact certain housing, particularly by financially supporting institutions and non -profits. However, none of the cities in the region can meet the overwhelming demand for new housing, particular at an affordable price point. This must be addressed by the private sector. This development provides an opportunity to provide new housing, in a location that is convenient to jobs, downtown, the trail system, and will provide outdoor recreational opportunities for residents. Planned Zoning District 4 of 12 Development Standards This PUD shall be governed by the use and development regulations of the Fayetteville Zoning Code expect as provided as follows: Development Area A (Commercial) *All interior lots shall be provided access to a public street by access easement approved by the City of Fayetteville during development or platting review. Gross Land Area 2.86 Acres Use Units: 1, City-wide Uses by Right; 13, Eating Permitted Uses Places; 15, Neighborhood Shopping; 25, Offices; 26, Multi -Family; 40, Sidewalk Cafes; 46, Short Term Rentals Maximum Building Heights No to exceed 3 stories Minimum Lot Width 18 Feet Front Setback 10-25 Foot Build to Zone Rear Setback None, except 15 Feet when adjacent to a single-family zoning district. Side Setback None, except 15 Feet when adjacent to a single-family zoning district. Minimum Landscaping Per Unified Development Code for CS District Minimum & Maximum Parking Ratio As per applicable use unit Other Bulk and Area Requirements As required within the CS District Planned Zoning District 5 of 12 Development Area B (Residential) Gross Land Area 60.42 Acres Permitted Uses Use Units: 1, City-wide Uses by Right; 8, Single -Family; 9, Two -Family; 10, Three and Four Family; 41, Accessory Dwellings; 46, Short Term Rentals Maximum Number of Lots 250 Minimum Lot Width 40 Feet *Lots that front open space will be at least 40 Feet wide, but without direct frontage on a street. Minimum Lot Size 4,000 Square Feet Maximum Building Height 2 Stories and 35 Feet Off -Street Parking and Front Yard Coverage Minimum of 2 parking enclosed off-street spaces require per dwelling unit. Front Setback 0-25 Foot Build to Zone Rear Setback 5 Feet Rear Setback, From Centerline of an Alley 12 Feet Side Setback 5 Feet Existing County Zoning (Residential) Gross Land Area 101 Acres Permitted Uses Use Units: ;46, Short Term Rentals Maximum Number of Lots 439 Minimum Lot Width 75 Feet Minimum Lot Size 10,000 Square Feet Maximum Building Height 2 Stories and 35 Feet Off -Street Parking and Front Yard Coverage Minimum of 2 parking enclosed off-street spaces require per dwelling unit. Front Setback 25 Feet Rear Setback 20 Feet Side Setback 10 Feet Planned Zoning District 6 of 12 Purpose The purpose of using the Planned Zoning District ordinance, is to allow flexibility in the application of zoning standards, so that this property can be developed based on the unique site conditions instead of the constraints of a basic zoning district. As described throughout this application, the subdivision has been laid out to account for the major environmental features, so that hardscapes are in harmony with the softscapes. The development provides a variety of housing types, provides for future nonresidential uses, and multi -family uses, and places homes in walking distance of major employers. The layout also preserves approximately 35 acres of property along the West Fork of the White River. This will include an approximately 5-acre public park and an additional 30 acres of park property that will be dedicated to the City. We are also actively working with the Trails Department to connect the development to the extension of the Saint Paul Trail. Working together with staff, we will be able to preserve large areas of open space and natural features that will be beneficial to both the homes owners and the public. Architectural Standards Development in Planning Area A will comply with the design standards in Chapter 166.23 Urban Residential Design Standards, or Chapter 166.24 Nonresidential Design Standards. Lots with less than 50 feet of street frontage in Planning Area B shall comply with Chapter 164.23 Small Lot Design Standards. Cluster Housing Two areas will be devoted to a cluster housing development plan. The first area is located close to the stream that bisects the property and will include a small trail extension that provides a mid -block access to the north. A small parking lot will be provided for these homes and the homes will face towards a public street with a large green space in front of the homes. The second cluster area will be near the entrance to the park. These units will have a narrow, one - Planned Zoning District 7 of 12 way parking lot that will be screened from the street with landscaping and a short fence. These units will all face towards a common green that will be shared space for the residents. A smaller trail will connect these units together and provide a connection back to the park entrance. Cluster housing will comply with Chapter 164.22 Cluster Housing Development. Parks The Parks Department has indicated that they have plans for improving Combs Park, which will be directly north of the 35 acres of park land that we will dedicate to the city. The park will be mainly a nature park, since it's running along the White River. Long term plans include a hard surface trail following the river. Additionally, there will be nature trails along the river. The open space on the east side of Riverside Village will provide the Parks Department with an opportunity to provide a variety of recreational uses, based on input from the public. Trails Trails will be an important focus within this development. For the units that face out onto common property, these trails will be the pedestrian access to the front of the homes. Further, the trail system will provide a pedestrian linkage between every resident and the planned park. Two additional mid -block trail sections will be constructed to offer more walking -route options. All trails will be 8-10 feet wide and constructed with either asphalt or concrete. Landscaping and Screening A landscape plan shall be submitted to the City during the preliminary plat The plans will be designed to enhance the appearance of both the development and the Black Oak roadway frontage. Development Area "A": The commercial property shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 177 of the Unified Development Code. Development Area "B": The residential property shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 177 of the Unified Development Code. Tree preservation and removal shall be governed by the standards of Chapter 167 of the Unified Development Code. Planned Zoning District 8 of 12 Grading and Utility Plans Site grading and utility plans shall be submitted for review during the design phase of the development. All utilities are available to serve this development, including water and sewer. Drainage plans shall be prepared in accordance with City engineering requirements. City Department Requirements Unless specified otherwise within the PUD document, the development of this property shall be in compliance with other local, state and federal requirements, including those of the Fire Department and City Engineer. Streets Streets shall be constructed in accordance with City regulations. Parking Two car garages will be provided with each dwelling unit except for the cottage units, which will have parking areas to serve each of the units. Due to the unique design, with many homes fronting common property instead of public streets, parking pods have been provided throughout the site to allow for guest parking when needed. This will be in addition to on -street parking that will be allowed. Restrictive Covenants Restrictive covenants shall be adopted and recorded for the PUD with the subdivision plat. The maintenance of all common areas, including parks and entrances shall be the responsibility of the Homes Owners Association, or by the Fayetteville Parks Department, depending on final ownership. Signage Commercial signs shall be permitted in accordance with the standards of R-O, Residential Office regulations. Residential subdivision entrance signs shall be permitted along Black Oak Road, in accordance with the sign regulations for RSF regulations. Phasing Development will commence upon approval of the PUD, preliminary plat and construction plans, in accordance with City regulations. The development of each phase is subject to changes in market conditions, but will generally follow the schedule outlined below: Phase 1: 2022 Phase 2: 2023 Phase 3: 2024 Phase 4: 2025 Development of the residential areas should occur in 3-5 phase. The commercial area will likely be developed during one the above phasing schedules. However, market conditions could expedite development or result in the commercial area being developed at a later date. Planned Zoning District 9 of 12 Trails M a p ■ 1 | --., t Markhanrl •� ■ / I / 42 . �aaLa Glmr a � fAn OrQ,, T ,2 R � - @ _ | . ■ | .. ■ | ��$ f - ■.*- + ■ . -' - ■ OP ■ -\buoie2 ureeK |ral| j7 Alignment Sdy Area f....,.. � . . � ■ | 2 . - - .- - WYMA LU oil (D . | � - � & 2 \ � � \ - , _ ■_- ■ \ ■ L ■ / Planned Zoning District 10 of 12 Ozark Regional Transit Route Map 40)-Q, H J p E FAIRLAN tA f T J 19TH ST r� Uj N c rz 15TH ST LU m Pump s�ror 4TO E 5TH ST w E LEE ST LLJ d CA Industrial Park Deviation Route 20 wil I deviate to the Industrial Park area from the intersection of Cur-tis Ave and Armstrong Ave on demand LU U only. L Please notify your driver of your desti- nation or call 479-725-0490 for pickup. d� KAiRCHER � N BORICK 0 m a 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 11 i I I 1 I i I Planned Zoning District 11 of 12 Planned Zoning District 12 of 12 Riverside Village S22 S 73 S 4 T 1 T41r T 16 t R 30 R 3 0 R 0 r _ � i re i R-A b ......... ..I I ..... --- --- •---• - -- -.-------- - • ------ - •� } ..- - a' P-1 RSF-a p, + S 7 _ T -1 - 25 R 30 # — — — — T -1 I R 30, -{ - i ----- • i . ? I T 104 S 35 S 36 T16 T 16 I -- R 30 I 'City of Fayetteville, AK 9/16/2021, 12:05:23 PM 1:18,056 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 mi Township PLSS Line Quarter Quarter Section 11 1. I I, , , I , I I Section — Section 0 025�tl•�0.51 km - n.affi �Yd �— iw- d-1111e J.- Quarter Section —Itla hZ PLANNING AREA 1- COMMERCIAL/OFFICE AREA: PERMITTED USES: AS PER THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ZONING DISTRICT ACREAGE. 2.86 AC DWELLING UNITS: NO LIMITATION NONRESIDENTIAL:15,000 SO FT. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH:30 FT. LOT AREA MINIMUM: 4,000 SO FT. LAND AREA PER UNIT: 4,000 SO FT. FRONT SETBACK: 10-25 BUILD TO ZONE REAR SETBACK: 20 FT SIDE SETBACK: 10 FT HEIGHT REGULATIONS: 40 FT BUILDING AREA: N/A LANDSCAPING: Per CHAPTER 177 PARKING: PER CHAPTER 172 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS: PER CHAPTER 166 SIGNAGE: PER THE R-0, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT PLANNING AREA 2- RESIDENTIAL AREA PERMITTED USES: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ACREAGE: 60.42 AC DWELLING UNITS:230 NONRESIDENTIAL: 0 SO FT. FRONT SETBACK:0-25 BUILT TO ZONE REAR SETBACK: 20 FT SIDE SETBACK: 5 FT HEIGHT REGULATIONS: 2 STORIES / 35 FT BUILDING AREA: N/A LANDSCAPING: PER CHAPTER 177 PARKING: PER CHAPTER 172 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS: N/A SIGNAGE: PER THE RSF-4 ZONING DISTRICT PLANNING AREA 3- DEDICATED PARK AREA ACREAGE: 33.5 AC RIVERSIDE VILLAGE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS COMMERCIAL\ OFFICE AREA RESIDENTIAL AREA Craft on Tull GRAPHIC SCALE �®IN FEET 2010 -��200 RIVERSIDE VILLAGE FAYETTEVILLE, AR Yam. DEDICATED PARK AREA S HATU P s� a NOT HasGNFS oocuMEHT SHEET 2 Crofton Tull ARMSTRONG FAYETTEVILLE, AR .mne.au nm nor cw 4�4n�,n� '''k w. urva.@OC MEM IS f,� ATURE AND E NOT CONCEPT 5 PZD-2021-000004 One Mile View e4q%q Neighborhood Link ■ ■ I Planned Residential Link -- Shared -Use Paved Trail - - - Trail (Proposed) Fayetteville City Limits L — — Planning Area L— — • Riverside Village NORTH 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles m P-1 0 C Z n �— — — —iZ� RSF=4 -- , , Subject Property , , , Zoning 1-2 General lnnusinai r——- RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY EXTRACTION IS'E-, RI-U RI-12 COMMERCIAL Reslnen�la-Office Ns-c ReslUentlal-l�grloultural 1 C-2 RSF-5 �RSF-1 FORM BASED DISTRICTS RSF-2 �DOwntownco reRSF-a r�nTM1oroUgM1 , <Limits RSF-] MiStreet center RSF-s �DRSF-18RESIDE NTIALMULTI-FAMILYRMF-5NeigM1bomoo0RMF-12 RLANNE DISTRICTS t_____i-----JRMF,B RMF-2aPla lNING commercial, Innusiriai, Resinentiai NSTITUTIONAL Fay RMF-D INDUSTRIAL F, ea Gem relaianaLlgM1tlnaUatrlai PZD-2021-000004 Close Up View 1-2 e4gCk 0 _.. Neighborhood Link Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District — ` Planning Area •-- L — I Fayetteville City Limits Trail (Proposed) Riverside Village Subject Property Feet 0 220 440 880 1,320 1 inch = 600 feet RSF-4 i � r , NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-4 1-2 General Industrial 1,760 P-1 Revised map added on 11/09/2021 at 12:48 PM PZD-2021-000004 Riverside Village A& Current Land Use NORTH . i Y 4 AE Single-Family Residential tf'T o t Commercial/Industrial City of Fayetteville ZoneAE Fire Department Facility " Subject Property Undeveloped Single -Family Residential Neighborhood Link Trail (Proposed) _; Planning Area ZZ - - -; Fayetteville City Limits 0 M, Undeveloped Feet 0 220 440 880 1,320 1,760 1 inch = 600 feet FEMA Flood Hazard Data too -Year Floodplain Floodway PZD-2021-000004 Future Land Use k4ck o — q�'A O Rural Residential Neighborhood Link Planning Area �- - - Fayetteville City Limits Trail (Proposed) Riverside Village Industrial .t NORTH Civic and Private .Open Space Residen ♦ N orhood Civic r Institutional ♦1 ` •---- i i Subject Property Feet 0 220 440 880 1,320 1 inch = 600 feet ural i i M City Neighborhood Civic Institutional Civic and Private Open Space Industrial Natural Non -Municipal Government 1,760 Residential Neighborhood Rural Residential Urban Center Received 11/15/2021 at 4:44 PM Added to Revised Agenda on 11/16/2021 Submit Public Comment This page is provided for efficient submission of public comment for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. All submissions must be directly related to a specific agenda item for the next meeting. Please ensure your comments conform to the Rules of Order and Procedure. RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Full Name* Address or Ward* Susan Raymond Address Ward Locate Your Ward Number Address* 3052 N.Hughmount Rd, Fayetteville Ex. 113 W Mountain St Phone Number Email Meeting Body* City Council Agenda Item CA 2021-0867 RPZD-2021-004: (SOUTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK Number/Subject RD./RIVERSIDE VILLAGE) Please click the link below to navigate to the Agenda Page Locate City Council Agenda Item Locate Planning Commission Agenda Item Position In Favor Comments I am in favor of a planned zoning district for this property. Because of the river frontage and the flood plain, a PZD is best. The proposed PZD could be improved with more land adjacent to the river and close to the floodplain being set aside for a park or nature preserve. This property is very close to city businesses, services, parks and so best that the city direct the development of the whole acreage in a controlled way. Attachments PDF preferred Section from the RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL Adopted 01/07/2020 by Resolution #01-20 & Amended 06/16/2020 by Resolution #170-20: Public Comments. Public comment at a City Council meeting shall be allowed for all members of the audience who have signed up prior to the beginning of the agenda item they wish to address being opened for public comment. Speakers shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes to be broken into segments of three and two minutes. Amendments may receive public comments only if approved by the City Council by unanimous consent or majority vote. If public comment is allowed for an amendment, speakers will only be allowed to speak for three (3) minutes. The City Council may allow both a speaker additional time and an unsigned -up person to speak by unanimous consent or majority vote Added to Revised Agenda on 11/16/2021 Courtesy and Respect. All members of the public, all city staff and elected officials shall accord the utmost courtesy and respect to each other at all times. All shall refrain from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements about motives or personalities. Any member of the public who violates these standards shall be ruled out of order by the Mayor, must immediately cease speaking and shall leave the podium. Enter the text you want this field to display Received 11/16/2021 at 8:44AM Added to Revised Agenda on 11/16/2021 From: Curth, Jonathan To: CityClerk Cc: Wes Subject: FW: ANNX 2021-03 Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:44:39 AM Good morning, Please forward the below to the City Council and Mayor. The message is from Jimm Garlock who sits on the Planning Commission and is in regards to Items C.3 and C.4 for Riverside Village on tonight's City Council Agenda. Thanks, Jonathan Curth, AICP Development Services Director Development Services Department City of Fayetteville, Arkansas jcurth (@fa)letteville-ar.gov 479.575.8308 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Youtube - Forwarded message From: Wes <wesinfayCcDgmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 5:32 PM Subject: ANNX 2021-03 To: Curth, Jonathan <icurth(@fayetteville-ar.gov> CC: Umberger, Ryan <rumberger(@fayetteville-ar.gov> Dear Mayor Jordan and City Council Members, I am concerned about the potential annexation and development of 102 acres on 2936 S. Black Oak Rd. The property is located on the edge of the city over 1.7 miles outside the "mayors box" and 3.5 miles from the closest tier 2 center(Crossover & Huntsville). The proposed construction of 250 single-family houses on this 101 acre property will result in twice the density permitted under current county zoning. The Adopted City 2040 Plan introduced a new land tool: the Growth Concept Map(GCM). This GCM depicts how Fayetteville should grow over the next 20 years. It identifies key growth nodes, corridors, and enduring green/natural spaces. The GCM encourages medium to high density, pedestrian oriented development in the 38 tier centers that are strategically spread throughout the city. These mixed use developments in tier centers are designed in order to attract owners and renters of affordable housing that would be otherwise attracted to enduring green networks on the perimeter of the city creating suburban sprawl. Added to Revised Agenda on 11/16/2021 The other objective measure is the dismal infill matrix score of 0-4. With the highest weighted score of 5. Please ask yourself where is the closest grocery store? Will children be able to walk to school from this area? Where is the cross connectivity for this annexation(White River to the east and industrial park to the north) No path to Combs Park but a neighborhood link street with asphalt paving and open ditches. Where is the closest public transportation? Affordable housing is a common problem across the country and is not unique to Fayetteville. Simply adding more housing on the peripheral of the city creates more issues down the road and not helping with affordable housing. Transportation cost and accessible amenities must be factored in to "affordable housing' costs. I'm not saying that this may not be a good annexation in the future. But the current land use map, infill score, and make up of land make it clear that this may not be the best time to Annex 2936 Black Oak Road into the City of Fayetteville. There is no rush to this annexation request. It is better to deny this request in that there are no other cities vying for it and a builder is not going to lose the financial upside. "fiscal impact assessment was not conducted for the requested annexation. However, it should be noted that annexing land on the fringe of the City and developing it in a suburban, residential manner can pose financial challenges for the City to maintain the public infrastructure in a fiscally sustainable manner." Please Deny ANNX 2021-3 and any RPZD. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Jimm Garlock Received 11/23/21 at 4:48 PM Crafton Tull August 23, 2021 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ATTN: CESWL-RD P.O. Box 867 Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: Request for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Riverside Village, Washington County, AR To Whom It May Concern: 901 N. 471" Street, Suite 400 Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 Added to Revised Agenda on 11/24/21 Crafton Tull has completed an identification and delineation study of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) for the proposed Riverside Village residential development project located on S Armstrong Ave. in Washington County, AR. The field investigation for this study was conducted on August 4tn, 5tn, & 121" 2021. The study area is approximately 90.6 acres in size, and is defined as being within the area shown on the attached Site Location Map (see Figure 1 in the attachments). Upland forest plant communities within the study area consisted predominantly of winged elm (Ulmus alata), common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), black cherry (Prunus serotina), white oak (Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), chinquapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii), Osage orange (Maclura pomifera), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), bush honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus), common blue violet (Viola sororia), wood nettle (Laportea canadensis), Carolina elephantfoot (Elephantopus carolinianus), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), blackberries (Rubus sp.), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Open fields consisted predominantly of hayed pasture bordered by Missouri ironweed (Vernonia missurica), black-eyed Susans (Rudbeckia hirta), and tall green milkweed (Asclepius hirtella). Wetland plant communities consisted predominantly of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), marsh seedbox (Ludwigia palustris), Frank's sedge (Carex frankii), fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea), sallow sedge (Carex lurida), marsh flatsedge (Cyperus pseudovegetus), gray sedge (Carex grayi), leathery rush (Juncus coriaceus), Carolina ponyfoot Crafton Tull 901 N. 471" Street, Suite 400 Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 (Dichondra carolinensis), Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica), inland sea oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), longleaf wood oats (Chasmanthium sessiliflorum), Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus), and giant rivercane (Arundinaria gigantea). Soils within the study area are mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS) Web Soil Survey as Cleora fine sandy loam, Enders -Leesburg complex (8 to 20 percent slopes), Johnsburg silt loam (0 to 2 percent slopes), Savannah fine sandy loam (3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded), Taloka complex (mounded), Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes), and Taloka silt loam (1 to 3 percent slopes). None of these soil series are classified as hydric by NRCS (see Figure 2 in the attachments). The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) indicates that there are three forested wetlands (PFO1A) in the eastern portion of the study area (see Figure 3 in the attachments). Approximately 20.7 acres of the study area is mapped by FEMA as being within a floodway (see Figure 4 in the attachments). Below is a summary of the features identified during the field investigation. Wetland features were classified using the Cowardin classification system for wetland habitats: OW-1 (West Fork White River) - this feature is mapped as a perennial stream on the USGS Fayetteville Quadrangle map and flows from south to north near the northeastern boundary of the study area. This feature consisted of two channels: a primary channel, and a secondary channel that accepts overflow from the primary channel during high water. The ordinary high water mark associated with the primary channel (OW-1A) was observed to be approximately 60 feet wide and approximately 3 feet deep, and the ordinary high water mark associated with the secondary channel (OW-113) was observed to be approximately 30 feet wide and approximately 2 feet deep. Riparian vegetation associated with this feature included green ash, American elm, slippery elm, American sycamore, eastern cottonwood, Osage orange, possumhaw, northern spicebush, inland sea oats, Virginia wild rye, and giant rivercane. Approximately 386 linear feet of OW-1A, and approximately 413 linear feet of OW-113 flows through the study area (see Figures 5 and 7 in the attachments). OW-2 - this feature is an intermittent stream that flows from southwest to northeast through the study area. This feature is a tributary to OW-1 and is not mapped by USGS. The ordinary high water mark associated with this feature was observed to be approximately 7 feet wide and approximately 6 inches deep. Riparian vegetation associated with this feature included eastern red cedar, black cherry, sassafras, black oak, white oak, black locust, honey locust, corralberry, bush honeysuckle, common blue violet, blackberries, Virginia creeper, and common greenbrier. Approximately 2,277 linear feet of this feature flows through the study area (see Figures 5 and 7 in the attachments). Crafton Tull 901 N. 47t" Street, Suite 400 Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 OW-3 - this feature is an intermittent stream that flows from west to east along the northern boundary of the study area. This feature is a tributary to OW-2 and is not mapped by USGS. The ordinary high water mark associated with this feature was observed to be approximately 5 feet wide and approximately 3 inches deep. Riparian vegetation associated with this feature included eastern red cedar, black cherry, chinquapin oak, sassafras, black oak, black locust, Osage orange, honey locust, corralberry, bush honeysuckle, common blue violet, blackberries, and common greenbrier. Approximately 3,093 linear feet of this feature flows through the study area (see Figure 5 in the attachments). OW-4 - this feature is an intermittent stream that flows generally from southwest to northeast in the northwestern corner of the study area This feature is a tributary to OW-3 and is not mapped by USGS. The ordinary high water mark associated with this feature was observed to be approximately 4 feet wide and approximately 3 inches deep. Riparian vegetation associated with this feature included eastern red cedar, black cherry, sassafras, black oak, black locust, honey locust, corralberry, common blue violet, and common greenbrier. Approximately 417 linear feet of this feature flows through the study area (see Figure 5 in the attachments). EPH-1 - this feature is an ephemeral drainage that flows from southwest to northeast through the southeastern corner of the study area and is a tributary to OW-1. EPH-1 is mapped by USGS as being an intermittent stream but was observed in the field to have a discontinuous ordinary high water mark, and therefore is likely ephemeral. Approximately 251 linear feet of this feature flows through the study area (see Figure 5 in the attachments). EPH-2 - this feature is an ephemeral drainage that flows from south to north through the northeastern corner of the study area. EPH-2 accepts high water from OW 1 and is a tributary to OW-2. This feature is not mapped by USGS and exhibited a discontinuous ordinary high water mark. Approximately 488 linear feet of this feature flows through the study area (see Figures 5 and 7 in the attachments). EPH-3 - this feature is an ephemeral drainage that flows from southwest to northeast near the northern boundary of the study area. This feature is a tributary to OW-3 and is not mapped by USGS. An ordinary high water mark that was approximately 2 feet wide and 2 inches deep was observed for approximately 30 linear feet of this feature upstream of its confluence with OW-3. Approximately 208 linear feet of this feature flows through the study area (see Figure 5 in the attachments). WET-1 is classified as PF01A (Palustrine Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded Wetland) and appears to be isolated. This feature consists of a sparsely vegetated concave surface containing crayfish burrows and drift deposits, and occupies a low area between several relict nebkhas from the late -Holocene epoch. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation observed Crafton Tull 901 N. 47t" Street, Suite 400 Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 consisted of green ash, slippery elm, possomhaw, and Frank's sedge. The soil in this feature consisted of a silt loam with a depleted matrix. Approximately 0.04 acre of this feature is located within the study area (see Figures 5 and 6 in the attachments). WET-2 is classified as PEM2A (Palustrine Emergent, Nonpersistent, Temporarily Flooded Wetland), appears to be isolated, and occupies a low area between several relict nebkhas from the late -Holocene epoch. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation observed consisted of possumhaw, marsh seedbox, and marsh flatsedge. The soil in this feature consisted of a silty clay loam with a depleted matrix. Approximately 0.02 acre of this feature is located within the study area (see Figures 5 and 6 in the attachments). WET-3 is classified as PFO1A (Palustrine Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded Wetland) and appears to be isolated. This feature consists of a sparsely vegetated concave surface containing crayfish burrows, and occupies a low area between several relict nebkhas from the late -Holocene epoch. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation observed consisted of green ash, possumhaw, Frank's sedge, gray sedge, and common greenbrier. The soil in this feature consisted of a silty clay loam with a depleted matrix. Approximately 0.33 acre of this feature is located within the study area (see Figures 5 and 6 in the attachments). WET-4 is classified as PFO1A (Palustrine Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded Wetland) and appears to be isolated. This feature consists of a sparsely vegetated concave surface containing crayfish burrows and drift deposits, and occupies a low area between several relict nebkhas from the late -Holocene epoch. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation observed consisted of green ash, fox sedge, marsh flatsedge, sallow sedge, Frank's sedge, gray sedge, and leathery rush. The soil in this feature consisted of a silty clay loam with a depleted matrix. Approximately 0.14 acre of this feature is located within the study area (see Figures 5 and 6 in the attachments). WET-5 is classified as PSS1C (Palustrine Scrub -Shrub, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded Wetland) and is a linear isolated oxbow of the West Fork White River. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation observed consisted of green ash, marsh seedbox, and longleaf wood oats. The soil in this feature consisted of a silty clay loam with a depleted matrix. Approximately 0.21 acre of this feature is located within the study area (see Figures 5 and 7 in the attachments). WET-6 is classified as PFO1C (Palustrine Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded Wetland) and is a riparian wetland associated with OW-1. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation observed consisted of giant rivercane, green ash, Pennsylvania smartweed, Virginia wild rye, Carolina ponyfoot, and common blue violet. The soil in this feature consisted of a sandy loam with a depleted matrix. Approximately 2.22 acres of this feature is located within the study area (see Figures 5 and 7 in the attachments). Crafton Tull 901 N. 471" Street, Suite 400 Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 WET-7 is classified as PFO1C (Palustrine Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded Wetland) and is a riparian wetland associated with OW-1. This location was inaccessible due to high water levels. Drift deposits and dominant hydrophytic vegetation consisting of giant rivercane, green ash, and Virginia wild rye were observed at this location. Approximately 0.23 acre of this feature is located within the study area (see Figures 5 and 7 in the attachments). Conclusion In conclusion, one (1) emergent wetland totaling approximately 0.02 acre, one (1) scrub -shrub wetland totaling approximately 0.21 acre, five (5) forested wetlands totaling approximately 2.96 acres, one (1) perennial stream consisting of two channels totaling 799 linear feet, three (3) intermittent streams totaling 5,787 linear feet, and three (3) ephemeral drainages totaling 947 linear feet were identified within the study area. We respectfully request an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) for these features. Please call me if you have any questions. I can be reached at (479) 878-2451. Sincerely, CRAFTON TULL Eric Fuselier, PWS Environmental Project Manager o ERIC FUSELIER °4 3175 P W 5 � Attachments: Site Location Exhibit �,�,� NRCS Soil Survey Data Exhibit USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Exhibit FEMA Floodzone Exhibit Waters of the United States Exhibit Wetland Determination Data Form — Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Stream Channel Assessment Field Data Sheet Site Photographs Cr - Cleora fine sandy loam ErE - Enders -Leesburg complex (8 to 20 percent slopes) Jo - Johnsburg silt loam (0 to 2 percent slopes) SfC2 - Savannah fine sandy loam (3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded) Ta - Taloka complex (mounded) ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) ToB - Taloka silt loam (1 to 3 percent slopes) W - Water Legend Study Area C3 NRCS Soil Map Units O Data Point Crofton TO �L MM0 Off. 0 O 00v� �. O C�00 . . NRCS SOIL SURVEY DATA Lat: 36.029098' 0 250 500 Riverside Village Long:-94.127665' I i 1 1 I Washington County, AR Feet 2017Aerial Photograph Figure 2 ESRI GIs INFORMATION V Legend Study Area NWI Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 0 NWI Freshwater Pond —%,^- NHD Flowline 0 Crofton TO o V . * rt. r ..MIN* kamr � 1G. 'ems W —o USFWS NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY AND NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET Riverside Village Washington County, AR 2017 Aerial Photograph ESRI GIs INFORMATION PF01A Lat: 36.029098' 0 250 500 Long:-94.127665' I 1 1 1 1 Feet Figure 3 — mow Y. �► Legend Study Area FEMA Zone AE ON" W� FEMA Floodzone Exhibit Lat: 36.029098' 0 250 500 Long:-94.127665' 1 I 1 I I Riverside Village Feet Crafton Tull Washington County, AR 2017 Aerial Photograph Figure 4 ESRI GIS INFORMATION O ii; it � ��_ •�. __� OW-4 �r Legend Study Area Detailed View Emergent Wetland Forested Wetland Scrub -Shrub Wetland Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Ephemeral Stream O Data Point EPH-3 r� rOW-2 OW-3 f WET-1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES EXHIBIT Riverside Village Washington County, AR 2017 Aerial Photograph ESRI GIs INFORMATION WET-3 WET-2 OW-1A WET-6 OW-1 B WET-7 WET-4 EPH-1 � i O Lat: 36.029098' 0 200 400 Long:-94.127665' I i 1 1 1 Feet Figure 5 WET-1 I w M Legend Study Area Emergent Wetland 4* Forested Wetland O Data Point 0 Crofton Tull WET-3 WET-2 VIE mpg V//" "/ mpg WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES EXHIBIT Detailed View Riverside Village Washington County, AR 2017 Aerial Photograph ESRI GIs INFORMATION WET-4 Lat: 36.029098' 0 50 100 Long:-94.127665' 1 1 1 1 1 Feet Figure 6 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 04 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 1 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.029936 Long:-94.132079 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToB - Taloka silt loam (1 to 3 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet any wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '14" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '14" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 1 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 2. Prunus serotina 3• 4. 5• 6. 7. Absolute % Cover 25 25 Dominant Indicator Species? Status Yes FACU Yes FACU Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33.33% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 50 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 50% of total cover: 25 20% of total cover: 10 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 1. Sassafras albidum 15 Yes FACU FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 2. Juniperus virginiana 10 Yes FACU FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 3. Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 5 No FACU UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 4 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. - 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 30 = Total Cover _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 50% of total cover: 15 20% of total cover: 6 - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. Viola sororia 10 Yes FAC - 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1 u = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC 2. 3. 5. 10 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Does not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 3/2 100 - - - SiL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 04 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 2 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 25, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.026814 Long:-94.122218 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Cr - Cleora fine sandy loam NWI classification: PF01A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Does not meet all wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ✓ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 2 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Ulmus americana 2. 3. 4. WA 50% of total cover: 45 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Celtis occidentalis 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Elymus virginicus 2 Arundinaria gigantea Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status an Yes FACW 90 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 18 10 Yes FACU 10 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 2 60 Yes FACW 15 Yes FACW Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 75 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 37.5 20% of total cover: 15 Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) height. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ✓ No 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/4 100 - - - SiL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 04 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 3 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.027884 Long:-94.124165 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: SfC2 - Savannah fine sandy loam (3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) ✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ✓ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 3 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 50% of total cover: 30 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2. Juniperus virginiana 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 15 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Carex vulpinoidea 2. Cyperus pseudovegetus 3. Carex lurida 4 Carex frankii 5 Juncus coriaceus g Fraxinus pennsylvanica 7 Carex grayi 8. 9. 10. 11. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 60 Yes FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 60 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 12 25 Yes FACW 5 No FACU 30 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 6 15 15 10 5 5 5 G Yes Yes No No No No nip OBL FACW OBL OBL FACW FACW FACW 00 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 30 20% of total cover: 12 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. 2. 3. 5. 0 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/1 90 7.5YR 5/8 10 C M SiCL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 04 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 4 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Edge Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.027855 Long:-94.124012 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: SfC2 - Savannah fine sandy loam (3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet any wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 4 Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Juniperus virginiana 30 Yes FACU 2. Carya tomentosa 20 Yes NL 3. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 Yes FACW 4. 6. 7. 50% of total cover: 35 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 2. Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 10 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Asclepias hirtella 2 Vernonia missurica Rudbeckia hirta 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 70 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 14 10 Yes FACU 10 Yes FACU 20 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 4 10 Yes NL 10 Yes FACU 5 Yes FACU 2b = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Smilax rotundifolia 20 Yes FAC 2. 3. 5. 20 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Does not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 28.57% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/4 100 - - - Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 5 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.027852 Long:-94.125713 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) ✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ✓ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 5 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. Absolute % Cover 60 Dominant Indicator Species? Status Yes FACW Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 50% of total cover: 30 20% of total cover: 12 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 1. Ilex decidua 15 Yes FACW FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Yes FACW FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 3 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 4 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 25 = Total Cover _ 4 -Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5 - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. Carex frankii 15 Yes OBL - 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 15 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) height. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ✓ No 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/1 95 7.5YR 5/8 5 C M SiL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 6 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 3% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.027811 Long:-94.125671 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet any wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '14" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '14" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 6 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 2. 3. 4. WA 50% of total cover: 15 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 7.5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status �n Yes FACU 30 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 6 15 Yes FACU 15 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 3 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 0 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 15' radius Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 10 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 10 = Total Cover Present? Yes No ✓ 50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Does not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 4/4 100 - - - SiL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 7 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.027931 Long:-94.125678 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) ✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ✓ Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): 2" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 7 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. Absolute % Cover 60 Dominant Indicator Species? Status Yes FACW Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 50% of total cover: 30 20% of total cover: 12 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 1. Ilex decidua 15 Yes FACW FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 2. Ulmus rubra 10 Yes FAC FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 3 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 4 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 25 = Total Cover _ 4 -Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5 - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. Carex frankii 15 Yes OBL - 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 15 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) height. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ✓ No 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/1 95 7.5YR 5/8 5 C M Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 8 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.027989 Long:-94.125656 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 8 Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Ulmus rubra 30 Yes FAC 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Yes FACW 3. 4. 6. 7. 50% of total cover: 27.5 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Chasmanthium latifolium 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 55 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 11 10 Yes FACW 10 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 2 100 Yes FACU 1 uU = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 50 20% of total cover: 20 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. 2. 3. 5. 0 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/2 98% 7.5YR 5/8 2 C M Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 9 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 2% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.027897 Long:-94.125397 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet any wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): 110" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): 'l0" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 9 Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Carya tomentosa 40 Yes NL 2. Juniperus virginiana 30 Yes FACU 3. 4. WA 50% of total cover: 35 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 2. Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 20 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 2 Elephantopus carolinianus 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 70 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 14 25 Yes FACU 15 Yes FACU 40 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 8 10 Yes FACU 10 Yes FACU 2u = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC 2. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5 Yes FACU 3. 5. 15 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Does not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 14.29% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 9 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 4/4 100 - - - Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 10 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.027994 Long:-94.125039 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): 1, Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 10 Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 50% of total cover: 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Ilex decidua 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 7.5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Ludwigia palustris 2 Cyperus pseudovegetus Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 0 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 0 15 Yes FACW 15 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 3 40 Yes OBL 30 Yes FACW Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 70 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 35 20% of total cover: 14 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) height. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ✓ No 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 10 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 5/1 100 - - - SiCL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 11 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Edge Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.027951 Long:-94.124909 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet any wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '16" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '16" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 11 Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Juniperus virginiana 40 Yes FACU 2. Quercus velutina 10 Yes NL 3. 4. 6. 7. 50% of total cover: 25 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 12.5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Toxicodendron radicans 50 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 10 25 Yes FACU 25 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 5 5 Yes FAC Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 5 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 2.5 20% of total cover: 1 15' radius Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1. Smilax rotundifolia 15 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 15 = Total Cover Present? Yes No ✓ 50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Does not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 11 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 4/4 100 - - - SiL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 12 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.028072 Long:-94.124713 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet all wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 12 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 2. 3. 4. WA Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 9. Yes FACU 25 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Lonicera maackii 25 Yes NL 2. Ilex decidua 10 Yes FACW 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Smilax rotundifolia 35 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 17.5 20% of total cover: 7 5' radius ) 15 Yes FAC Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.67% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 15 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) height. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ✓ No 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 12 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/2 100 - - - SiL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 13 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.028206 Long:-94.124625 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) ✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '14" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '14" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 13 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 50% of total cover: 40 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Ilex decidua 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4. 5. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 80 Yes FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 80 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 16 25 Yes FACW 10 Yes FACW 7. 8. 9. 35 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 17.5 20% of total cover: 7 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Carex grayi 40 Yes FACW 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 4U = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20 20% of total cover: 8 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. 2. 3. 5. 0 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 13 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 4/1 97 7.5YR 5/6 3 C M SiCL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 14 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.028211 Long:-94.124527 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 14 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 2. 3. 4. WA 50% of total cover: 37.5 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 2_ Ilex decidua 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 12.5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Chasmanthium latifolium 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 75 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 75 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 15 15 Yes FACU 10 Yes FACW 25 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 5 25 Yes FACU 2b = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. 2. 3. 5. 0 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Does not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 14 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/2 98 7.5YR 5/6 2 C M SiL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 15 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.028555 Long:-94.124749 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) ✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ✓ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '14" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '14" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2. 3• 4. 5. 6. 7. Absolute % Cover 50 Dominant Indicator Species? Status Yes FACW Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 50 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 50% of total cover: 25 20% of total cover: 10 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 1. Ilex decidua 15 Yes FACW FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Yes FACW FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 3 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 4 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 25 = Total Cover _ 4 -Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5 - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. Carex frankii 25 Yes OBL - 2. Carex grayi 15 Yes FACW 3. Smilax rotundifolia 15 Yes FAC 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 55 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 27.5 20% of total cover: 11 15' radius Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1. Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 10 = Total Cover Present? Yes ✓ No 50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 15 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 4/1 95 7.5YR 5/6 5 C M SiCL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 05 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 16 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.028635 Long:-94.124734 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: ToA - Taloka silt loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet any wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 16 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Juniperus virginiana 2. 3• 4. 5• 6. 7. Absolute % Cover 15 Dominant Indicator Species? Status Yes FACU Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33.33% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 15 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 1. Juniperus virginiana 10 Yes FACU FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 2. Lonicera maackii 10 Yes NL FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 3 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 4 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. - 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 20 = Total Cover _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. Chasmanthium latifolium 15 Yes FACU - 2 Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 15 Yes FACU 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 30 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 15 20% of total cover: 6 15' radius Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1. Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC 2. Toxicodendron radicans 10 Yes FAC 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 20 = Total Cover Present? Yes No ✓ 50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Does not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 16 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/3 100 - - - SiL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 12 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 17 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Linear Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1 % Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.030076 Long:-94.123435 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Cr - Cleora fine sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ✓ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) ✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) ✓ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): 1" Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): At surface Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 17 Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 50% of total cover: 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 20 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Ludwigia palustris Chasmanthium sessiliflorum 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 0 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 0 40 Yes FACW 40 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 8 30 Yes OBL 15 Yes FAC 4b = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 22.5 20% of total cover: 9 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. 2. 3. 5. 0 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 17 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 5/2 95 5YR 5/6 5 C M SCL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 12 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 18 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Edge Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 2% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.030044 Long:-94.123549 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet any wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): 110" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): 'l0" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 18 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Juniperus virginiana 40 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Platanus occidentalis 25 Yes FACW Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 8 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 5• That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) 6. Prevalence Index worksheet: 7. 65 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 50% of total cover: 32.5 20% of total cover: 13 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 1. Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 15 Yes FACU FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 2. Ulmus alata 15 Yes FACU FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 3. Ligustrum sinense 15 Yes FACU UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 4 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Viola sororia 2 Laportea canadensis 45 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 22.5 20% of total cover: 9 5' radius ) 15 Yes FAC 15 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 30 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 15 20% of total cover: 6 15' radius Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1. Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 10 = Total Cover Present? Yes No ✓ 50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Does not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 18 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 3/3 - - - - SL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 12 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 19 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 26, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.030124 Long:-94.123165 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Cr - Cleora fine sandy loam NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Does not meet all wetland criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 19 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Populus deltoides 2. Juniperus virginiana 3• 4. 5• 6. 7. Absolute % Cover 30 30 Dominant Indicator Species? Status Yes FAC Yes FACU Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 9 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 55.56% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 50% of total cover: 30 20% of total cover: 12 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 1. Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 10 Yes FACU FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 2. Lindera benzoin 10 Yes FAC FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 3. Lonicera maackii 10 Yes NL UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 4 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 30 = Total Cover _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 50% of total cover: 15 20% of total cover: 6 - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 30 Yes FACU - 2 Microstegium vimineum 30 Yes FAC 3. Elymus virginicus 20 Yes FACW 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 80 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 40 20% of total cover: 16 15' radius Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 10 Yes FACU 2. Smilax rotundifolia 10 Yes FAC 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 20 = Total Cover Present? Yes ✓ No 50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 19 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/2 100 - - - SL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 12 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 20 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 25, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.030172 Long:-94.123011 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Cr - Cleora fine sandy loam NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 20 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 50% of total cover: 15 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 10 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) 1. Elymus virpinicus 2 Arundinaria gigantea Viola sororia 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 30 Yes FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 30 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 6 20 Yes FACW 20 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 4 30 Yes FACW 10 Yes FACW 10 Yes FAC bU = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 25 20% of total cover: 10 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. 2. 3. 5. 0 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 20 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/2 98 7.5YR 5/4 2 C M SL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: Riverside Village City/County: Washington Sampling Date: 12 Aug, 2021 Applicant/Owner: Rausch Coleman State: AR Sampling Point:DP 21 Investigator(s): Eric Fuselier Section, Township, Range: Section 25, T16N, R30W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 116A Lat: 36.029961 Long:-94.122349 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Cr - Cleora fine sandy loam NWI classification: PF01A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Meets all wetland criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) ✓ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (135) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (613) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): '8" Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): 2" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Meets hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP 21 Tree Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) 1. 2. 3• 4. 5 6. Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 7. 0 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 1 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 2 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 3 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 4 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 9. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 0 = Total Cover _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 — data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1. Persicaria pensylvanica 40 Yes FACW — 2 Elymus virginicus 30 Yes FACW Dichondra carolinensis 15 No FACW 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 3. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4 Arundinaria gigantea 10 No FACW Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. 6 Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 7. height. 8. Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less 9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 10. m) tall. 11. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless 95 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 50% of total cover: 47.5 20% of total cover: 19 Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) height. 1. 2. 3. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ✓ No 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Meets hydrophytic vegetation criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP 21 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 4/2 95 7.5YR 5/8 5 C M SCL Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Meets hydric soil criteria. Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 Crofton Tull STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER:21108400 COUNTY: Washington STATE: AR Project: Riverside Village Stream Name: West Fork White River USGS Quadrangle: Fayetteville Stream Location: OW 1A (Primary Channel) Section: 26 Date: 8/12/21 Township: T16N Weather: Partly cloudy Range: R30W Collector: Eric Fuselier Ordinary High Water Mark Width: 60 feet Height: 3 foot Stream Flow Dry: I Low: Normal: High: Flooded: Stream Class Perennial: X Intermittent: Ephemeral: Percentage of Habitats Observed Stream Shaded: 10°�° Riffle: I lRun: I X Notes: Pool I X Wetlands: Stream Substrate Boulders (>10") Cobble (2-10") Gravel(1/4"-2") Sand 70 Silt 20 Riparian Composition (Percentage and Class of Vegetation) Clay Trees 60 Bare Soil Notes: Bedrock 10 Shrubs 30 Rocks Detritus Forbs 10 Other Riparian Composition (Species of Vegetation) Juniperus virginiana Lindera benzoin Parthenocissus quinquefolia Prunus serotina Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Elymus virginicus Sassafras albidum Madura pomifera Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ulmus americana Ulmus rubra Platanus occidentalis Populus deltoides STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER: 21108400 COUNTY: W-hin9to, STATE: AR Stream Location:ow, Bank Cover Types Observed Average Width of Wooded Riparian Zone Undercut Banks (facing downstream) Rock Ledges Left Bank: 65 feet Upstream Roots/Root Wads x Right Bank: o feet Drift Material ca Assessment Location Notes: Other Left Bank: tsfeet Downstream of Right Bank: so feet Assessment Location Aquatic Organisms Observed Notes: Streambank Erosion Potential Severe Notes: High Moderate Low x None Stream Color Brown Notes: Stream Odor None Algae Present None Notes: Photograph 7F Crofton Tull STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER:21108400 COUNTY: Washington STATE: AR Project: Riverside Village Stream Name: West Fork White River USGS Quadrangle: Fayetteville Stream Location: OW 1 B (Secondary Channel) Section: 26 Date: 8/4/21 Township: T16N Weather: Partly cloudy Range: R30W Collector: Eric Fuselier Ordinary High Water Mark Width: 30 feet Height: 2 foot Stream Flow Dry: I Low: Normal: High: Flooded: Stream Class Perennial: Intermittent: X Ephemeral: Percentage of Habitats Observed Stream Shaded: 25°�° Riffle: I lRun: Notes: Pool I X Wetlands: Stream Substrate Boulders (>10") Cobble (2-10") Gravel(1/4"-2") Sand 80 Silt 10 Riparian Composition (Percentage and Class of Vegetation) Clay Trees 60 Bare Soil Notes: Bedrock Shrubs 30 Rocks Detritus 10 Forbs 10 Other Riparian Composition (Species of Vegetation) Juniperus virginiana Madura pomifera Parthenocissus quinquefolia Ulmus americana Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Elymus virginicus Platanus occidentalis Populus deltoides Fraxinus pennsylvanica Lindera benzoin STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER: 21108400 COUNTY: W-hin9to, STATE: AR Stream Location:ow, Bank Cover Types Observed Average Width of Wooded Riparian Zone Undercut Banks (facing downstream) Rock Ledges Left Bank: 65 feet Upstream Roots/Root Wads x Right Bank: o feet Drift Material ca Assessment Location Notes: Other Left Bank: tsfeet Downstream of Right Bank: so feet Assessment Location Aquatic Organisms Observed Notes: Streambank Erosion Potential Severe Notes: High Moderate Low x None Stream Color Brown Notes: Stream Odor None Algae Present None Notes: Photograph r ��r ra. r z 77. -� .r •• .. ._ - 1 -. - _-- - Crofton Tull STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER:21108400 COUNTY: Washington STATE: AR Project: Riverside Village Stream Name: Unnamed tributary to OW 1 USGS Quadrangle: Fayetteville Stream Location: OW 2 Section: 26 Date: 8/4/21 Township: T16N Weather: Partly cloudy Range: R30W Collector: Eric Fuselier Ordinary High Water Mark Width: 7 feet I Height: 6 inches Stream Flow Dry: X I Low: Normal: High: Flooded: Stream Class Perennial: Intermittent: X Ephemeral: Percentage of Habitats Observed Stream Shaded: 100% Riffle: I lRun: Notes: Pool I lWetlands: Stream Substrate Boulders (>10") Cobble (2-10") 20 Gravel(1/4"-2") 40 Sand 15 Silt 15 Riparian Composition (Percentage and Class of Vegetation) Clay Trees 30 Bare Soil Notes: Bedrock Shrubs 60 Rocks Detritus 10 Forbs 10 Other Riparian Composition (Species of Vegetation) Juniperus virginiana Quercus velutina Parthenocissus quinquefolia Prunus serotina Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Platanus occidentalis Sassafras albidum Lindera benzoin Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ulmus americana Ulmus rubra STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER: 21108400 COUNTY: W-hinoto, STATE: AR Stream Location:owz Bank Cover Types Observed Average Width of Wooded Riparian Zone Undercut Banks (facing downstream) Rock Ledges w Left Bank: seet Upstream of Roots/Root Wads x Right Bank: o feet Drift Material Assessment Location Notes: Other Left Bank:,sfeet Downstream of Right Bank: so feet Assessment Location Aquatic Organisms Observed Notes: None Streambank Erosion Potential Severe Notes: High Moderate Low x None Stream Color Brown Notes: Stream Odor None Algae Present None Notes: Photograph r �'Y A�u ,+tic i i. A6 _t• i Ate. a M r. - Crofton Tull STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER:21108400 COUNTY: Washington STATE: AR Project: Riverside Village Stream Name: Unnamed tributary to OW 2 USGS Quadrangle: Fayetteville Stream Location: OW 3 Section: 26 Date: 8/4/21 Township: T16N Weather: Partly cloudy Range: R30W Collector: Eric Fuselier Ordinary High Water Mark Width: 5 feet I Height: 3 inches Stream Flow Dry: I Low: X Normal: High: Flooded: Stream Class Perennial: Intermittent: X Ephemeral: Percentage of Habitats Observed Stream Shaded: 100% Riffle: I lRun: Notes: Pool I X Wetlands: Stream Substrate Boulders (>10") Cobble (2-10") Gravel(1/4"-2") 10 Sand 30 Silt 40 Riparian Composition (Percentage and Class of Vegetation) Clay 10 Trees 40 Bare Soil Notes: Bedrock Shrubs 40 Rocks Detritus 10 Forbs 20 Other Riparian Composition (Species of Vegetation) Juniperus virginiana Quercus velutina Parthenocissus quinquefolia Prunus serotina Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Elymus virginicus Sassafras albidum Lindera benzoin Platanus occidentalis Ulmus rubra STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER: 21108400 COUNTY: W-hin9t- STATE: AR Stream Location:owa Bank Cover Types Observed Average Width of Wooded Riparian Zone Undercut Banks (facing downstream) Rock Ledges Left Bank:asfeet Upstream of Roots/Root Wads Right Bank: 35 feet Drift Material Assessment Location Notes: Other Left Bank: 35 feet Downstream of Right Bank: as feet Assessment Location Aquatic Organisms Observed Notes: None Streambank Erosion Potential Severe Notes: High Moderate Low X None Stream Color Brown Notes: Stream Odor None Algae Present None Notes: Photograph Stream was mostly dry, with shallow pools of water in some locations. V. 0 �,M Crofton Tull STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER:21108400 COUNTY: Washington STATE: AR Project: Riverside Village Stream Name: Unnamed tributary to OW 3 USGS Quadrangle: Fayetteville Stream Location: OW 4 Section: 26 Date: 8/4/21 Township: T16N Weather: Partly cloudy Range: R30W Collector: Eric Fuselier Ordinary High Water Mark Width: 4 feet I Height: 3 inches Stream Flow Dry: X I Low: Normal: High: Flooded: Stream Class Perennial: Intermittent: X Ephemeral: Percentage of Habitats Observed Stream Shaded: 100% Riffle: I lRun: Notes: Pool I lWetlands: Stream Substrate Boulders (>10") Cobble (2-10") 70 Gravel(1/4"-2") 20 Sand 5 Silt 5 Riparian Composition (Percentage and Class of Vegetation) Clay Trees 40 Bare Soil Notes: Bedrock Shrubs 40 Rocks Detritus Forbs 20 Other Riparian Composition (Species of Vegetation) Juniperus virginiana Quercus velutina Parthenocissus quinquefolia Prunus serotina Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Lindera benzoin Sassafras albidum STREAM CHANNEL ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET PROJECT NUMBER: 21108400 COUNTY: W-hi,9to, STATE: AR Stream Location:owa Bank Cover Types Observed Average Width of Wooded Riparian Zone Undercut Banks (facing downstream) Rock Ledges Left Bank: too. feet Upstream of Roots/Root Wads x Right Bank: 70 feet Drift Material Assessment Location Notes: Other Left Ba n k: 1 oo. feet Downstream of Right Bank:7o feet Aquatic Organisms Observed Assessment Location Notes: None Streambank Erosion Potential Severe Notes: High Moderate Low x None Stream Color Dry Notes: Stream Odor None Algae Present None Notes: Photograph r ♦ View of OW-1B (foreground) and OW -IA (background), facing downstream toward the north. ♦ View of OW-2, facing upstream toward the west. ♦ View of OW-4, facing upstream toward the south- west. ♦ View of OW-1B, facing upstream toward the south. ♦ View of OW-3, facing downstream toward the east. ..- ♦ View of EPH-1, facing downstream toward the north- east. Riverside Village Washington County, AR On -site photographs taken August 4 & 12, 2021 Crafton Tull Project No. 21108400 L :t6!- �:' '-�yy.. r `: it •�TF•r-� A. _ ~. % ♦ View of EPH-2, facing downstream toward the north. ♦ View of WET-2, an emergent wetland, facing north- west. ♦ View of WET-4, a forested wetland, facing northwest. 8 ♦ View of EPH-3, facing upstream toward the south- west. ♦ View of WET-3, a forested wetland, facing south. ♦ View of WET-5, a scrub -shrub wetland, facing south- east. Riverside Village Washington County, AR On -site photographs taken August 5 & 12, 2021 Crafton Tull Project No. 21108400 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS POST OFFICE BOX 867 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-0867 www.swiusace.army.mil/ October 13, 2021 Regulatory Division FILE No. SWL-2021-00266 Karen McCurdy Crafton Tull 901 N. 471" Street, Ste. 400 Rogers, AR 72756 Dear Ms. McCurdy: Please refer to your letter of August 24, 2021, on behalf of Rausch Coleman Homes, concerning a waters of the United States determination of an approximately 90.6-acre subject property (Riverside Village) located just east of Black Oak Road. The subject property abuts portions of West Fork White River, in parts of section 26, T. 16 N., R. 30 W., Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. This letter will provide information on the extent of the waters of the United States, including wetlands, on the property and the Department of the Army permit requirements pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code 1344). My site evaluation on October 12, 2021, utilizing United States Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps, aerial photography, National Hydrography Dataset, site visit, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Washington County Soil Survey, revealed that the property contains areas that meet the definition of wetlands and waters of the United States, as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Supplement, appropriate guidance, and Department of the Army regulations. Approximately 2.66 acres of wetlands and 7,950 linear feet of stream were identified. The approximate location of these areas is shown on the enclosed map of the site. This letter contains an Approved Jurisdictional Determination for your subject site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeals Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form for to the Southwestern Division Office at the following address: Mr. Jamie Hyslop Administrative Appeals Review Officer (CESWD-PD-O) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1100 Commerce Street, Suite 831 Dallas, Texas 75242-1317 -2- In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by December 12, 2021. It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this letter. This approved jurisdictional determination is valid for a period of 5 years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. Please be advised that the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, including wetlands, requires a Department of the Army permit prior to beginning work in most situations. A permit is required pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Corps of Engineers implementing regulations, 33 CFR 320 - 332. The clearing of wetlands with mechanized equipment; landleveling; construction of ditches, dikes, and dams; placement of fill to raise the elevation of a site; and stabilization of banks are examples of activities that routinely require a permit. All of these activities involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States. In the event you wish to apply for a permit, please visit our website at https://www.swl.usace.ariily.mil/Missions/Regulatory/ARV[ying-for-a-Pernlit/. The website contains DA application forms and instructions. It also briefly describes the Corps regulatory process. Please note the drawing requirements and checklist. These instructions are designed to. insure the submittal of a good, understandable application and drawings of your project. Plan and cross section drawings should be in a scaled printable format. Our acceptance of an application does not necessarily mean it will be approved. Note that you can either submit your application electronically to the general regulatory email inbox at ceswl- re ugh[ a,usace.army.mil or hardcopy postal mail. The delineation included herein has been conducted to identify the location and extent of the aquatic resource boundaries and/or the jurisdictional status of aquatic resources for purposes of the Clean Water Act for the particular site identified in this request. This delineation and/or jurisdictional determination may not be valid for the Wetland Conservation Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should discuss the applicability of a certified wetland determination with the local USDA service center, prior to starting work. Your cooperation in the Regulatory Program is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at (501) 340-1386 and refer to No. SWL-2021-00266. -3- Sincerely, David Rupe Project Manager Enclosures CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED cc: Beaver Lake PO Ch, Regulatory Enf APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): October 13, 2021 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Riverside Village SWL-2021-00266 C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: Arkansas County/parish/borough: Washington City: Fayetteville Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.02909°, Long.-94.12766' Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83 Zone 15 N 3987753 northing 398407 easting Name of nearest waterbody: West Fork White River Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: White River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 11010001 (Beaver Reservoir) F Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. F- Check if other sites (e.g., offske mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 7 Office (Desk) Determination. Date: October 12, 2021 7 Field Determination. Date(s): October 12. 2021 SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] F Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. F- Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required) 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r TNWs, including territorial seas r Wetlands adjacent to TNWs Relatively permanent watersz (RPWS) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs 17 Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs F Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs r Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs r Impoundments of jurisdictional waters r Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non -wetland waters: 8,033 linear feet: channels range from 2' to 60` in width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 2.66 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Elevation of established OHWM (if known): 2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3 r Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Wetlands (WET-1, WET-2, WET-3, and WET-4) total approximately 0.53 acre. These four wetland areas are located outside of mapped floodplains and supported no hydrologic connection to West Fork White River or tributaries to West Fork White River. Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section Ill below, - For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally' (e.g„ typically 3 months) ' Supporting documentation is presented in Section 11I.F. Riverside Village SWL-2021-00266 SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.I and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.I and 2 and Section IILD.I.; otherwise, see Section IILB below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. Characteristics of Tributary (That Is Not a TNW) and Its Adjacent Wetlands (If Any): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody' is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: 2172 square miles Drainage area: 32.3 square miles Average annual rainfall: 47 inches Average annual snowfall: 7 inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ry-0 Tributary flows directly into TNW. F Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are 10-15 river miles from TNW. Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW. Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNW': Tributaries flow to West Fork White River, which flows to White River (TNW) Tributary stream order, if known: (b) General Tributary Characteristics (chcck all that apply) - Tributary is: 7 Natural F_ Artificial (man-made). Explain: 7 Manipulated (man -altered). Explain: a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches. washes. and erosional features generally and in the and West 5 Flow route can be described by identifying. e_g.. tributary a. which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b. which then flows into TNW. Riverside Village SWL-2021-00266 -2- Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: West Fork White River (OW -IA): 60 feet; West Fork White River secondary channel (OW-lB): 30 feet; Intermittent (OW-2): 7 feet; Intermittent (OW-3): 5 feet; Intermittent (OW-4): 4 feet; Ephemeral (EPH-1): 2 feet; EPH-2: 2.5 feet; EPH-3: 3 feet. Average depth: West Fork White River: 3 feet; West Fork White River secondary channel (OW-lB): 2 feet: Intermittent (OW-2): 6 inches; Intermittent (OW-3): 3 inches; Intermittent (OW-4): 3 inches: Ephemeral (EPH-1): 3 inches; EPH-2: 3 feet; EPH-3: 2 inches deep. Average side slopes: 3:1 Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): R_ Silts F Sands F Concrete F Cobbles F Gravel F Muck F Bedrock F Vegetation. Type/% cover: F Other. Explain: Boulder (West Fork White River) Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Natural conditions, minor erosion on West Fork White River. Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Streams supported a natural mixture of riffle/run/pool complexes. Tributary geometry: Meandering Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Describe flow regime: West Fork White River (OW-1) (both primary and secondary channel) is perennial. Intermittent channels OW-2, OW-3, and OW-4 support seasonal flow and based on field conditions either dry up or are restricted to pools during dry season. Ephemeral channels, EPH-I, EPH-2, and EPH-3, support ephemeral flow in direct response to rainfall/precipitation events. Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Discrete and Confined Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Explain findings: F Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): F7 Bed and banks 17 OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): F-0 clear, natural line impressed on the bank F the presence of litter and debris F changes in the character of soil r destruction of terrestrial vegetation F_ shelving F the presence of wrack line F vegetation matted down, bent, or absent F sediment sorting F leaf litter disturbed or washed away P_ scour 17' sediment deposition F multiple observed or predicted flow events F water staining F abrupt change in plant community F other (list): F Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent .of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): F High Tide Line indicated by: F Mean High Water Mark indicated by: 7 oil or scum line along shore objects F survey to available datum: F fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) r_ physical markings, F physical markings/characteristics r vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. F tidal gauges F other (list): (iii) Chemical Characteristics: 'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e,g„ where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 'Ibid. Riverside Village SWL-2021-00266 -3- Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Water color was clear in West Fork White River and associated tributaries. Immediate drainage area is largely undeveloped, but transitions to highly developed further downstream in watershed. Identify specific pollutants, if known: Typical farming/rural related pollutants (sediment, nutrients); runoff from small amount of impervious surface in immediate watershed. (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): r,-o Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): West Fork White River supports a mature riparian corridor varying from 100 to greater than 500 feet in width within/near the subject property. The riparian corridor includes species characteristic of Ozark ecoregion (silver maple, sycamore, river birch, etc.). i Wetland fringe. Characteristics: F Habitat for: r Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Riparian forest and nearby upland/wetland forested communities may support suitable habitat for listed bat species, such as northern long-eared bat and Indiana bat. F Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: F Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings: Fq— Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: West Fork White River supports a fishery with such species as smallmouth bass, spotted bass, various additional sunfish, and other non -game fish and benthic species. Intermittent channels OW-1 through OW-4 may support non -game fish species, and other aquatic fauna. Channels provide a water source for semi -aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species. 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: Wetlands 6 and 7 (WET-6 and WET-7) (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: WET-6: 2.22 acres; WET-7: 0.23 acres. Wetland type. Explain: Wetlands are palustrine forested (dominated in the canopy by green ash and in the herbaceous layer by species such as Ludwigia sp., Persicaria sp., and other hydrophytes). Wetland quality. Good. Explain: Forested wetlands exhibiting minimal impacts; wetlands support several functions and values (flood storage, diversity, etc.). Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. No. Explain: Wetlands are not located near state boundaries. (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Intermittent Flow Explain: Wetlands directly abut perennial and intermittent channels. Surface flow is: Discrete and Confined Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Unknown Explain findings: r Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Welland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: F Directly abutting F Not directly abutting F Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: F Ecological connection. Explain: F Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are 5-10 river miles from TNW. Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Wetland to Navigable Waters Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2-year or less floodplain. Wetland 5 (WET-5) (a) Gencral Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: 0.21 acres. Riverside Village SWL-2021-00266 -4- Wetland type. Explain: Palustrine forested (dominated in the canopy by green ash and in the herbaceous layer by species such as Ludwigia sp., Persicaria sp., and other hydrophytes). Wetland quality. Explain: Good. Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. No. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Intermittent Flow Explain: Wetland is located within 100-year floodplain and adjacent to floodway associated with West Fork White River. Surface flow is: Discrete and Confined Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Unknown Explain findings: F Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency- Determination with Non-TNW: r Directly abutting F Not directly abutting F7 Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Wetland receives hydrology from West Fork White River and associated tributaries during flood events. F Ecological connection. Explain: F Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW' Project wetlands are 5-10 river miles from TNW. Project waters are 5-10 aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Wetland to Navigable Waters Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2-year or less floodplain (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Water color generally clear (based on consultant wetland delineation, features were primarily dry at time of Corps site visit). Identify specific pollutants, if known: Pollutants include those associated with agriculture such as sediment, nutrient loads. Additional run-off associated with infrastructure in the watershed may include oils, etc. (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): F Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Forested, variable width. F Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 7 Habitat for: F7 Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Potential habitat for northern long-eared bat and Indiana bat. 7 Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: F Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings: P_ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Water source for semi -aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Approximately () acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in as:rrs) Directly abuts? {YSize_ Tin a:resl WET-5 No 0.21 WET-6 Yes 2.22 WET-7 Yes 0.23 Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not Riverside Village SWL-2021-00266 -5. appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: Ephemeral channels (EPH-1, EPH-2, and EPH-3) exhibit an OHWM and flow directly into RPWs (OW-1 and OW-3). 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: F TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. F Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. FT Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: West Fork White River (OW -IA and OW-113) is mapped perennial by NHD and USGS topographic quadrangles. r Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: OW-2, OW-3, and OW-4, all support a well -established bed/bank, diverse stream morphology (riffle/run/pool), and aerial photography (Google Earth) indicates seasonal flow. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): p— Tributary waters: OW-lA/OW-iB: 799 linear feet 60 width (ft); OW-2: 2,277 linear feet 7 width (ft); OW-3: 3,093 linear feet 5 width (-ft. OW-4: 417 linear feet 4 width (ft). r Other non -wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 3. Non-RPWsa that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ry—, Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): F Tributary waters: Eph-1: 251 linear feet 2 width (ft); EPH-2: 488 linear feet 2 width (ft); EPH-3: 208 linear feet 2 width (ft). r Other non -wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. 17 Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. j� Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands (WET 6 and WET-7) directly abut/connect to West Fork White River, forming a direct hydrologic connection. "See Footnote # 1 Riverside Village SWL-2021-00266 -6- r Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow -'seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 2.45 acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. F7 Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: Wetland C (WET-C) 0.21 acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. F- Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters 9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. F_ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or F Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or r Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE1 WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10 F which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. F from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. F which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. 7 Interstate isolated waters. Explain: 7 Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): 7 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). 7 Other non -wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: F Wetlands: acres. F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): r If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. rv- Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. Fv- Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). r Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: F Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): F Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). r Lakes/ponds: acres. F Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: . ry-1 Wetlands: WET-1 0.04 acres; WET-2 0.02 acres; WET-3 0.33 acres; and WET-4 0.14 acres. To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category. Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CJFA Acl Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. Riverside Village SWL-2021-00266 -7- Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): F— Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). r Lakes/ponds: acres. r Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource; . r Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Request for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Riverside Village, Washington County, Arkansas by Crafton Tull dated August 23, 2021. 7 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. rv— Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. r Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. r Data sheets prepared by the Corps: i— Corps navigable waters' study: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: HUC 8: 11010001, HUC 12: 110100010404; NHD data accessed via National Regulatory Viewer USGS NHD data. (r USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. Fv U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Fayetteville, AR (1:24K) r%o— USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soil Survey of Washington County, Arkansas (1969); NRCS soil maps also provided in Crafton Tull wetland delineation. r7o National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Provided by Crafton Tull in wetland delineation dated August 2021. F— State/Local wetland inventory map(s): rv— FEMA/FIRM maps: FEMA floodplain map provide by Crafton Tull in wetland delineation report dated August 2021. r 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) F Photographs: F Aerial (Name & Date): Google Earth (1994-2020); Crafton Tull (Wetland Delineation dated 2021) F or fv— Other (Name & Date): Crafton Tull (Wetland Delineation dated August 2021); Corps site visit (October 12, 2021). r Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter. r Applicable/supporting case law: F— Applicable/supporting scientific literature: r- Other information (please specify): B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The subject property is located in a generally level area adjacent to West Fork White River (WFWR); the eastern portion of the subject property is within a broad floodplain associated with WFWR. Wetlands 6 and 7 directly abut WFWR; Wetland 5 (WET-5) lies in floodplain adjacent to WFWR. Channels OW-2, OW-3, and OW-4 were identified as intermittent tributaries (RPWs) that flow directly into WFWR. Ephemeral channels (EPH-1, EPH-2, and EPH-3) supported OHWM indicators and flow directly into WFWR or OW-3 (RPWs); therefore, these channels qualify for jurisdiction as waters of the U.S. Finally, wetlands WET-1, WET-2, WET-3 and WET-4, were located well outside the floodplain associated with WFWR. These features were surrounded by uplands; there was no hydrologic connection observed between these wetland features and regulated waters of the U.S. David Rupe Project Manager Riverside Village SWL-2021-00266 October 13, 2021 Date -8- 0 o ' �o j, ¢ CA � O L� z � � 0 -C I� ��'Z0 , � V L>LI RK C!] O J O O J 0 11Uhite River IN e� tz m X - W ' a �o �m oL rn¢ 3 A0 ° W> >U LO CO z 5 0 m W m Q Mo E m (N U o� LLO N w (o FL d' l W F l C?1� CL LLI LO L Y: 2w J W cu m a) vJ V) Q U) C O 0 O N O_ (0 C (n (n lL d 5 w o Ali NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: Rausch Coleman Homes File Number: SWL-2021-00266 Date: 10/13/21 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) A PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) B PERMIT DENIAL C ✓ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil\A oi-l:�,: fzc�wulat6ry_ProgramandPennits/appeals.asox or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you [nay provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may process you may contact: also contact: Mr. Jamie Hyslop Mr. David RuPe Administrative Appeals Review Officer. Southwestern Division (CESWD-PD-O) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CES WL-RD) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 867 1100 Commerce Street, Suite 831 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-0867 Dallas, Texas 75242-1317 501-324-5295 Phone: 469-216-8324 Email: iamie.r.hvslo (u!usace.armv.mil RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. Date: Telephone number: Signature of appellant or agent. From: Mathis, Jeana To: Mathis. Jeana Subject: FW: Riverside Village Exhibit C Date: Thursday, December 9, 2021 12:29:38 PM Attachments: imaae001.g_na image001.g_na imaae001.ma Per Blake Pennington on the Riverside Village Exhibit: Legistar 2021-0867. We do not need to file the blank page on Exhibit c page 12 of 12. Jeana Mathis Customer & Information Records Specialist Office of the City Clerk Treasurer City of Fayetteville, Arkansas imath isQfayetteville-ar.gov 479.575.8323 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTE ILLE ARKANSAS From: Pennington, Blake <bpennington@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 12:27 PM To: Mathis, Jeana <jmath is@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Re: Riverside Village Exhibit C Nah, we can skip that one. Blake E. Pennington Assistant City Attorney 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Tele: (479) 575-8313 Fax: (479) 575-8315 Sent from my iPhone On Dec 9, 2021, at 11:40 AM, Mathis, Jeana <6math is(@fayetteviIIe-ar.gov> wrote: If these get filed, do we need to file the blank page at the very end? 12 of 12 Jeana Mathis Customer & Information Records Specialist Office of the City Clerk Treasurer City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Jmath is(cDfayetteville-ar.gov 479.575.8323 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSA,S From: Pennington, Blake<bpenningtonCcDfayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:19 AM To: Mathis, Jeana <Jmathis(@fayetteviIle-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Riverside Village Exhibit C Oops, did I forget the attachment? Blake E. Pennington Assistant City Attorney Tele: (479) 575-8313 bnennington(cr�.favetteville-ar.gov From: Mathis, Jeana <4math isWayetteviIle-ar.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:17 AM To: Pennington, Blake<boennington(@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: RE: Riverside Village Exhibit C Thanks Blake! Jeana Mathis Customer & Information Records Specialist Office of the City Clerk Treasurer City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 0mathiso_fayetteville-ar.gov 479.575.8323 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube CITY OF FAYETTrzv1LLE ARKANSAS From: Pennington, Blake<bpennington(@f)tetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:15 AM To: Mathis, Jeana <imath is(@fayetteviIle-ar.gov> Subject: Riverside Village Exhibit C Jeana, I'm attaching the PZD booklet to attach to this ordinance as Exhibit C. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Blake Blake E. Pennington Assistant City Attorney 113 W. Mountain St., Suite 302 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8313 bpennington&fayetteville-ar. gov Osiic:i_ui rmr t. CITY ATTORNEY Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube Democrat a�ette r ?UX -r%%. %rI",, _Vii . _1%` ' ;•d ' 1. vu • G1_. ?a•o�4i-IL•:fi • 11�v,+1', `.fit;is('�i;.COtf AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Brittany Smith, do solemnly swear that I am the Accounting Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat -Gazette, a daily newspaper printed and published in said County, State of Arkansas; that I was so related to this publication at and during the publication of the annexed legal advertisement the matter of. Notice. pending in the Court, in said County, and at the dates of the several publications of said advertisement stated below, and that during said periods and at said dates, said newspaper was printed and had a bona fide circulation in said County; that said newspaper had been regularly printed and published in said County, and had a bona fide circulation therein for the period of one month before the date of the first publication of said advertisement; and that said advertisement was published in the regular daily issues of said newspaper as stated below. City of Fayetteville Ord 6511 Was inserted in the Regular Edition on: December 12, 2021 Publication Charges: $98.80 L -it SAr Briri y Smith Subscribed and sworn to before me This I > day of �� , 2021. Notary Public My Commission Expires: **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent. Cathy Wiles Benton COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC -ARKANSAS My Commission Expires 02-20-2024 Commission No.12397118 Ordinance: 6511 File Number: 2021-0867 RPZD-2021-004: (souTH OF 2936 S. BLACK OAK RD./RIVERSIDE VILLAGE): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED R-PZD 2021- 004 FOR APPROXIMATELY 101.77 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF 2936 SOUTH BLACK OAK ROAD TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 2.2', ACRES FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. USES AND 97.8 ACRES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY TO FOUR -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND PARKLANDIOPEN SPACE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section I : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves R-PZD 2021-004 as described in Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" attached to the Planning Division's Agenda Memo which allows the development of 2.20 acres for commercial and multi- family residential uses, and 97.80 acres for single-family to four -family residential uses and parkland/open space. Section 2: That the official zoning map of The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section I PASSED and APPROVED on 12/7/2021 Lioneld Jordan, Mayor Attest: Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer Paid for by: The City Clerk -Treasurer the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Amount paid: $99.80. 75498690 12/12/21