Laserfiche WebLink
(obligate wetland species), FACW (facultative wetland species), FAC (facultative species), FACU <br />(facultative upland species) or UPL (upland species). Soil and hydrologic data were also recorded to <br />verify the presence or absence of wetlands at each sampling point. Wetland soil indicators potentially <br />included the presence of a histic epipedon, mottling, gleying, low chroma matrix colors, sulfidic odors, <br />and a high organic matter content and/or organic matter streaking in the surface layers of sandy soils. <br />Potential wetland hydrologic indicators included topographic position, the presence of standing water, <br />saturated soil profile conditions (as often indicated by a "sucking" sound as the soil profile is exposed), <br />drainage patterns, and/or oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. A sample site <br />data sheet was completed for each formal sampling point. <br />In conjunction with the nine formal sampling sites, numerous systematic "checkpoints" were <br />evaluated to further aid in defining wetland / upland boundaries. This system of "checkpoints" was <br />utilized because of the extensive length of stream and drainage-ways through the study area - over 21 <br />miles. A total of 473 "recorded" checkpoints and an unknown number of "unrecorded" checkpoints <br />(estimated at over 300) were utilized in this manner. Checkpoints provided significant additional data <br />(vegetation, hydrologic, and occasionally soils information) useful for ascertaining those characteristic of <br />the wetland / upland boundaries which could then be visually correlated. In this manner, boundary <br />definition could be refined for those areas of subtle transition from wetland to upland. Such information <br />was also useful to better characterize wetland and upland characteristics as a whole given the increased <br />sample size; however, field data sheets were not completed for "recorded" and "unrecorded" <br />checkpoints. <br />The primary difference between recorded versus unrecorded checkpoints was somewhat elevational <br />in nature as it relates to the size of the streamside system being evaluated. Recorded checkpoints were <br />started at a readily identifiable location in each drainage system within the study area where perennial <br />flow gave rise to a wetland / Water of the U.S. (WUS) system warranting the effort, and then proceeded <br />downstream. Unrecorded checkpoints started at the same location, but were extended upstream. <br />Unrecorded checkpoint data were recorded directly on field maps to facilitate remote sensing <br />interpretation. These points were placed wherever there was perceived need (e.g., change in width or <br />character of streamside wetland), access to the stream was afforded, and at multiple locations high in <br />each drainage basin to ascertain the point where COE jurisdictional wetlands ceased and uplands began. <br />Recorded checkpoints were somewhat more formal in nature, but not as formal as a sample site. <br />Using a standard GPS to maintain longitudinal control a checkpoint was established at every 0.1-mile <br />interval (528 feet) downgradient from the point separating recorded versus unrecorded checkpoints. <br />CIEDDAR CMI&K AMCHAT ES, INC. Page 37 2005 Collom Vegetation Survey