Laserfiche WebLink
included the presence of a histic epipedon, mottling, gleying, low chroma matrix colors, sulfidic odors, and <br />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 and is included within Appendix A. <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" checkpoints. <br />Pertinent information resulting from "recorded" checkpoint observations are provided in tabular form with <br />this document. Information resulting from "unrecorded" observations were noted on field maps for use in <br />final remote sensing boundary determinations. <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 / WUS system warranting the effort, and then proceeded downstream. <br />Unrecorded checkpoints started at the same location, but were extended upstream. Unrecorded <br />checkpoint data were recorded directly on field maps to facilitate remote sensing interpretation. These <br />points were placed wherever there was perceived need (e.g., change in width or character of streamside <br />wetland), access to the stream was afforded, and at multiple locations high in each drainage basin to <br />ascertain the point where COE jurisdictional wetlands or WUS ceased and uplands began. <br />Recorded checkpoints were somewhat more formal in nature, but not as formal as a sample site <br />(Appendix A). Using a standard GPS to maintain longitudinal control a checkpoint was established at <br />every 0.1-mile interval (528 feet) downgradient from the point separating recorded versus unrecorded <br />checkpoints. This resulted in 2.23 miles of Wilson Creek being recorded, or the entire segment through <br />the study area. A total of 4.94 miles of Jubb Creek and the West Fork of Jubb Creek were recorded, from <br />the "Artesian Well" down to the point where Jubb Creek exits the study area at County Road 32. Finally, <br />(CMIDAR cCREIEKA SOCRAMS, INC. Page 4 Colowyo Coal Co. - Collom Project Wetlands