1

RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT

Procedures for Ecological Site Inventory —

With Special Reference to Riparian-Wetland Sites

by

Steve Leonard

Range Scientist

Bureau of Land Management

National Soil-Range Team, Nevada

George Staidl

Soil Scientist

Soil Conservation Service

National Soil-Range Team, Nevada

Jim Fogg

Hydrologist

Bureau of Land Management

Service Center, Colorado

Karl Gebhardt

Hydrologist

Bureau of Land Management

Idaho State Office, Idaho

Warren Hagenbuck

Regional Wetland Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Don Prichard

Fishery Biologist/Riparian-Wetland Coordinator

Bureau of Land Management

Service Center, Colorado

Technical Reference 1737-7

1992

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Service Center

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, CO 80225-0047
2
3

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the following individuals for the time they offered in review,

comment, and development of this document: Mark Gorges, Ned Habich, Roy Masinton,

Allan Strobel, Bob Wagner, Glenn Wallace, and Dennis Zachman.

A special thanks to Linda Hill (Writer/Editor - Service Center) and the Technology Transfer

Staff for making this a quality document.
4
5

Table of Contents

Page

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

II. Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 3

III. Ecological Site Inventory ......................................................................................... 5

A. Inventory Elements ............................................................................................ 5

1. Coordinated Resource Inventory and the Interdisciplinary Team............... 5

2. Soil Survey Map Unit Concept ................................................................. 10

3. Soil and Ecological Site Correlation ......................................................... 15

4. Present Vegetation..................................................................................... 17

5. Hydrologic Information ............................................................................. 19

6. Ecological Site Description Content ......................................................... 21

7. Documentation and Data Permanence ...................................................... 24

B. Inventory Preparation....................................................................................... 24

1. Memorandum of Understanding ............................................................... 25

2. Inventory Plan ........................................................................................... 25

3. Existing Data and Other Information ........................................................ 29

4. General Resource Reference Map ............................................................. 31

5. Tools for Inventory.................................................................................... 32

6. Field Sheets ............................................................................................... 37

7. Training ..................................................................................................... 38

C. Field Procedures .............................................................................................. 39

1. Review of Memorandum of Understanding .............................................. 39

2. Preliminary Field Study............................................................................. 40

3. Survey Design ........................................................................................... 41

4. Major Landform Design ............................................................................ 43

5. Test Map Sample Areas ............................................................................ 43

6. Provisional Map Units ............................................................................... 60

7. Descriptive Legend.................................................................................... 60

8. Provisional General Soil and Vegetation Map .......................................... 61

9. Field Mapping Process and Application ................................................... 62

IV. Relationships and Use of ESI with BLM Planning and

Implementation Processes ...................................................................................... 65

A. Data Analysis for Planning and Management Applications (from draft

Vegetation Management Handbook H-1621-1)............................................... 65

B. Resource Management Plan ............................................................................. 66

C. Implementing Actions...................................................................................... 69

D. Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 71

E. Interpreting ESI Information for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional

Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 72

V. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 77

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................ 79
6

List of Acronyms.............................................................................................................. 83

Appendix I - Taxonomic Class Phases ............................................................................. 85

Appendix II - Riparian-Wetland Delineation ................................................................... 87

Appendix III - Plant Association Tables .......................................................................... 91

Appendix IV - Site Correlation Procedures ..................................................................... 93

Appendix V - Standard Site Description ........................................................................ 103

Appendix VI - Example Riparian-Wetland Site Description ......................................... 117

Appendix VII - Other Suggested Technical References ................................................ 135
7

Procedures for Ecological Site Inventory —

With Special Reference to

Riparian-Wetland Sites

I. Introduction

Soil, water, and vegetation are the operating capital in the business of land management.

Sustainable production of goods, values, and services from renewable resources is possible

without depreciation of initial operating capital under proper management — an enviable

situation in most businesses. As in any business, however, an inventory of resources is

essential. Changing social and economic values require the capability to evaluate potential

resource availability as well as the present situation. Resource inventories establish a

baseline to evaluate levels of use that do not depreciate or degrade the operating capital.

Inventory and management of riparian-wetland resources are a priority in the Director’s

“Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990’s.” The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

defines wetlands as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a

frequency and duration sufficient to support and which, under normal circumstances, do

support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Wetlands include marshes, shallows, swamps, lake bogs, muskegs, wet meadows, estuaries,

and riparian areas. Riparian areas are a form of wetland transition between permanently

saturated wetlands and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Lands along, adjacent to,

or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes,

and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels are typical riparian areas.

Inventory and management of rangeland resources are also crucial to BLM’s “Range of Our

Vision” plan and other national strategies. Independent inventories of specific natural

resources often overlook relationships that may apply to the overall land management strategy. In particular, soil and vegetation inventories are often conducted on uplands that are

independent of, and indicate little relationship to water resource and habitat inventories of

riparian-wetland areas in the same watershed. Ecological site inventories provide an interdisciplinary approach to resource inventory and analysis that applies equally to upland and

riparian-wetland areas.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) requires BLM to inventory

lands and resources on a continuing basis. In 1982, BLM adopted the Range Site Inventory

procedure described in the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) National Range Handbook

(NRH) (USDA, 1976) as its principal rangeland inventory method. The term “ecological

site” has been adopted by BLM in place of the term “range site.” While the term ecological

site as defined by BLM is synonymous with range site as defined by SCS on rangelands, the

concept also applies to grazeable woodlands, forests, and riparian-wetland sites (USDI,

1990).

Sections 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 of the NRH, and additional guidance provided in

BLM Manual Handbook H-4410-1, Release 4-101, established the basic procedural guidance

on Ecological Site Inventory (ESI). The BLM Riparian Area Management Technical Reference TR 1737-3 (Meyers, 1989) addresses general ecological site concepts in relationship to
8

overall riparian-wetland inventory and monitoring requirements. Vegetation, hydrology, and

wildlife information is best obtained in conjunction with ongoing soil surveys or soil survey

updates to provide an ecological site inventory.

Past soil and vegetation inventory efforts to classify upland areas have often overlooked

riparian-wetland areas in the Western States. Cooperative soil survey area Memorandums of

Understanding (MOUs) for public lands emphasized broad objectives appropriate for uplands. The resulting soil surveys and associated vegetation inventories relegated many

riparian-wetland areas to minor components within a soil map unit. Increased attention to

riparian-wetland values and management will require inventory updates to establish permanence of baseline information for reference and evaluation. Map unit design in new soil

survey area inventory starts must consider specific requirements to include riparian-wetland

areas. These requirements are to be incorporated as part of any cooperative soil survey area

MOU.

The process of documenting and describing range sites has traditionally resided with the SCS.

However, BLM has equal responsibility for the process where public lands administered by

BLM are involved (USDA, 1985). The increased emphasis on riparian-wetland area management, along with a rapidly expanding information base, has dictated the need for many

updated or new ecological site descriptions. There are additional information requirements,

particularly for hydrologic information, necessary to effectively describe the environmental

factors characterizing riparian-wetland sites. Processes affecting physical changes and

subsequent vegetation responses must also be interpreted to understand and evaluate site

dynamics.
9

II. Purpose

The purpose of this technical reference is to detail field procedures for describing and documenting ecological site information as it applies to the interaction between soils, climate,

hydrology, and vegetation for riparian-wetland resources and uplands. Possible uses of this

information in BLM’s planning process, resource evaluations, and other applications are

discussed. Maintenance and permanence of baseline data are also incorporated. This document is intended to be used in conjunction with, not as a replacement for, guidance provided

in the National Range Handbook Manual H-4410-1, National Range Handbook, National

Soils Handbook (USDA, 1983), Soil Survey Manual (USDA, in press) and appropriate

technical references.
10
11

III. Ecological Site Inventory

A. Inventory Elements

1. Coordinated Resource Inventory and the Interdisciplinary Team.

a. Background

The National Range Handbook defines a range site as a “...distinctive kind of

rangeland that differs from other kinds of rangeland in its ability to produce a

characteristic natural plant community. A range site is the product of all the

environmental factors responsible for its development...” The environmental

factors responsible for a site development are the same as in the general soil

model:

Soil = ƒ [Parent material (PM), Relief (R), Climate (C), Biota (B), (vegetation, animals), Time (T1)]

The variables are simply transposed to make an ecological site model:

Ecological Site (potential vegetation) = ƒ [soil, PM, R, C, B (animals), T2]

where T1 = geologic time in place and T2 = time for the biotic community to

approximate a dynamic equilibrium with soil and climate conditions.

The relationship between soils and ecological sites is evident in the models but

not necessarily easy to establish at all times in the field. There can be many

confounding factors (i.e., those irritating and confusing circumstances that

prevent people from presenting ecological functions in the simple linear relationships they would like them to be). In almost all surveys, ecological sites are

encountered where apparently different soils produce essentially similar potential

vegetation because of compensations in climate, topographic orientation, or

combinations of these and other factors. Temporal characteristics associated

with secondary vegetation succession, soil surface properties, and short-term

climate fluctuations also provide potential sources of confusion.

Riparian-wetland sites present additional challenges because of hydrologic

actions on the landscape, as well as interactions with soil, vegetation, and other

factors. Some of these additional challenges include determining an ecological

site’s capability to change its potential vegetation (site progression), to migrate

(change location), or to change its extent (expand or contract) in response to

environmental dynamics.

b. Coordinated Inventories

Resource inventories need to be designed and carried out to most effectively

establish the interrelationships between ecosystem components. The ecology and

management of natural units of vegetation can best be understood if the soils and

hydrology are investigated at the same time that vegetation and animal (wild and

domestic) uses are appraised. Concurrent investigations allow for interdiscipli-
12

nary interaction to strengthen immediate soil-site correlation and support documentation for site interpretation.

Data gaps and/or new information indicating the need for revised or new ecological site descriptions are most often recognized during the inventory process.

Coordinated resource inventories offer the best opportunity to provide necessary

documentation to support revisions or to develop new site descriptions. Resource

coordination is provided for in the following references:

1) Section 601.05, NSH, provides that the soil survey plan consider “coordinating woodland, range, biology and engineering with soil surveys; ...”

2) Section 303, NRH, provides that “Soil scientists and range conservationists

must work as a team...” and

3) Section 303, H-4410-1, further requires that:

a) An interdisciplinary team develop the inventory plan and conduct

reviews.

b) Soil survey team and vegetation inventory teams “... should work concurrently and consult other resource disciplines as necessary.”

To fully implement part 3, a water resource (stream surveys, etc.) inventory

needs to be conducted concurrently with ESI and soil surveys where possible. If

water resource inventories have been completed prior to ESI, a hydrologist

should reevaluate the existing inventory relative to ESI information requirements.

c. Interdisciplinary Team Approach

1) Multidisciplinary vs. Interdisciplinary

The multidisciplinary approach involves each discipline addressing their

individual resource needs independently of others and collecting inventory

data that is only needed by that program. Each component is then combined

into a package for planners and managers to analyze and use. If this concept

was applied to the construction of an automobile, the end product may look

something like Figure 1.

Each component may be technically correct for some application, but the

combination is not very utilitarian and is often confusing.

The interdisciplinary approach to resource inventory is designed from the

beginning to provide a coordinated, integrated information base for overall

land use planning and management. The interdisciplinary approach applied

to the construction of an automobile should look something like Figure 2.

Each component is not only technically correct, but functions harmoniously

with all other components to meet the intended use efficiently and effectively.
13

Figure 1. Multidisciplinary.

Figure 2. Interdisciplinary.

2) Team Composition

Team composition and function may be tailored somewhat to individual skill

available. Team members may come from different levels within BLM or

from other agencies by cooperative agreement. Specific team composition,

and when, where, and how they will interact, needs to be identified in an

inventory plan per section 303.3 of BLM Handbook H-4410-1.
14

Generally the team will require input from these disciplines:

a) Soils. An active survey may involve a soil survey project comprised of

several soil scientists working with a project leader.

An inventory update to consider additional riparian-wetland values will

always require at least one soil scientist with mapping experience and

knowledge of riparian-wetland soils and fluvial geomorphology. The

soil scientist, in consultation with other specialists, makes the spatial

distribution of soil and landscape characteristics that can be correlated

with ecological sites and further interpreted for various resource and

engineering uses and management.

The primary responsibilities of a soil scientist are to identify soils, design

map units, determine soils grouped into the site, identify landscape and

soil factors, assist with climate factors, and ensure compatibility with

other ecological site components and soil interpretations.

b) Vegetation. Ecological site inventories will include a vegetation inventory team, usually comprised of range conservationists and/or foresters,

comparable in number to the soil survey party. A knowledge of both

autecology and synecology of the plants in the inventory area is required,

along with a good plant taxonomy background. Botany expertise may be

required full or part time. For riparian-wetland inventory updates, at

least one vegetation specialist with experience in wetland ecology and

wetland plant taxonomy is required.

The vegetation management specialist consults with the soil scientist on

map unit design and soil-site correlation and further delineates and

documents present vegetation units within each map unit. The vegetation management specialist usually has the lead responsibility for new

ecological site descriptions or site updates. This responsibility includes

describing the potential vegetation community, interpreting vegetation,

including successional sequences, and working with the soil scientist on

the landscape, soil, and climate factors. In addition, the vegetation

specialist ensures input from other appropriate disciplines and initiates

the ecological site approval process.

c) Hydrology. Hydrologist input for progressive soil surveys and ecological site inventories is critical during the planning phase and in map unit

design to ensure accurate watershed hydrologic interpretations. Hydrologist input in mapping, describing, and updating riparian-wetland ecological sites is required. The hydrologist is responsible for the description of

water features associated with riparian-wetland map units and ecological

sites. The hydrologist works with the soil scientist and vegetation

specialist to establish interrelationships and ecological responses to

hydrologic events and changes over time and space attributable to stream

dynamics or other surface and near surface water fluctuations.
15

d) Biology. Biologist input is recommended throughout ecological site

inventories and soil surveys. Although not involved during all the field

mapping, the biologist needs to have direct input at critical times. Critical periods are:

• initial planning phase and area base map preparation

• map unit design to assure that wildlife habitat vegetation components are recognized and wildlife interpretation needs are met

• ecological site description interpretation development and revision

• development of applicable soil-wildlife habitat interpretations

Because of the extremely high wildlife values associated with riparianwetland areas, biologist participation in field mapping these sites is

critical. Biologist participation in riparian-wetland ecological site

descriptions and updates is required.

The biologist is responsible for developing animal species lists associated with a site and for interpreting wildlife values and limitations. For

most ecosystems, species lists have been developed by State and Federal

agencies, universities, society groups, and/or museums. However, on

occasion, new lists may need to be developed. Various ways to develop

a species list or determine what species might be present are found in the

Field Procedures section of this document.

Species lists that have been developed before human disturbance/

alteration of a particular ecosystem are extremely important because they

provide a good concept of what the Potential Natural Community (PNC)

may have been or was at one time. If the system is in a degraded condition and human activities have not greatly altered such things as flow

regime, water quality, etc., a plant community similar to this potential

should be achievable again through practical management if that is the

resource objective.

An additional role of the biologist is to provide assistance to the other

members of the interdisciplinary team (e.g., hydrologist) in completing

their field work for developing the site description. In some cases, the

biologist may be able to complete other sections of the site description.

For example, a biologist with a strong background in plant taxonomy,

should be able to complete the vegetation section of the site description.

e) Other Input. Input from other resource disciplines and managers should

be actively sought to identify needs whenever necessary. Their input is

especially valuable during inventory planning and again in development

of site and soil interpretations. However, assistance from recreation

specialists, geologists, geomorphologists, fire managers, and others are

often helpful throughout inventory and site description processes,

depending on the complexity and resource values associated with individual areas.
16

2. Soil Survey Map Unit Concept

Soil map units are areas of soils delineated on a map. The soil survey project leader

is responsible for the design of map units that meet the needs of users within each

soil survey area, in consultation with other resource disciplines and users of soil

surveys. Comparable map units in adjoining survey areas are similar.

A map unit is a collection group of soil areas or miscellaneous delineations in a soil

survey. Small areas of similar and dissimilar soils are classified as inclusions per

section 602-55, NSH. These inclusions are discussed in the soil map unit description,

but are not mapped because they are either too small to be delineated at the scale of

mapping or their interpretations are similar to the dominant soil.

There are four kinds of map units:

A consociation is defined as a map unit having the following characteristics per

section 602-52, 53, NSH:

• The dominant single soil taxon or miscellaneous area makes up at least 50

percent of the area.

• The similar soil, per section 602-55, NSH, or miscellaneous areas (soils or

miscellaneous areas so similar to the dominant component that major interpretations do not significantly differ) make up less than 50 percent of the unit.

• The unit has 15 percent or less limiting inclusions of dissimilar soils per

section 603-55, NSH or miscellaneous areas (soils whose interpretations differ

from the dominant soil).

A complex can be described as follows per section 602-53, NSH:

• A complex is a collection of two or more dissimilar kinds of soils or miscellaneous areas in a regular repeating pattern so intricate that they cannot be

delineated separately due to the scale of mapping selected.

• A complex consists of two or more of the following:

different soils series, and/or

different phases of soils series, and/or

miscellaneous areas that occur in regular patterns, like rock outcrops.

• The unit has 15 percent or less limiting inclusions of dissimilar soils or miscellaneous areas (soils whose interpretations differ from the dominant soils).

An association can be described as follows per section 602-53, 54, NSH:

• An association is similar to a complex, but differs because the major soil

components or miscellaneous areas occur in repeatable patterns and could be

broken out into separate soil map units at the scale of mapping, but were not.
17

Soil associations mapping for low intensity land use management and decisions

is deemed more efficient and cost effective than more detailed mapping

without detracting from the utility of the soil survey. Due to the map scale, it is

more efficient to group and interpret several soils by including them in one

map unit rather than designing separate map units for use and management.

The information about the soils is not lost, since the soils, their percentages,

and positions on the landscape are identified in the soil map unit description

and can be retrieved for use in more detailed planning and site evaluation if

necessary.

• This unit is allowed 15 percent or less limiting inclusions of dissimilar soils

(soils whose interpretations differ from the dominant soils) or miscellaneous

areas.

An undifferentiated group can be described as follows per section 602-54, NSH:

• Undifferentiated soil groups consist of two or more soil components that are

not consistently coterminous but are combined. The soil groups are combined

because use and management of the soils are the same or are very similar for

common uses.

• Undifferentiated soil groups have major soil components that are generally of a

large enough extent to be separated at the scale of mapping. Each delineation

has at least one of the major components and may have all components.

• This unit is allowed a total of 25 percent or less dissimilar soil inclusions. A

single dissimilar soil should not exceed 10 percent.

a. Map Unit Design

Soil map units are developed by first observing the broad landscapes that occur

within a survey area. Landscapes are further broken down into characteristic

landforms and geomorphic components (i.e., hills, side slopes, toe slopes,

floodplains, depressions, etc.) and the kinds of soil areas that show a pattern

associated with these segments are then identified. Often distinct vegetation

patterns occur along these same landform and geomorphic surfaces and aid in

determining final map unit design.

The soil scientist designs map units representing sets of soil properties that are

repeated in characteristic landscapes. Map units also represent spatial extent that

can be delineated on maps and satisfy survey objectives. When objectives

involve identification of range, forest, or riparian-wetland values, map unit

design must include input from range conservationists, foresters, and other

members of the interdisciplinary team as needed.
18

b. Map Unit Naming

Naming of map units depends upon the purpose, design, and categorical level of

soil identification. Naming of soils above the series level is permissible, with the

understanding that the amount of soil information, data access, and related

interpretations diminish proportionally at higher categories.

Taxonomic class names and accompanying phase terms are identified and

defined per section 602-57 to 70, NSH. They are described in terms of range of

soil properties within limits defined for soil taxa. Common kinds of phases used

for components of map units are summarized in Appendix I. Areas with little or

no identifiable soils are called miscellaneous areas and are defined per section

602-70 to 74, NSH.

Map units are named using one or more of the dominant component soil taxa or

miscellaneous area names within a map unit. An abbreviated process in naming

map units using soil series or other levels is as follows:

1) Consociation - Start with the dominant soil name, rock fragment modifier,

texture, and any other phase designator as needed, or the miscellaneous area

name per section 602-75, 76, NSH.

2) Complex - The dominant soil or miscellaneous area names are joined by

hyphens, followed by the word “complex,” and then any other necessary

phase designator per section 602-76, NSH.

3) Association - The dominant soil or miscellaneous area names are joined by

hyphens, followed by the word “association,” and then any other necessary

phase designator per section 602-76, 77, NSH.

4) Undifferentiated Group - Where two named soils are dominant, separate by

an “and,” and where three soils are dominant, separate by a comma between

the first and second names and an “and” between the second and third names.

This is followed by the term “soils.” If necessary, other phase designators

may be used, such as for slope or erosion per section 602-77, NSH. A unique

map unit symbol is assigned that identifies each delineation on a soil map

and that ties to a corresponding map unit description.

c. Map Unit Descriptions

Map unit descriptions characterize the map unit as it is identified and delineated

during the soil mapping process. The contents of a map unit description will

provide information to the user detailing the setting for each dominant soil

component. A brief soil profile description that details distinctive surficial

features, vegetation relationships, and soil properties that affect use and management is given. All dissimilar soil inclusions are identified and their differences in

landscape setting and soil profile characteristics are noted in the description.

From these descriptions, the user should be able to determine the patterns and

percent of occurrence of each component soil and soil inclusion within the map

unit, and their position on the landscape.
19

d. Detailed Soil Maps

Base maps for publication purposes in soil surveys are primarily of two kinds:

(1) rectified photo base maps (high-altitude photography), and (2) orthophoto

base maps (high-altitude photography with the displacement of images removed).

High quality field sheets and orthophoto quads with black and white images at

1:24,000 scale are preferred.

Soil map units are delineated on the base map to provide location and spatial

relationships of soils for subsequent analysis. A map unit symbol can either be

numeric, alphabetic, or a combination of both per section 602-108, NSH. It

consists of no more than five elements (characters), including digits, letters, and

hyphens, that identify the delineation. The symbol also provides the reference to

a map unit description and associated information. Figure 3 is a schematic

representation of what a soil map may look like. Each area with a symbol

represents a soil map unit.

e. Riparian-Wetland Areas

In many riparian-wetland areas, a 1:24,000 scale map base may be appropriate

for use of the standard closed line delineation concept. However, most streams,

seeps, springs, potholes, and other wet areas are too small to use maps of this

scale. This complicates use of detailed riparian-wetland data within a Geographic Information System (GIS).

One alternative, where GIS capability is available, is to photographically or

digitally enlarge an orthophotoquad base map to scales between 1:6,000 and

1:12,000 (Batson et al., 1987), delineate and identify the riparian-wetland map

units, and then digitize the areas of the base maps. It is feasible to map riparianwetland areas at a photo scale of 1:2,400 and perform a map transfer to 1:6,000

scale (a reduction of 2.5 times) if that amount of detail is needed. Riparianwetland map unit delineations using this method would be quite small, but data

entry into GIS would be possible.

A second alternative is to simply designate line segments on a scale of 1:24,000

map to represent stream segments as a map unit and spot symbol map units for

other kinds of riparian-wetland areas. When either line break to line break or dot

to dot line segments and ad hoc or dot spot symbols are used, the average width

of stream segments or average area of spot symbols will have to be described in

the map unit description. This method is used with or without GIS capability and

soil survey area base maps are needed for reports. See Appendix II for more

details on using these techniques.

Figure 4 is a schematic representation of what a soil map might look like that

uses line segments as map units. In either alternative above, the map unit symbol

must be placed outside the delineation (if reduced to 1:24,000 for the standard

field sheet), segment, or spot symbol.
20

1

1

1

1 3

3

4

4

2

2

Map Unit Symbol

#1

#2

#3

#4

Number of Delineations

4

2

1

2

Figure 3. Schematic of soil map.

f. Importance

The soil map unit provides the spatial relationship between soils or groups of

soils and landscapes. The map unit also provides the link between the location of

named soil taxa and tabular information on specific soil properties and interpretations for use and management.

In addition, soil map unit delineations provide the initial spatial relationship

between ecological sites, which are correlated to the soil components of a map

unit. Because of the relationship between landscape patterns, soils, and ecological sites, the soil map becomes an excellent base for other resource delineations

or interpretive maps such as wildlife habitat, recreational areas, watershed

conditions, livestock utilization, and many others.
21

676 1580

174

123 1230

1230

1580

1230

585

173

174

252

123

175

123

251

681

1490

252

Figure 4. Schematic representation of a soil map.

3. Soil and Ecological Site Correlation

Correlation as applied to soil surveys and ecological site inventories is a process to

ensure that both soils and ecological sites are accurately and uniformly described,

classified, and named within and between inventory areas. The correlation process

ensures that consistent relationships are established between soil taxa (and their

physical and chemical attributes), other ecosystem components (landscape, climate,

etc.), and a resulting potential natural plant community for an ecological site. Correlation is a continuous quality control process.

Soil and ecological site correlations have three major components that are achieved

simultaneously as surveys progress:
22

a. Soil Correlation

Soil correlation is discussed in detail in section 602.00-4, NSH. The process is

divided into two parts:

• Informal correlation begins with the initial field mapping and first draft of

a descriptive legend by the soil survey project leader and continues as an

ongoing process as field work progresses. Correlations represented by

defined map units are continually tested against sets of soil properties that

are observed on the ground and in the laboratory. Refinements in soil

descriptions, map units, and soil maps are made following periodic field

reviews.

• Formal correlation ensures the validity of soil phase separations and their

respective names and further provides quality assurance from local, state,

and national points of view. The formal correlation process starts with a

field correlation and results in a final correlation and memorandum documenting complete records and validity of the soil survey.

b. Soil-Ecological Site Correlation

Soil-ecological site correlation establishes the relationships of individual soil taxa

with ecological sites. This procedure enables the soil map to also become a map

of potential plant communities. The separation of two distinct soil taxa does not

automatically indicate the separation of two ecological sites. Likewise, some soil

taxonomic units occur over broad environmental gradients and may support more

than one distinctive PNC. This is brought about by other influences such as an

increase or decrease in average annual precipitation (USDA, 1976). When more

than one PNC occurs on a soil taxa, the soil taxa can be phased per section

602.00-5(c)(3), NSH. Appendix I lists taxonomic phase class criteria. Plant

association tables (Appendix III) in section 302.7A and 302.7B, NRH, are an

excellent way of grouping soils and sites, as well as documenting production and

plant composition for ecological site descriptions. Exhibit 302.7A is simply a

recording of production and composition data and soils from plant communities

judged to be climax. Exhibit 302.7B illustrates that composition and production

of the climax plant community on one soil is comparable, and that different soils

can be grouped into a single site. It could also be speculated that soils 2 and 3

are the same soil taxa separated only by a phase criteria to indicate that soil 2 is a

“dry” phase (i.e., lower precipitation zone) of soil 3 as indicated by lower productivity and differences in plant composition.

Some scientists use expanded plant association tables catalogued by ecological

site to record all plant communities observed during inventory by soil and with

associated map unit symbols listed beneath the soil. The expanded plant association tables are useful for maintaining soil-site correlation as well as for developing additional plant community interpretations.
23

c. Ecological Site Correlation

The ecological site correlation procedures described in Appendix IV are designed

to be compatible with soil correlation standards set forth in the National Soil

Handbook. As with soil correlation, site correlation is a continuous process

initiated at the beginning of any soil or vegetation survey and progressing

through a final correlation. Site correlation is best accomplished in conjunction

with soil survey correlation (including soil-site correlation). However, site

correlation may be necessary because of updates or revisions to ecological site

descriptions.

Site correlation involves: 1) examination of individual descriptions for internal

consistency and accuracy, and 2) comparison between sites to maintain consistency in distinguishing between site classifications.

The criteria used to differentiate one ecological site from another at or near the

potential natural community are:

• Significant differences in the species or species groups that are dominant.

• Significant differences in the proportion of species or species groups that

are dominant.

• Significant differences in the total annual production of the plant community.

The site correlation procedures provide additional guidelines on criteria for

comparing and distinguishing between ecological sites, as well as identify

responsibility, documentation, and records associated with ecological site correlation.

4. Present Vegetation

Mapping and describing present vegetation associated with a soil and its relationship

to the potential plant community of an ecological site is often perceived as a separate

process to be used primarily in resource condition analyses, planning, and management activities. However, if present vegetation is mapped and documented concurrently with soils and ecological sites, the process provides tremendous value for soil

and ecological site correlation processes, development of ecological site interpretations, and information for subsequent analyses, planning, and management activities.

Moreover, the mapping and documentation of present vegetation in conjunction with

soils and ecological sites can usually be accomplished at a fraction of the total cost of

individual efforts since the inventory area does not have to be covered twice by two

different groups.

a. Present Vegetation Maps

The present vegetation map uses the soil map as a base; however, since present

vegetation is subject to rapid changes over time and space, the repeatability of

soil map units is not appropriate for present vegetation. Each delineation of a
24

soil map unit is considered independently for the present vegetation map. Similar present vegetation may be observed in a number of contiguous map unit

delineations. An individual delineation of a soil map unit may also be subdivided, if necessary, based on observed vegetation patterns associated with

differences in seral stages or different communities within a seral stage (i.e.,

caused by fire, grazing patterns, etc.). Soil map unit delineations are always

subdivided by administrative boundaries (allotment boundaries, pasture fences,

etc.) that traverse a delineation. Subdivisions of soil map unit delineations are

indicated by dashed lines per exhibit 304.1, H-4410-1.

The smallest delineation on a map is designated as a Site Writeup Area (SWA)

and is assigned a unique SWA number on the map. The number consists of one

letter and three digits (i.e., A123). As with riparian-wetland soil map units that

are too small to delineate at the map scale used, SWAs may be stream segments

or spot symbols for springs, seeps, etc. An SWA number is assigned beneath the

soil map unit symbol.

b. Present Vegetation Documentation

An SWA delineation may be represented by a single plant community occurring

on a single ecological site. However, the SWA will often represent a complex or

association (in the soil map unit context) of ecological sites and/or plant communities. The present vegetation attributes of each distinct plant community are

recorded separately for each ecological site within an SWA on an ecological

status worksheet per exhibit 305.5b, H-4410-1 (Form 4410-1), along with the

proportion of the SWA represented and other site specific information.

c. Application of Present Vegetation Information to Soil-Site Correlation, Ecological Site Description, and Map Refinements

An initial set of ecological site descriptions (range site descriptions, etc.) is

available for nearly all BLM administered lands. However, as inventories

progress and management needs change, new information gathered nearly always

indicates a need for “new” site descriptions to be developed or existing site

descriptions to be updated. The continuing correlation process throughout an

inventory nearly always leads to map refinement and adjustment of soil map

units and their boundaries as the inventory progresses. Present vegetation

information is often a first indicator triggering these processes.

A modified plant association table similar to exhibit 302.7B, NRH (Appendix III)

is an excellent tool for assessment. A plant association table is prepared for each

ecological site in the inventory area. Ecological status worksheet data are

transferred to the plant association table as gathered or the table can be generated

periodically if the Inventory Data System (IDS) or Inventory Data System

Utilities (IDSU) computer programs are used. Species composition by Air-Dry

Weight (ADW) can be substituted for individual species production if desired.

SWA(s) and appropriate transect number(s) are listed in place of soil taxonomic

unit number. The SWA and transect number provide a direct tie to the soil map

unit and soil component through the map and map unit description. However,

the soil map unit symbol for an SWA can also be substituted for the location

number for convenient reference.
25

The modified plant association table provides several avenues of analysis:

1) Plant communities in all known seral stages are displayed in tabular format.

Those communities determined to be at or near potential can be located and

used as comparison areas for the potential natural community of the site.

Plant communities in other seral stages document community dynamics

associated with use, management, or disturbances to the site and can be

interpreted for their respective resource values or limitations as management

alternatives.

2) The occurrence of plant species, groups of species, or productivity values

that are normally not associated with an ecological site are easily recognized

and may indicate miscorrelation. If a plant community is determined not to

be a typical successional community for the ecological site, the soil attributes

and other factors (landscape, water, climate, etc.) must be evaluated at the

SWA location to determine if the original soil and site description are

correct. Where either one is deemed deficient, they are best correlated to

another known soil and site or a “new” site description may need to be

developed and “new” soil taxa identified.

d. Vegetation Species Listing

When conducting a vegetation inventory, a full listing of all vegetation species

occurring on the site will be beneficial as complete identification and listing of

each plant species that occurs on the site is an important attribute that should be

documented. This may be documented by 1) listing all species found on the site

but not necessarily encountered during the random sampling, and 2) listing all

species encountered in the random sampling but of negligible weight by recording species with a zero weight.

5. Hydrologic Information

The identification, correlation, and description of riparian-wetland area ecological

sites requires an understanding of the water resources associated with these sites.

Hydrologic processes act upon the landscape setting and the various other factors

(e.g., soil, vegetation, etc.) that are used to characterize riparian-wetland sites. In

order to describe interactions between water resources and these other factors,

information on associated water features is required for describing ecological sites in

riparian-wetland areas. Water features associated with these sites vary, but are

generally grouped into six categories: morphological characteristics, water regimes,

associated ground-water systems, watershed characteristics, water chemistry, and

special modifiers.

Morphological characteristics associated with a riparian-wetland site’s hydrology are

used to describe the morphology of the stream channel, marsh, pond, lake, or other

water body associated with the site. In stream-adjacent riparian-wetland zones,

streams are classified according to the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen,

1985) or with the channel characteristics used in the Rosgen system. Stream classification thus requires information on the channel gradient, sinuosity, width/depth ratio,

bed and bank materials, and confinement of the channel within the floodplain.
26

Morphological features associated with nonstream riparian-wetland areas include

surface area of open water, relationships between limnetic (open water) and littoral

(shallow, shoreline) areas, and the characteristic shape (e.g., concave, convex, etc.)

and substrate of the shoreline areas.

The water regime associated with riparian-wetland areas has a significant effect on

site progression, soil development, and vegetation composition of the site. Classification of water regime includes determination of the presence and availability of

surface or near-surface water with respect to time, space, and the ground-water

system. Along streams, the position (stage) of the water column in the channel is

estimated on a seasonal basis, and extremes of high and low flows are expressed in

terms of magnitude, duration, and frequency. Flood-frequency estimates are compared to estimates of bankfull flow to determine frequency of floodplain inundation.

Low flow information is used to determine interactions with ground water, i.e.,

whether the stream is gaining water from or losing water to the ground-water system.

In lentic systems (i.e., standing water), the frequency and duration of inundation are

estimated.

Interaction with ground-water systems also is important for describing riparianwetland ecological sites. Ground water associated with riparian-wetland vegetation

may be part of a local, intermediate, or regional flow system, with more stable

supplies of ground water coming from larger systems. Interaction with the local

water table is important for determining dependency of the riparian-wetland site on

local supplies of surface water. Where the water table contributes to local expressions of surface water (e.g., lakes, gaining streams), riparian-wetland vegetation may

be less dependent upon surface flows than in areas where the water table receives

seasonal recharge from surface water (losing streams). Similarly, the nature of

ground-water discharge as discrete or lateral may affect the distribution and composition of vegetation on an ecological site.

Other hydrologic characteristics that may influence the development and condition of

riparian-wetland ecological sites are the size and condition of the watershed, including factors affecting surface and ground-water quality. For riparian-wetland areas

dependent upon surface runoff and/or local ground-water flow systems, watershed

size provides an index of annual water yield. It also provides a mechanism for

relating sites associated with various watershed sizes by prorating water regime

information on the basis of drainage area. Water quality factors of interest include

salinity and relative acidity/alkalinity (pH) of surface water, ground water, and soil

water at the site. The presence of certain trace elements (e.g., selenium) in watershed

runoff or shallow ground water also may influence the composition of vegetation on

a site.

Additional hydrologic information required for evaluating riparian-wetland ecological sites falls in the category of special modifiers. For stream-adjacent sites, special

modifiers include depositional features, such as point bars and lateral bars, and

stream adjustment features, such as meander loops and cutoffs. For nonstream

riparian-wetland areas, special modifiers include cultural modifications, such as

impoundments, dikes, or drainage.
27

Not all of the hydrologic information described above will be available for every site.

However, where this information can be developed, the site description and interpretation will be more useful for management.

6. Ecological Site Description Content

The model described previously in this document establishes a functional relationship

between vegetation, soils, climate, and so on. Closely related ecological sites may

produce similar plant communities in early seral stages (Neiman and Hironaka,

1989). Therefore, ecological site descriptions must contain descriptions of soils and

other environmental factors that adequately depict each individual site’s capability to

produce a characteristic PNC even in the absence of that community. Soil survey,

present vegetation inventory, associated hydrology, and use (grazing, wildlife, etc.)

information from an inventory area and other completed inventories, through the

correlation process, provide the basis for ecological site development. Existing

climate records, geology maps, and related research as outlined in the Field Procedures section are also needed to support the relations depicted in site descriptions.

Riparian-wetland ecological site descriptions needs to contain sufficient information

to identify potential “state changes” (USDI, 1990) that may lead to development of a

different PNC, migration of the site, or a change in extent of the site.

The Standard Site Description format contained on the SITEFORM (USDI, 1991)

computer program available from the BLM Service Center is used by BLM to

describe ecological sites. The SITEFORM program can be used to produce ecological site descriptions in traditional narrative format for general use as well as provide a

data base for correlation and other analyses.

Appendix V provides a complete display of the data entry format for the Standard

Site Description. Instructions for entries can be found in the SITEFORM user guide.

The Standard Site Description is a comprehensive format that can be used to describe

any ecological site: rangeland, forest, tundra, desert, or riparian-wetland. Therefore,

all entries are not applicable to all kinds of sites. Only those attributes that are

necessary to describe and interpret a particular site and consistently distinguish that

site from similar sites need to be used. The SITEFORM computer program provides

a structure for organized data input, revision, storage, retrieval, and evaluation of

Standard Site Description components. Even though there is considerable variation

in specific attributes necessary to adequately describe an ecological site, there are

major components that are common to all sites. The ecological site description has

an administrative section and two descriptive parts. The administrative section

contains an identifying site number, common site name, a plant name indicating

dominant species in potential, date of origination or revision, and initials of the

originating author and agency. Part A is a description of physical and biological

factors characterizing the site and its potential natural community. Part B is the

major vegetation interpretations for use and management of the site.

a. The components of Part A include data base and narrative descriptions of the

following factors:
28

1) Landscape Factors

Landscape factors contain the geographic location and physiographic attributes (landform, elevation, slope, etc.) typical of the site.

Water features and hydrologic attributes of riparian-wetland sites are also

described in this component.

2) Climate Factors

Climate factors describe both ambient and soil climate characteristics of the

site.

3) Soil Factors

Soil factors include physical and chemical characteristics of soils correlated

with the site as well as typical soil family classifications and geologic

formations.

4) Vegetation Factors

Vegetation factors provide information about species composition and

productivity of the PNC. Other plant community attributes such as cover,

structure, and litter or residue can also be described.

5) Wildlife

Wildlife species associated with the site are listed and pertinent information

about uses are described relative to the PNC.

6) Community Dynamics

Community dynamics (narrative only) of the PNC associated with natural

occurrences of fire, flooding, etc., is presented relative to expected frequency

over time.

7) List of Commonly Associated Sites

A list of commonly associated sites indicate other ecological sites that

frequently occur in complex, association, or adjacent to the site being described.

8) List of Competing Sites

A list of competing sites indicates other ecological sites that may be easily

confused with the site being described, especially in earlier seral stages.

Differentiating criteria are described.
29

9) List of Soils Grouped Into the Site

A list of soils grouped into the site provides all named soils correlated to the

site by soil survey area and map unit.

b. The vegetation interpretations contained in Part B of the site description are all

presently in narrative format and include:

1) Plant Community Characteristics

2) Riparian or Wetland Site Progressions

3) Grazing

4) Forestry

5) Insects and Disease Pests and Animal Damage

6) Wildlife

7) Recreation and Natural Beauty

8) Fire

9) Range and Forest Understory Rehabilitation

10) Other Interpretations

11) Applicable Field Offices

Plant Community Characteristics interpretations are of particular importance

to BLM vegetation management programs. Traditional range site descriptions commonly discuss general patterns of succession and retrogression

associated with common perturbations (fire, grazing, etc.) and associated

increaser, decreaser, and invading plant species are noted.

BLM interpretations needs to describe known successional community types

by ecological status. There can be considerable variation of communities

within earlier seral stages. Likewise, there can be considerable variation in

the value, limitations, or opportunities for management of those communities. Because ecological status (seral stage) does not imply value for a

particular use, management alternatives need to consider the kinds of plant

communities a site is capable of producing in relation to intended uses and

management capability, i.e., resource objectives.

Riparian-Wetland Site Progressions are a relatively new concept to be

included in riparian-wetland ecological site descriptions. Changes in

physical site characteristics associated with stream dynamics and other

hydrologic influences are common in riparian-wetland ecosystems.

Changes in the physical state of a site, particularly a significant change in
30

soil-water status, can lead to development of a new or different site and

corresponding PNC. Possible changes in site potential are described relative

to aggrading processes such as sediment deposition, bank building, channel

narrowing, etc., and degrading processes such as channel widening and

lowering, or channel incision in more extreme cases. The implication of site

progressions relative to expansion or loss of riparian-wetland area should be

addressed.

The remaining interpretation sections are completed in accordance with

individual state guidelines in cooperation with SCS resource specialists.

Bureau of Land Management specialists may elect to incorporate additional

information in any section specific to individual community types identified

in the Plant Community Characteristics. It is extremely important, however,

to ensure that additional information supplements rather than conflicts with

general interpretations developed cooperatively.

Appendix VI provides a complete riparian-wetland site description example

including data base and narrative information.

7. Documentation and Data Permanence

Resource information is seldom static. New information, changing information

needs, use of resources, and cyclic or long-term changes (i.e., climate) all affect

either how resource information is classified and described or effect changes in the

resource directly. It is imperative, however, that resource information gathered

during soil survey and ecological site inventory is documented with sufficient

permanence to establish a baseline for future comparison and analysis.

The standards established by the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) in the

NSH provide the criteria for soils documentation, storage, and retrieval of information in a permanent data base and publication. Circumventing the standards established often results in lost information or limited availability for future analyses.

Likewise, data standards established for BLM’s Inventory Data System (IDS),

Standard Site Description, and Land Information System (in development) must be

met before a permanent data base is established. Required documentation for soil

survey, ecological site description, and present vegetation to meet established standards are described in greater detail in the Field Procedures section of this document.

B. Inventory Preparation

Adequate inventory preparation is essential whether a full soil and ecological site inventory is planned for a resource area or an inventory update for riparian-wetland areas is all

that is required. Inventory preparation needs to be started at least 1 year prior to the start

of field work; starting 2 years ahead is better and is usually required if MOUs or other

agreements are necessary for interagency efforts. The basics of inventory preparation are

the same and include:
31

1. Memorandum of Understanding

Soil surveys associated with ESI are initiated as part of the NCSS. This is accomplished through an MOU with the SCS at the state level per section 601, NSH. The

process will assure necessary soil survey guidance and quality control of the final

product. Without this MOU in place, the end results of the survey may be less than

desirable with limited value for future analysis, and possible lost data if not part of

the permanent data base.

The MOU for a soil survey is prepared in cooperation with all national soil survey

cooperators with SCS State Conservationist as the primary responsible party. Although an MOU is not a legally binding contract, it does provide a record of intent

for all cooperators in making a soil survey and in performing related work. The

purpose of the survey, description of the area, list of cooperators and responsibilities,

and specifications for making interpretation and publishing the soil survey are

recorded in the document.

The minimum requirements of an MOU include:

• the kind of soil survey, its objectives, specifications, and its guidelines for

design;

• the role and function of each cooperating agency to help prepare schedules and

make work assignments;

• the designation of a mapping base that meets the objectives in relation to

landscapes, soils complexity, ecological sites, and riparian-wetland considerations;

• the laboratory and soil investigations required to meet the needs for soilvegetation relationships, soil classification, soil interpretations, and riparianwetland soil hydrology; and

• realistic schedules and publication plans.

2. Inventory Plan

An inventory plan is developed by an interdisciplinary team and approved by line

management. If an ESI is conducted in conjunction with an SCS soil survey or soil

survey update, the inventory plan should be consistent with the soil survey MOU and

plan of operations per section 601.05, NSH. The inventory plan needs to be updated

annually if the inventory exceeds 1 year.

Some of the topics and questions to consider in the inventory plan per section 303.3,

H-4410-1 are:

a. Purpose - Why in general terms is the inventory being done?

• Legal requirements, FLPMA, Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA),

Clean Water Act (Section 404)
32

• Identify capabilities and risks for use and management decisions involving

what uses, what issues.

• Others?

b. Objectives - Are there specific objectives for the inventory data in relation to

uses or issues?

Example objectives for riparian-wetland inventory might include:

1) Identify the most extensive or important sites within each management unit

(benchmark sites).

2) Identify vegetation communities within riparian-wetland sites that are most

capable of response to management (potential key areas).

3) Document realistic resource management objectives within a site’s known

capability.

4) Identify location and extent of jurisdictional wetlands.

c. Description of the Inventory Area

• Where is it?

• What are the boundaries?

• What does it look like?

Vegetation diversity

Topographic diversity, etc.

d. Information Required to Resolve Identified Issues

• There are minimum standards required for ESI: Production and Composition ADW

• Other information necessary for resource interpretations can and should be

gathered during ESI.

• Soil resource values and condition

• Vegetation cover for watershed

• Vegetation structure for wildlife habitat criteria

• Mean annual increment, wood volumes, etc., for forestry

• Etc.
33

• Additional information can be tailored for local needs or be specific to

certain areas within the inventory.

e. Inventory Design

• Level of detail? Level of detail needs to be identified depending on

resource values and interpretation needs. A higher level of detail may be

required in riparian-wetland or other high value areas.

• Map scale? Different scales may be required in mapping uplands and

riparian-wetland areas.

• Where will it start?

• How will it progress (seasonal constraints, etc.)?

• In conjunction with a soil survey or afterward?

• How much time?

f. Personnel and Funding Requirements and/or Constraints

• How many personnel?

• What skill levels are needed (professional levels vs. seasonal or entry

level)?

• Who?

• Special needs (helicopter costs, equipment, etc.)?

g. Logistics

• Agreements or MOUs?

• Transportation (vehicles, helicopter, etc.)?

• Office space?

• Lodging (camps, motels, etc.)?

• Food or per diem requirements?

• Equipment, photos, maps, etc.? (Some procurement may need to be done a

year in advance.)

• Contracts?
34

h. Field Measurements and Procedures

• Minimum standards? Composition and production by species by SWA by

ecological site are required.

• Other requirements? Sampling procedures like Daubenmire, toe-pace,

point frame, etc.?

• Handbooks and other written guidance?

• Training?

• Soil survey and ecological site quality control?

i. Compilation Procedures

• Maps

Cartographic requirements?

GIS?

• Tabular Data Input

Hand?

Computer?

Service Center or local?

• Reports generated?

j. Reporting and Quality Control (Inventory Reviews and Results) Requirements

• Initial

• Progress

• Final

• Who? When?

k. Approval Process

• Who are the responsible individuals?

• When?

• What administrative levels?

l. File Maintenance

• Field worksheets? Boxes in basement?

• Computer files? Service Center or local?
35

• Reports?

• Maps?

• Updates?

• Inventory code?

3. Existing Data and Other Information

There has been considerable information already gathered and documented for

various land evaluation and management activities. Much of this information is

directly applicable to soil and ecological site inventories in one form or another.

Some of the information is most valuable in obtaining a general overview of the

entire inventory area while other information may be pertinent to specific soil and

ecological responses in a small area. It is extremely important in any inventory effort

to capitalize on what is already known about an area before attempting to learn more.

Much of the information exists in BLM office files, while other information can be

obtained from other agencies such as SCS, United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Forest Service

(USFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), etc., and from

published literature. Time needs to be taken to explore as many sources as possible.

The following list provides some of the more common sources, but is by no means all

inclusive:

a. Landscape

• 1:250,000 scale USGS quads and 1:250,000 scale color infrared landsat

images provide an excellent overview of broad topographic features as well

as a base for overlaying other general soil, climate, and vegetation information.

• 7 1/2" or 15" USGS quads provide the specific topographic base for

mapping and site description.

• Landscape terminology references such as the “Glossary of Landform and

Geologic Terms” per section 607, NSH, and “Landforms of the Basin and

Range Province” (Peterson, 1981) help develop a clear understanding and

consistency in the use of each term.

b. Geology

• State, county, or local area geology maps provide information to help

determine changes in substrates that may influence breaks in soil types and

vegetation responses.
36

c. Climate

• State maps available from the State Climatologist or other published

sources help determine precipitation and temperature gradients at a broad

scale.

• NOAA publications provide data on official National Weather Service

stations.

• Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, NV, can provide climate summaries on NOAA stations as well as BLM and USFS Remote Automated

Weather Stations (RAWS) and SCS stations.

• BLM monitoring files often have precipitation and some temperature

information for specific allotments.

• The data analysis group of the West National Technical Center (SCS) can

provide summaries on snow survey data, water supply outlook, and select

daily or monthly climatic data for weather stations.

d. Soils

• The existing soil survey report is the best source for inventory updates.

• If a new soil survey is planned, soil surveys for contiguous areas (completed or ongoing) needs to be obtained along with a general soil map for

the surrounding soil survey areas and state.

• A set of existing official soil series for the state should be available for use

as a reference in correlating soil documentation to a series.

• USFWS may have some recently completed national wetlands inventory

data that is available for use in locating probable hydric soils.

• A current list of hydric soils that may apply to some soils in the area is

available from the SCS.

e. Vegetation

• Existing SCS range site and grazeable woodland descriptions for the Major

Land Resource Area(s) (MLRAs) in the survey area should always be

available and at hand.

• General vegetation maps for the state are also usually available for a broad

overview.

• Many BLM resource areas have older vegetation inventories such as

Ocular Reconnaissance, Forest Inventories, or others that still provide an

excellent approximation of species distribution within the area.
37

• The BLM Riparian Aquatic Information Data Summary (RAIDS) data base

provides an overview of riparian-wetland vegetation where available.

• Riparian-wetland classification references such as those developed by

Kovalchik (1987), Hansen and others (1989), and Youngblood and others

(1985) provide excellent background for riparian-wetland site development

and associated community dynamics.

• Regional wetland plant lists are available from USFWS.

f. Hydrology

• USGS, Bureau of Reclamation, and State Engineer’s offices are often

sources of streamflow data and sometimes can provide pertinent groundwater information.

• USFWS may have some wetland inventory data within an inventory area.

• Possible BLM sources include stream surveys, watershed studies, and the

Riparian Area Information Data System (RAIDS, BLM User Guide

6601-2).

4. General Resource Reference Map

Once existing information for the area is collected by the team, the assembly process

begins. The team coordinates the information by subject for input into broad data

layers such as:

• Major landforms (e.g., Central Nevada Basin and Range)

• Existing general soils maps.

• Geology for the area.

• Climate for the area (i.e., air temperature, precipitation, frost-free season).

• Vegetation types (i.e., existing general vegetation maps and old inventory).

• Watershed boundaries and major drainages.

• Wildlife use areas.

• Other (i.e., allotment, district, or other jurisdictional boundaries and transportation routes, etc.).

The team then selects the most useful base map for the total area. Availability is an

important factor here. Reference maps are usually at a scale of 1:100,000 to

1:250,000. Landsat imagery at a scale of 1:250,000 is preferred. This imagery is

excellent to display large areas and provides the user with a good visual perspective
38

of the area. The use of mylar overlays registered to the reference map will allow the

team to broadly develop their concepts for each data layer. They can predelineate

each of the data layer groupings on the mylar relative to its location on the reference

map. Each data layer predelineated on the mylar is considered to be the team’s initial

draft of baseline information. It is to be revised and updated as new information and

field verification indicate a need. The reference map and data layers will be tested

for accuracy and refined throughout the inventory process. End products will result

in a general soil map, general vegetation map, and other information suitable for

broad scale planning analysis.

This process is considered to be the team’s most important step in developing an

initial understanding of the area’s components.

5. Tools for Inventory

Tools for inventory include both “software” and “hardware” in much the same

context as the computer world. Software as used here includes all items such as

photos, maps, references, forms, etc., as well as computer programs. Hardware refers

to equipment needs from pens and pencils to backhoes, if required, and of course a

computer or computer access. Figure 5 contains tools for inventory common to all

disciplines. Specific needs are as follows:

a. Soils

1) “Software” needs include but are not limited to:

• Handbooks and manuals on procedural guidance

USDA SCS National Soils Handbook (NSH)

USDA Soil Survey Manual, Agricultural Handbook No. 18

USDA Soil Survey Manual (in press)

USDA Soil Taxonomy, Agriculture Handbook No. 436 and recent

amendments

SMSS Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Technical Monograph No. 19,

Fourth Edition, 1990

SCS National Range Handbook (NRH)

SCS National Forestry Manual (NFM)

SCS National Biology Manual (NBM)

SCS National Cartographic Manual (NCM)

SCS Technical Specifications, Photobase Map Compilation

(Rev. Mar. 1984)

SCS Technical Specifications, Soil Map Finishing (July 1976)

USDA Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils,

Agricultural Handbook No. 60

USDA-SCS Soil Series of the United States, including Puerto Rico

and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Their Taxonomic Classification,

Miscellaneous Publication Number 1483

Other suggested technical references, see section 602-4, NSH
39

General Equipment Soils Vegetation Hydrology Biology

Software

MOU X X X X

Inventory Plan X X X X

Handbooks & Manuals X X X X

(See specific lists under Soil, etc.)

Forms X X X X

Field notebook X X X X

Aerial photographs X X X X

(infrared to color infrared; quartered

quad centered black and white - scale

1:24,000; registered orthophotoquad

1:24,000 scale as the base map for soil

compilation)

Registered stable mylar (matte finish) X X

overlays

USGS topographic maps 7 1/2" or if not X X X X

available 15"

Index maps for field sheets and X X X X

orthophotoquads

Existing site descriptions common to the X X X X

resource area

Plant ID references X

List of plant names and symbols found in X

the state

Geomorphology reports for the area and X

related scientific papers

Plat or land status maps X X X X

SITEFORM computer program X X X X

Hardware

Abney level or clinometer X X X

Stereoscope, mirror and pocket X X

Camera X X X X

Pens, ink, and pencils X X X X

Compass, magnetic X X

Paper bags X

Auger or probe, hand and/or power X X X

Shovel (standard) and tile spade X X X

Tape measure, metric and English X X X

Computer X X X X

Other items that make the job easier X X X X

Vehicle and aircraft X X X X

First aid kit X X X X

Figure 5. Common tools for inventory of an ecological site.
40

• State Hydric Soil List

• Forms

Map Unit Transect forms commonly used in the state SCS-SOI-232

Pedon Description or as revised by the state

SCS-SOI-232F Soil Description or other like forms commonly used

in field note taking

• Access to the soil survey data base software for data entry to SOI-5

forms and retrieval

• Field Soil Survey Database (FSSD) for transect management, pedon

management, map unit records (SOI-6), soils data base software

• Pedon description program software

• Map unit description program software that the state may be using

2) “Hardware” (equipment) needs include:

• Altimeter

• Area measurement system (planimeters)

• Color charts, Munsell

• Crowbar, heavy

• Electric conductivity meter

• Geology pick

• Hand lens

• Knife

• Large and small handpicks

• Light table

• Map board

• Penetrometer

• pH kit, chemical

• pH meter

• Sieve set
41

• Soil analysis - portable field laboratory

• Soil sample bags and boxes

• Soil test kit, chemical

• Soil thermometer

• Spot plate

b. Vegetation

1) “Software” needs include but are not limited to:

• Handbooks and manuals on procedural guidance

SCS National Range Handbook (NRH)

BLM Manual 4400 Rangeland Inventory, Monitoring, and

Evaluation

BLM Manual 4410 Ecological Site Inventory

BLM Manual Handbook 4410-1, NRH Supplement

BLM Manual 1737 Riparian-Wetland Area Management (Draft)

Other written guidance, supplemental information, and procedures;

i.e., TR 1737-3 (Inventory and Monitoring of Riparian Areas)

This technical reference, etc.

• National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands (USFWS)

• Soil-site correlation legend

• Soil map unit descriptions

• Forms

4410-1

4410-1a

4410-2

SCS Range 417

• IDSU (Inventory Data System Utilities) computer program and/or

access to IDS at Service Center

2) “Hardware” (equipment) needs include:

• 9.6 sq. ft. hoops (and other measurement frames as appropriate)

• Clippers

• Scales

• Planimeters (if acreages are to be compiled by field crews)
42

c. Hydrology

1) “Software” needs include but are not limited to:

• Handbooks and Manuals for Procedural Guidance

Stream Classification Reference (Rosgen, unpublished)

Water Resources Council Bulletin #17B of the

Hydrology Committee, “Guidelines for determining floodflow

frequency”

USGS Techniques of Water-Resource Investigations Reports:

Book 3, Chapter A1: General field and office procedures for

indirect discharge measurements

Book 3, Chapter A2: Measurement of peak discharge by the slopearea method

Book 3, Chapter A8: Discharge measurement at gaging stations

Book 4, Chapter A2: Frequency curves

Book 4, Chapter B1: Low-flow investigations

Reference guide for estimating Manning’s roughness coefficient

Reference guides for water-quality field techniques

• Computer Software and Documentation

Statistical software, with documentation, capable of performing

frequency analysis using a log-Pearson Type III frequency distribution

Open-channel flow software, with documentation, capable of analyzing channel cross-section data, using normal depth and/or standard

step calculations to produce relationships between discharge and

other hydraulic parameters

2) “Hardware” (equipment) needs include:

• Surveying Equipment

Level, rod, tripod, and survey notebook

• Discharge Measuring Equipment

Tape measure

Top-setting wading rod

Current meter (Marsh-McBirney or vertical-axis current meter)

Headset and stopwatch, if using vertical-axis current meter

Clipboard

USGS discharge measurement forms

• Well Points

• Water Quality Sampling Equipment

Thermometer

Conductivity meter and calibration standards

pH meter and calibration standards
43

Bottles, labels, and preservatives for water samples

Coolers with ice for sample transport to laboratory

Field forms

Sampling equipment for special situations

Depth-integrating sampler (e.g., DH-48), treated for trace elements, for integrated cross-section sampling

Bedload or bed-material sampling equipment

Submersible, peristaltic, or other pump for shallow ground-water

sampling

Field filtration equipment for sampling dissolved chemical

constituents, as opposed to sampling for total chemistry

d. Wildlife

For most cases, the information that is necessary to complete the wildlife section

of the site description, will have already been compiled and there will be no

equipment needs. If this is not true, the Field Procedures section contains references that provide equipment lists or refer to documents that do. These documents provide various techniques to determine species present for the purpose of

developing a species list.

If completing or assisting other team members in the collection of field data (e.g.,

vegetation), the biologist needs to be aware of the equipment needed to collect

the necessary resource information. Equipment needs can be found in the soil,

vegetation, and hydrology sections described above.

6. Field Sheets

Part of the preparation process involves securing adequate field sheets (high altitude

photography) and photobase map sheets for the area. The process to clean and

prepare the field sheets as outlined in the section 602.01-2, NSH, “Prepare field

sheets” is as follows:

a. Draw match lines

The soil survey project leader is responsible for drawing match lines on field

sheets other than photobase map sheets. The number of the adjoining map sheet

is written in black ink on field sheets other than photobase map sheets next to the

outside of the match lines and parallel to them. Size of lettering is the same as

that used for soil symbols. Cartographic units will draw neat lines (match lines)

on photobase map sheets from the field sheets.

b. Trim

The map sheet is trimmed, if necessary, to no closer than 2.5 cm of the match

line. If the trimmed portion of the map sheet is necessary for stereo coverage of

an adjoining map sheet, it is filed in a convenient way for easy use. Where heavy

use occurs, map sheets may fray, requiring edges to be bound with tape.
44

c. Identify

For proper identification where SCS is the lead agency, each field sheet will bear

the following data:

• Department, lead agency, and full name of cooperating agencies.

• Soil survey area name and state.

• Scale on field sheets where copies are made for distribution. Scale is

indicated by a bar scale so that accuracy is preserved after enlargement or

reduction.

• Name(s) of soil scientist(s) who mapped sheet.

• Date sheet was completed.

The above sequence is the same where the lead agency is different than SCS,

except that the lead department or agency name will replace USDA, SCS.

d. Identify Photographic Copies

The first three items in d. above and the note “ADVANCE COPY SUBJECT TO

CHANGE” are placed on the front of field sheets if photographic copies are

made for distribution.

7. Training

The need for training in specific sampling techniques for each discipline represented

in an ESI will vary greatly depending on individual background and expertise. Soil

survey project leaders and inventory team leaders are responsible for assessing

specific training needs. Assistance, if needed, can be requested from BLM and SCS

state offices and BLM’s Service Center.

a. The following training exercises and courses are highly recommended for the

entire inventory team regardless of background and qualifications:

1) The Ecological Site Concept, course number 4000-ST-2, is a self-study

course and video available through BLM’s Phoenix Training Center. Team

members need to review the course together even though they are well

versed in the concept. If possible, the course should be followed by a review

of soil map unit and ecological site concepts and SWA mapping criteria in

the field to ensure mutual understanding between team members.

2) Coordinated Riparian Area Management, BLM’s Phoenix Training Center

Course 1737-1, is presented three to four times annually at various locations.

This course provides an introduction to riparian-wetland ecological site

concepts as well as substantial information on BLM riparian-wetland policies, values, and management concepts.
45

3) Riparian-Wetland Ecological Site Classification, BLM’s Phoenix Training

Center Course 1737-4, is an advanced course for mapping and describing

riparian-wetland sites.

4) GIS - Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems, an SCS South

National Technical Center (SNTC) Ft. Worth Employee Development Unit

course, provides a basic understanding and hands-on experience in the

concepts, use and application of GIS.

5) RMT SEN - Basic Photo Interpretation, an SCS SNTC Ft. Worth Employee

Development Unit course, provides students with the background and ability

to interpret and use various kinds of aerial and remote sensing photography.

6) Soils - Basic Soil Survey: Field and Laboratory, an SCS SNTC Ft. Worth

Employee Development Unit course, is designed to provide new soil scientists and other disciplines an opportunity to experience what it takes to

complete a soil survey. Output potential of soil interpretations, and use of

field and laboratory methods and data analysis in soil survey are discussed as

well.

b. Additional courses recommended for specific disciplines include:

1) ECS - Range Plant Ecology, an SCS SNTC Ft. Worth Employee Development Unit course, is an advanced course that provides information on the

ecological interaction of range vegetation.

2) RES CONS - Saline and Sodic Soils, an SCS SNTC Ft. Worth Employee

Development Unit course, provides a background and hands-on experience

in understanding chemical relationships, testing and analyzing data, recognizing problems, and recommending management solutions.

3) Soils - Soil Correlation, an SCS SNTC Ft. Worth Employee Development

Unit course, is an advanced course for soil scientists. It is designed to

provide insight and techniques to apply soil classification, soil correlation

procedure, geomorphic relationships, soil survey area handbook development, and laboratory data analysis and sampling procedures.

4) Soils - Soil Lab Data Use, an SCS SNTC Ft. Worth Employee Development

Unit course, is an advanced course for soil scientist. It is designed to provide

insight and techniques for using laboratory data in soil classification and

plant relationships.

C. Field Procedures

1. Review of Memorandum of Understanding

This is the first of several times where the MOU is reviewed to assure that it adequately reflects the inventory purpose and objectives. It is extremely important that

the MOU addresses the requirements needed to produce the desired product per
46

section 602.01-1, NSH. Since the original MOU may have been developed up to 2

years prior to the survey start, it may not always reflect current needs.

Where noted deficiencies are minor, they can usually be handled between the responsible individuals for cooperating agencies with pen and ink modifications. Significant changes in the work or work area will require a new MOU for review, approval,

and distribution per section 602.02, NSH. Examples of significant change for a soil

survey area MOU are:

• the area to be mapped is changed;

• the purpose for doing the survey is changed in full or in part;

• specific plans for publishing the survey are changed; and

• specifications for map scale or format or text format are changed.

Only those sections requiring changes are rewritten. The above information is not all

inclusive, but does provide an indication of where major revision to an MOU is

needed.

2. Preliminary Field Study

Prior to this time, all known information about the area has been organized and

displayed on a general resource reference map. This information will be taken to the

field for hands-on testing of the broad concepts of mapping and data collection for

developing ideas about the area. From this point on, all field work will require a

team effort. The stated purpose and objectives of the MOU and inventory plan, the

validity of each data layer, and the application of other data collected to unique

situations are tested, and map unit concepts are developed by the team.

a. Reconnaissance Testing

Preconceived concepts are developed and tested in actual field application by the

team using the preexisting data and predelineated data layers as the base. This

process is a learning experience and provides an opportunity for team members

to become familiar with the area and the other team members’ discipline needs,

as well as to gain cross-training from the other team members. The purpose of

the reconnaissance is to:

• Traverse the area to learn the land features and accessibility to all parts of

the survey area.

• Make frequent stops to check the validity and accuracy of the data layers.

This also gives the team members the opportunity to look at various

technical aspects in more depth.

• Allow the team to adjust predelineated boundaries such as landform units

and merge common delineations of the reference map as a result of field

observations.
47

• Check existing soil map unit descriptions, pedon description, ecological

site descriptions, hydrologic data, etc., for accuracy and utility for incorporation into the inventory process.

• Identify data such as soil taxa, soil map unit descriptions, ecological sites,

stream hydrology, and other data for use in the area.

• Investigate outside of the soil survey area to determine area extent, relationships, concepts, or other purposes. Reviewing adjacent areas will

broaden the team’s familiarization to the current inventory area.

Reconnaissance testing may last only a short time if the survey area is adjacent to

or is similar to other recently completed soil surveys. It may require significantly

more time if there is little existing knowledge of the soil, vegetation, hydrologic,

or biotic resources. The team approach to obtain a field overview of an area does

not require a large block of time or intensive labor. However, it is an important

step in obtaining a feel for the area and related past efforts leading to a conceptual approach, and an interdisciplinary effort that will be applied during the total

inventory.

b. Provisional Field Inventory

During reconnaissance testing, numerous concepts about the area were formulated by the team and tested on a more detailed basis. This is accomplished by

subdividing the broader data layers into each of their individual components

applicable to the outlined objectives of the survey or inventory. Team members

need to work together in this process to assure that all the discipline requirements

are addressed. Good communication between disciplines is the key to a quality

product and efficient production.

The preliminary field inventory provides the initial development and documentation of the descriptive legend and ecological sites for the survey area.

3. Survey Design

In the field, the team’s accumulated knowledge of the area is applied. Soil surveyinventory objectives must be considered in field testing of repeatable map units. The

soil scientist project leader has the ultimate responsibility in designing the soil survey

to meet the objectives outlined in the MOU. The following attributes are considered

in the survey design per section 602.01-5, NSH:

• Map unit application. Map units in a soil survey can be dominated by a single

soil taxon or miscellaneous areas plus allowable inclusions or by two or more

taxa that are less homogeneous and are generally less refined. Map unit design

is flexible and provides the degree of refinement necessary to meet the objectives of the survey. Many upland areas that are less intensively managed may

only need broader units with two or three component soils in association or

complex plus inclusions over repeatable landscapes. Detailed information for

site specific purposes can be obtained on the ground with onsite investigation

by a soil scientist as needed to verify soil component location. Recreation
48

areas, floodplains, riparian-wetland areas, etc., that may require intensive

management are better suited to single taxa units or complexes of two or more

taxa plus inclusions. The confidence levels of these units are generally higher

for the user. This kind of map unit allows for a more precise prediction of the

soil, vegetation, hydrologic, and biotic relationships that are common to each

repeatable delineation with a minimum of onsite evaluation.

• Kinds of soil taxa used. The objectives of the soil survey will determine the

kinds of soil taxa used. Phases of a soil series are the most narrowly defined set

of soil properties. Therefore, a map unit identified by a phase of a soil series

will provide the user with more precise information and interpretations about

the soils and ecological sites of an area. Soils identified at the family level or

higher categories in soil taxonomy are progressively less definitive about their

soil properties and offer less specific interpretations or are unavailable to the

user. This is an extremely important point to consider in relation to using broad

soil concepts and applying them to more specific soil, ecological site, hydrologic, and biological interpretive needs and objectives. The risk for misuse of

interpretive data and associated values is increased when categorical levels

higher than soil series are used. In most cases, the phase of a soil series is the

kind of soil taxa that meets most long-term objectives.

• Kind and intensity of field procedures. The objectives of the soil survey and

need for kinds of information are the main factors in determining the intensity

of soil survey. The purity of map units is important in the interpretation of soil

surveys. Most delineations of a map unit contain some kind of map inclusions

not identified in the map unit name. Many inclusions cannot be delineated by

practical field mapping methods, but others can be. For field mapping expediency, some soil inclusions are deliberately identified with other kinds of soils to

avoid excessive detail of the soil map or legend. This is a common procedure,

especially where small riparian-wetland areas are concerned (Appendix II).

Standards of purity in any soil survey are attained by adjusting the kind and

intensity of field investigation. If the identification of the soil and ecological

site of each delineation is made by direct examination and boundaries are

observed throughout their lengths, there is a greater opportunity to control

purity of map units and increase interpretative value for predictive use.

• Minimum size delineation and map scale. Minimum size delineation is determined by the interdisciplinary team prior to preparation of the MOU. The

delineations should be of a size that will satisfy the needs of the user and be of

reasonable size considering map scale. A 1:24,000 map scale is usually sufficient to handle most delineations encountered in field mapping. There are some

situations, such as delineation of riparian-wetland areas, where normal scale is

not adequate using polygon map techniques. Using the suggested line segment

or spot symbol procedure outlined in Appendix II will overcome the limitation

that requires a larger scale map. The procedure will provide an innovative

method to supply the user with accurate and concise interpretations for soil,

ecological site, hydrology, and biology.
49

4. Major Landform Design

A good understanding of local landforms will be required by the team in testing their

knowledge of the area and implementing the survey design concepts. The approved

terms and definitions used in soil survey are found in section 607, NSH. A list of

these terms without their associated definitions are in the SITEFORM User Guide

general instructions. Emphasis for each landform is directed towards the terms that

best represent a location on a landscape. The progression is from the more general to

the most specific parts of the landscape.

As part of the soil mapping and inventory process, each landform must be looked at

from its broadest to its narrowest segment to be meaningful in soil and site placement

on repeatable landscapes. An example in implementing this concept may be where a

hill or mountain represents the broad landscape position of interest. More specifically, one map unit component may be on the side slope of a hill or mountain. The

exact position on hill or mountain side slopes could be concave midslopes or lower

slopes. An example of how the location of this component would read in a map unit

or ecological site description would be “occurs on concave midslopes or lower slopes

of hill or mountain side slopes.”

As part of the field mapping process, a number of observations throughout the area

are made by the team, such as broad areas of unique and repeatable physiography or

contrasting isolated parts, and potential soil and vegetation patterns that occur within

certain portions of the landscape. Differences in soil and vegetation are determined

by concentrating on the characteristic segments of the landscape. These differences

will usually result in different kinds of soils and associated ecological sites that can

be placed on unique parts of the broad landscape. Physiographic position information will be an integral part of the map unit description and ecological site description. Riparian-wetland areas also have distinct soil and vegetation patterns associated

with each segment of landscape. They reflect the various hydrologic relationships

that influence the soils and vegetation. Hydrologic relationships such as flooding,

ponding, and water table are affected by the position of the landscape. Stream

gradient, sinuosity, width-depth ratios, etc., along with the position on the landscape,

will also affect the soil, water, and vegetation relationships.

In map unit design, soil and vegetation patterns and landscape relationships are the

key elements used in the mapping process. It provides the means to predict soils,

ecological sites, and hydrology for accurate delineation of the area and assignment of

soil map unit symbols. By knowing the map unit symbol for a delineation, users can

take the descriptions to the field, place themselves on a segment of the landscape and

confidently know the soil and ecological site for that specific segment.

The concept of locating oneself, a kind of soil, and ecological site on the landscape

within a map unit delineation is extremely important in the application of interpretive

information and management decisions.

5. Test Map Sample Areas

Looking at several different landscapes, the team uses the concepts provided in

survey design to develop and agree on several proposed map units. In order to test
50

their predictions, the team selects several test areas to determine the validity and

repeatability of proposed map units in characteristic landscapes per section

602.01-6(a), NSH.

Predelineation of potential map units on one or more field sheets used in mapping

will help the team in identifying potential test areas. This is accomplished by photo

interpretation of stereoscopic field sheets. Photo interpretation aids in delineating

areas of like landscapes and patterns prior to field testing. The predelineated field

sheets and proposed map unit information are taken to the field by the team and

several similar delineations are selected for testing. Each of the sample areas selected must contain map units that represent sets of soil properties and ecological

sites that can be evaluated against the objectives of the soil survey.

Likewise, SWAs can be predelineated based on administrative boundaries and

present vegetation differences that are observable from photo interpretation. SWA

delineation and documentation are tested against vegetation information and interpretation needs identified in the inventory plan.

• Testing. Areas selected for testing are mapped in greater detail than normal

mapping in order to determine the nature of the component soil taxa, vegetation, and hydrologic influence in relation to their pattern of occurrence and

their size and shape. Combinations of soil, landscape, and hydrologic characteristics that will affect soil or vegetation behavior for various uses are outlined

and evaluated.

Sample areas are mapped by the same methods used in normal mapping. The

following are checked:

- Predictive value of the soil-vegetation-hydrologic-landscape features;

- Internal properties of soil on either side of evident natural boundaries to

determine if they differ significantly;

- Slope gradient and shape, vegetation, and physiographic position relative

to the surrounding soils to determine if they are reliable criteria for predicting the kind of soil;

- Complexity of soil pattern (by detailed examination);

- Soil and vegetation composition of mappable delineations of map units and

SWAs (by transect); and

- Degree to which limits established for concepts of map units can furnish

soil-vegetation-hydrology data needed to develop resource interpretations

to meet the needs.

Map units that meet these tests are described and form the first draft of the soil

survey area descriptive legend.
51

• Documentation. Testing of actual map units under field conditions also

includes obtaining necessary documentation to support the original or modified

concepts. Documentation provides validity to field application. This is

accomplished through verification of the patterns observed. Documentation is

the information base to be evaluated in determining the modal concepts of each

map unit component used to provide interpretations for use and management

decisions.

Each team member has standards and procedures for documenting baseline

information. They also have a responsibility to coordinate and share their data

with others to minimize duplication and conflicts. The following provides the

documentation and map unit verification requirements by need.

a. Soils

Detailed support documentation is needed to determine location and percent

composition of each major map unit soil component and soil inclusion. This

includes soil profile descriptions that can be classified in Soil Taxonomy and

correlated to existing soil series and any other information that affects soilvegetation-hydrology-biology relationships. The soil scientist obtains support

documentation for the subject area from:

• Soil profile description. Using Form SCS-SOI-232 or other similar and

accepted forms, data will be collected and recorded that describe the soil’s

physical and chemical properties. This includes information about the

typical location, landscape position, geology, elevation, ambient and soil

climate, present vegetation, and any other factors of importance. The site

location must be typical and representative for the soil and ecological site.

Soil data may be entered into the SCS pedon description program for future

retrieval.

• Soil transect data. This is data collected by transect of the map unit

delineation on a locally or nationally accepted transect form. Data may

also be entered into the SCS transect management field soil survey data

base for future evaluation and statistical analysis. Transect data will verify

and provide information on the percent composition and physiographic

position of each major soil component and inclusion encountered in the

map unit. Associated data concerning vegetation, hydrology, and biology

may also be incorporated in the final product.

• Soil or map unit field notes. In addition to collection of formal documentation, additional information is collected that does not require time-intensive

data gathering procedures. This information is usually collected on accepted field note forms as a result of field observation. The information on

field notes is usually unique in nature, but may influence map unit design,

soil or vegetation characteristics, interpretation values, etc. The notes are

usually referenced by location, map unit, and major or inclusion soil

components.
52

• Other supporting data and information. This is data or information not

directly related to the soil map unit verification or field mapping process,

but that is important to future management decisions. This may be information on past use, management practices applied, potentials of the area,

etc., that are important in supporting the final evaluation of a specific soil

or map unit.

b. Vegetation

1) Present vegetation community information is determined by the SWA

delineation and supporting documentation. The SWA delineation is the

smallest delineation on the inventory map and represents the location of

present vegetation by kind, amount, and proportion of species. An SWA is

usually an individual soil map unit delineation and is assigned a unique SWA

number to distinguish it from other soil map unit delineations of the same

designation. However, a soil map unit delineation should be subdivided if

bisected by an administrative boundary. A soil map unit may be subdivided

if significantly different plant communities or different seral stages occur

within the same ecological site within a delineation. Each subdivision of a

soil map unit delineation receives its own unique SWA number.

Plant community attributes are estimated or measured for each ecological site

and the soil taxa documented in each SWA. Present vegetation is also

documented at each pedon description prepared by the soil scientists.

Specific procedures for sampling and/or estimating plant community productivity and composition ADW are found in the National Range Handbook and

BLM Manual Handbook H-4410-1. BLM technical references TR-4400-4

and TR-1737-3 provide acceptable procedures for collection of additional

information that may have been identified in the inventory plan (i.e., cover,

frequency, etc.).

Present vegetation attributes must be documented on BLM Forms 4410-1

and 1a for storage in the Inventory Data System (IDS). Additional considerations include:

• Documentation must be completed for each component of an SWA.

However, many will be so similar that only a new SWA number or

other minor changes (i.e., soil map unit, soil taxa, etc.) will be required.

• Identify and flag communities believed to be in late and/or PNC seral

stages for comparison area per notes, H-4410-1.

• Additional data (e.g., percent cover, frequency, etc.) can be entered in

additional columns developed in the Notes section or on a separate

form. Add the data elements on the PC version of IDS to enter additional data.
53

• A plant species symbol and a value (i.e., 0) must be entered in the

percent composition ADW or production column to enter an SWA in

the National IDS System.

• The SCS Range 417 form can be used to calculate double-sampled

production data but must be transferred to 4410-1 and 1a forms for IDS

entry.

• Other forms - Daubenmire, etc., may be used for sample recording and

calculation. This data must be transferred to the 4410-1 and 1a forms

for entry at the local level.

• The data can be entered directly on PC IDS/IDSU programs or the

completed 4410-1 and 1a forms may be sent to Service Center for data

entry.

2) Ecological sites are correlated with soils as map units are designed, tested,

and mapped. As part of the test and during the mapping process, the vegetation specialist cooperatively works with the soil scientist to ensure that the

map unit design will accommodate the vegetation interpretations required to

develop vegetation management objectives identified in the Resource Management Plan. The specialist provides the ecological site name, numbers,

typical vegetation, etc., to the soil scientist for each soil component and soil

inclusion in the map unit description. Ecological site descriptions, including

interpretations, are developed or reviewed and tested as part of the documentation process. In areas where map units are designed and tested for riparianwetlands, the vegetation interpretations must include documentation to

support the potential for site progressions.

All ecological site descriptions need to be updated, formatted to standard site

description format, and entered on the SITEFORM data base. “New” sites

that don’t seem to fit any existing site concepts are often encountered and

descriptions will have to be developed. Adequate documentation is required

for description updates as well as new sites.

Present vegetation support documentation combined with the data from the

other disciplines are all necessary documentation for describing an ecological

site. Data should reflect significant differences in a site’s ability to produce

vegetation as the primary criteria that will separate sites. Procedures for site

correlation are outlined in Appendix IV. A plant association table is the

preferred format for presentation of vegetation data associated with each

ecological site in the survey area. When separating ecological sites, the soil,

landscape, climate, and/or hydrology supporting documentation need to

indicate significant differences to identify and map the site even in the

absence of vegetation.

c. Hydrology

Water features associated with riparian-wetland ecological sites have previously

been described in six general categories: morphological characteristics, water
54

regimes, associated ground-water systems, watershed characteristics, water

chemistry, and special modifiers. Specific information required to describe these

characteristics will vary by the type of riparian-wetland area being described

(e.g., freshwater systems versus brackish systems). Some items of information

identified in the associated water features of the Standard Site Description and

SITEFORM program may not always be available, or even needed, to describe

some ecological sites.

Collection of most “field” data for describing a site’s associated water features

needs little explanation. Some data, such as that required to describe watershed

characteristics, are taken directly from topographic maps. Other information,

such as special modifiers, utilizes qualitative descriptors based on simple observation. Still other data are measured with straightforward procedures that are

adequately described in the instructions for SITEFORM (e.g., sinuosity is the

ratio of channel length to valley length). Most information for the Rosgen

Stream Classification System falls into this latter category. (One exception,

stream gradient, will be discussed in detail later in this section.)

Items of “field data” not covered by the previous paragraph require additional

discussion. These items generally are associated with the water regime of the

site, surface-water/ground-water interactions, and water quality of the system.

Field procedures for these subjects must be addressed in detail. Description of a

site’s water regime requires a knowledge of frequency and duration of inundation

at the site. For stream-adjacent systems, frequency and duration of inundation

are a function of flow-frequency relations and bankfull channel capacity. Both

topics are covered in detail, even though — strictly speaking — frequency

analysis may or may not be based on field procedures.

In the best situations, frequency analysis will be based on available streamflow

data. In these situations periodic measurements of discharge are used with a

continuous record of stage (water level) to generate a continuous record of flow

at the site. Unit values of streamflow (i.e., instantaneous values of flow) are

summed to yield mean daily values, as well as monthly and annual summaries.

Annual extremes (e.g., annual peak flows) are then subjected to frequency

analysis to determine flows for a specified return period (e.g., 50-year flood).

Standard procedures for estimating flood frequencies in the United States are

presented in Bulletin #17B of the U.S. Water Resources Council, “Guidelines for

Determining Flood Flow Frequency,” and are summarized briefly below. This

procedure requires that the annual series of maximum values from a stream gage

be fitted to a log-Pearson Type III distribution. General steps in the procedure

are as follows:

1) Convert annual maximum values (x) to logarithms (y).

2) Compute the mean (avg-y), standard deviation (sy), and skew (G) of the logtransformed values.

3) Determine the frequency factor, K, as a function of the skew and the return

period of interest, T. (This is done from a table of K values - Table 1).
55

4) Apply the frequency equation: log xt = Yt = (avg-y) + K (sy)

5) Take the antilog of Yt to get xt.

The procedure utilizes all annual maximum values provided from the gage, but

sets limits for values that are considerably higher or lower than what might be

expected for a log-Pearson Type III distribution. Equations are given for detecting high and low outliers that should not be fit to the distribution:

High Outliers: yh = (avg-y) + Kn (sy)

Low Outliers: yL = (avg-y) - Kn (sy)

where Kn is from a different table than the frequency factor K above (Table 2).

When outliers are detected in the annual series, they are deleted from the data set

and the analysis is repeated.

If there is only a small number of values in the annual series (i.e., if the gage has

only a very short period of record), the gage record may give a biased estimate of

the skew coefficient, G. To correct for bias in the estimate of skew, generalized

(regionalized) skew coefficients have been developed for most locations, based

on analysis of gaging stations with substantial periods of record. The correct

skew coefficient to be used in the frequency analysis is a weighted skew computed from the gage skew with its variance and the regionalized (map) skew with

its variance. Bulletin #17B contains details of the calculations.

If the riparian-wetland site of interest is near a stream gage operated by an

agency other than the U.S. Geological Survey, there is a good possibility that

flood-frequency relations have never been developed for that gaging station. If

the station has about 10 years of record or more, the hydrologist may compute

flood frequencies with the procedure described in Bulletin No. 17B for return

periods up to about twice the length of record. For example, if the gage has 12

years of record, the hydrologist may estimate floods up to the 25-year event. If

the gage has substantially less than 10 years of record, flood frequencies computed with the above procedure should be checked against other estimates for

flood frequency in the area (see below).

Where USGS stream gages with more than 10 years of record are present, a

flood-frequency analysis likely has already been done. Usually, USGS will

publish the results of such an analysis in a “statistical summaries of streamflow

data” report for a state or a portion of a state. If the data are not published, the

hydrologist can request such a flood-frequency analysis for a nominal charge

(frequently for free), and USGS will forward a printout of results to the person

originating the request. Flood-frequency estimates from USGS gaging stations

may be carefully transferred to ungaged sites. This assumes that the gaged and

ungaged sites have similar climatic and physiographic characteristics, the drainage areas of the gaged and ungaged sites are similar, and flood estimates are

prorated by drainage area when transferring from the gaged site to the ungaged

site.
56

Recurrence Interval in Years

Skew 1.0101 1.0526 1.1111 1.2500 2 5 10 25 50 100 200

Coeff.

Exceedance Probability

G .99 .95 .90 .80 .50 .20 .10 .04 .02 .01 .05

Positive Skew

3.0 -0.667 -0.665 -0.660 -0.636 -0.396 0.420 1.180 2.278 3.152 4.051 4.970

2.9 -0.690 -0.688 -0.681 -0.651 -0.390 0.440 1.195 2.277 3.134 4.013 4.909

2.8 -0.714 -0.711 -0.702 -0.666 -0.384 0.460 1.210 2.275 3.114 3.973 4.847

2.7 -0.740 -0.736 -0.724 -0.681 -0.376 0.479 1.224 2.272 3.093 3.932 4.783

2.6 -0.769 -0.762 -0.747 -0.696 -0.368 0.499 1.238 2.267 3.071 3.889 4.718

2.5 -0.799 -0.790 -0.771 -0.711 -0.360 0.518 1.250 2.262 3.048 3.845 4.652

2.4 -0.832 -0.819 -0.795 -0.725 -0.351 0.537 1.262 2.256 3.023 3.800 4.584

2.3 -0.867 -0.850 -0.819 -0.739 -0.341 0.555 1.274 2.248 2.997 3.753 4.515

2.2 -0.905 -0.882 -0.844 -0.752 -0.330 0.574 1.284 2.240 2.970 3.705 4.444

2.1 -0.946 -0.914 -0.869 -0.765 -0.319 0.592 1.294 2.230 2.942 3.656 4.372

2.0 -0.990 -0.949 -0.895 -0.777 -0.307 0.609 1.302 2.219 2.912 3.605 4.298

1.9 -1.037 -0.984 -0.920 -0.788 -0.294 0.627 1.310 2.207 2.881 3.553 4.223

1.8 -1.087 -1.020 -0.945 -0.799 -0.282 0.643 1.218 2.193 2.848 3.499 4.147

1.7 -1.140 -1.056 -0.970 -0.808 -0.268 0.660 1.324 2.179 2.815 3.444 4.069

1.6 -1.197 -1.093 -0.994 -0.817 -0.254 0.675 1.329 2.163 2.780 3.388 3.990

1.5 -1.256 -1.131 -1.018 -0.825 -0.240 0.690 1.333 2.146 2.743 3.330 3.910

1.4 -1.318 -1.168 -1.041 -0.832 -0.225 0.705 1.337 2.128 2.706 3.271 3.828

1.3 -1.383 -1.206 -1.064 -0.838 -0.210 0.719 1.339 2.108 2.666 3.211 3.745

1.2 -1.449 -1.243 -1.086 -0.844 -0.195 0.732 1.340 2.087 2.626 3.149 3.661

1.1 -1.518 -1.280 -1.107 -0.848 -0.180 0.745 1.341 2.066 2.585 3.087 3.575

1.0 -1.588 -1.317 -1.128 -0.852 -0.164 0.758 1.340 2.043 2.542 3.022 3.489

.9 -1.660 -1.353 -1.147 -0.854 -0.148 0.769 1.339 2.018 2.498 2.957 3.401

.8 -1.733 -1.388 -1.166 -0.856 -0.132 0.780 1.336 1.993 2.453 2.891 3.312

.7 -1.806 -1.423 -1.183 -0.857 -0.116 0.790 1.333 1.967 2.407 2.824 3.223

.6 -1.880 -1.458 -1.200 -0.857 -0.099 0.800 1.328 1.939 2.359 2.755 3.132

.5 -1.955 -1.491 -1.216 -0.856 -0.083 0.808 1.323 1.910 2.311 2.686 3.041

.4 -2.029 -1.524 -1.231 -0.855 -0.066 0.816 1.317 1.880 2.261 2.615 2.949

.3 -2.104 -1.555 -1.245 -0.853 -0.050 0.824 1.309 1.849 2.211 2.544 2.856

.2 -2.178 -1.586 -1.258 -0.850 -0.033 0.830 1.301 1.818 2.159 2.472 2.763

.1 -2.252 -1.616 -1.270 -0.846 -0.017 0.836 1.292 1.785 2.107 2.400 2.670

.0 -2.326 -1.645 -1.282 -0.842 0 0.842 1.282 1.751 2.054 2.326 2.576

Negative Skew

- .1 -2.400 -1.673 -1.292 -0.836 0.017 0.846 1.270 1.716 2.000 2.252 2.482

- .2 -2.472 -1.700 -1.301 -0.830 0.033 0.850 1.258 1.680 1.945 2.178 2.388

- .3 -2.544 -1.726 -1.309 -0.824 0.050 0.853 1.245 1.643 1.890 2.104 2.294

- .4 -2.615 -1.750 -1.317 -0.816 0.066 0.855 1.231 1.606 1.834 2.029 2.201

- .5 -2.686 -1.774 -1.323 -0.808 0.083 0.856 1.216 1.567 1.777 1.955 2.108

- .6 -2.755 -1.797 -1.328 -0.800 0.099 0.857 1.200 1.528 1.720 1.880 2.016

- .7 -2.824 -1.819 -1.333 -0.790 0.116 0.857 1.183 1.488 1.663 1.806 1.926

- .8 -2.891 -1.839 -1.336 -0.780 0.132 0.856 1.166 1.448 1.606 1.733 1.837

- .9 -2.957 -1.858 -1.339 -0.769 0.148 0.854 1.147 1.407 1.549 1.660 1.749

-1.0 -3.022 -1.877 -1.340 -0.758 0.164 0.852 1.128 1.366 1.492 1.588 1.664

-1.1 -3.087 -1.894 -1.341 -0.745 0.180 0.848 1.107 1.324 1.435 1.518 1.581

-1.2 -3.149 -1.910 -1.340 -0.732 0.195 0.844 1.086 1.282 1.379 1.449 1.501

-1.3 -3.211 -1.925 -1.339 -0.719 0.210 0.838 1.064 1.240 1.324 1.383 1.424

-1.4 -3.271 -1.938 -1.337 -0.705 0.225 0.832 1.041 1.198 1.270 1.318 1.351

-1.5 -3.330 -1.951 -1.333 -0.690 0.240 0.825 1.018 1.157 1.217 1.256 1.282

-1.6 -3.388 -1.962 -1.329 -0.675 0.254 0.817 0.994 1.116 1.166 1.197 1.216

-1.7 -3.444 -1.972 -1.324 -0.660 0.268 0.808 0.970 1.075 1.116 1.140 1.155

-1.8 -3.499 -1.981 -1.318 -0.643 0.282 0.799 0.945 1.035 1.069 1.087 1.097

-1.9 -3.553 -1.989 -1.310 -0.627 0.294 0.788 0.920 0.996 1.023 1.037 1.044

-2.0 -3.605 -1.996 -1.302 -0.609 0.307 0.777 0.895 0.959 0.980 0.990 0.995

-2.1 -3.656 -2.001 -1.294 -0.592 0.319 0.765 0.869 0.923 0.939 0.946 0.949

-2.2 -3.705 -2.006 -1.284 -0.574 0.330 0.752 0.844 0.888 0.900 0.905 0.907

-2.3 -3.753 -2.009 -1.274 -0.555 0.341 0.739 0.819 0.855 0.864 0.867 0.869

-2.4 -3.800 -2.011 -1.262 -0.537 0.351 0.725 0.795 0.823 0.830 0.832 0.833

-2.5 -3.845 -2.012 -1.250 -0.518 0.360 0.711 0.771 0.793 0.798 0.799 0.800

-2.6 -3.889 -2.013 -1.238 -0.499 0.368 0.696 0.747 0.764 0.768 0.769 0.769

-2.7 -3.932 -2.012 -1.224 -0.479 0.376 0.681 0.724 0.738 0.740 0.740 0.741

-2.8 -3.973 -2.010 -1.210 -0.460 0.384 0.666 0.702 0.712 0.714 0.714 0.714

-2.9 -4.013 -2.007 -1.195 -0.440 0.390 0.651 0.681 0.683 0.689 0.690 0.690

-3.0 -4.051 -2.003 -1.180 -0.420 0.396 0.636 0.660 0.666 0.666 0.667 0.667

Table 1. K values for Pearson Type III distribution. After Water Resources Council, Bulletin

No. 15 (13).
57

Sample K Sample K Sample K Sample K

Size Value Size Value Size Value Size Value

10 2.036 45 2.727 80 2.940 115 3.064

11 2.088 46 2.736 81 2.945 116 3.067

12 2.134 47 2.744 82 2.949 117 3.070

13 2.175 48 2.753 83 2.953 118 3.073

14 2.213 49 2.760 84 2.957 119 3.075

15 2.247 50 2.768 85 2.961 120 3.078

16 2.279 51 2.775 86 2.966 121 3.081

17 2.309 52 2.783 87 2.970 122 3.083

18 2.335 53 2.790 88 2.973 123 3.086

19 2.361 54 2.798 89 2.977 124 3.089

20 2.385 55 2.804 90 2.981 125 3.092

21 2.408 56 2.811 91 2.984 126 3.095

22 2.429 57 2.818 92 2.989 127 3.097

23 2.448 58 2.824 93 2.993 128 3.100

24 2.467 59 2.831 94 2.996 129 3.102

25 2.486 60 2.837 95 3.000 130 3.104

26 2.502 61 2.842 96 3.003 131 3.107

27 2.519 62 2.849 97 3.006 132 3,109

28 2.534 63 2.854 98 3.011 133 3.112

29 2.549 64 2.860 99 3.014 134 3.114

30 2.563 65 2.866 100 3.017 135 3.116

31 2.577 66 2.871 101 3.021 136 3.119

32 2.591 67 2.877 102 3.024 137 3.122

33 2.604 68 2.883 103 3.027 138 3.124

34 2.616 69 2.888 104 3.030 139 3.126

35 2.628 70 2.893 105 3.033 140 3.129

36 2.639 71 2.897 106 3.037 141 3.131

37 2.650 72 2.903 107 3.040 142 3.133

38 2.661 73 2.908 108 3.043 143 3.135

39 2.671 74 2.912 109 3.046 144 3.138

40 2.682 75 2.917 110 3.049 145 3.140

41 2.692 76 2.922 111 3.052 146 3.142

42 2.700 77 2.927 112 3.055 147 3.144

43 2.710 78 2.931 113 3.058 148 3.146

44 2.719 79 2.935 114 3.061 149 3.148

Table 2. Outlier test K values. This table contains one sided 10 percent significance level K values for

a normal distribution (38). Tests conducted to select the outlier detection procedures used in this

report indicate these K values are applicable to log-Pearson Type III distributions over the tested

range of skew values.
58

In many states, flood-frequency estimates for USGS gaging stations have been

correlated with certain climatic and basin characteristics. The result is a set of

regression equations thatmay be used to estimate flood magnitude for various

return periods in ungaged basins. Frequently the user needs only limited information (e.g., mean annual precipitation and drainage area) in order to calculate

flood magnitudes at a site. While easy to use, these equations usually have a

large standard error of the estimate.

Similarly, in many locations, flood-frequency estimates from USGS gaging

stations have been correlated with certain channel-geometry characteristics.

These correlations produce a set of regression equations relating some channel

feature, usually active-channel width, to flood magnitudes for various return

periods. Again, standard errors of the estimate are usually large.

Flood-frequency estimates also may be generated using precipitation data and

watershed runoff models. The precipitation record for various return-period

storm events is input to the watershed model to generate a runoff hydrograph and

peak flow for that event. The modeled rainfall may be from historical data or

from an assumed time distribution of precipitation (e.g., a 2-year, 24-hour rainfall

event). This method of generating flood-frequency estimates assumes the return

period of the runoff event equals the return period of the precipitation event (e.g.,

a 2-year rainfall event will generate a 2-year peak flow). The validity of this

assumption depends on antecedent moisture conditions, basin size, and a number

of other factors. Also, because many watershed models were developed for

engineering design purposes, they may overestimate flood magnitude for a given

return-period storm.

Regardless of the procedure or source of information chosen for obtaining floodfrequency information, flood estimates for the 1.25-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and (record

permitting) 50- and 100-year flood events need to be plotted on standard logprobability paper and a smooth curve drawn between the points. The plot

becomes the flood-frequency relation for the riparian-wetland site under investigation. It provides background information for evaluating bankfull discharge and

frequency of inundation of vegetation communities along the channel.

Once the flood-frequency relations have been estimated for a channel, bankfull

discharge is determined from a field survey of the channel cross-section and

water-surface slope and application of Manning’s equation. In its simplest form,

Manning’s equation for discharge is given by:

Q = (k/n) A R2/3 S1/2

where Q= discharge in m3/sec or ft3/sec,

k = 1 for metric units and 1.49 for English units,

n = Manning’s roughness (resistance) coefficient,

A= cross-sectional area of flow,

R = hydraulic radius (approximately equal to mean depth), and

S = energy slope (taken to be the water-surface slope).

Figure 6 depicts the variables contained in Manning’s equation.
59

Slope

Area Maximum

Depth (Stage)

Perimeter

Top Width

Mean Depth = Area

Top Width Hydraulic Radius = Area

Wetted Perimeter

Figure 6. Definition diagram for hydraulic parameters.

It is important to point out the assumptions of Manning’s equation so that surveyed cross sections may be properly located in the field. Manning’s equation

assumes a condition referred to as uniform flow, where pathlines of flow are

parallel to each other and the streambed, and the energy slope, water-surface

slope, and bed slope are parallel to each other. While perfectly uniform flow

does not occur in natural channels, the condition is approached in sections of

stream where the width, depth, shape, and cross-sectional area of the channel is

relatively constant. Channel bends should be avoided. The equation also assumes channel control as opposed to section control, i.e., the point of zero flow is

the lowest point on the cross section and not a result of backwater from some

higher point downstream. Where backwater does occur (i.e., water level controlled by a downstream cross section), a standard-step water-surface profile

model (e.g., HEC2) is more appropriate for estimating water surface elevation at

a given cross section and flow rate.

Basic data required for application of Manning’s equation are a surveyed channel

cross section and the water-surface slope. The cross section is established

perpendicular to the channel, and the points across the section are surveyed

relative to a known or arbitrarily established benchmark elevation. Distance/

elevation paired data associated with each point on the section may be obtained

either by sag-tape or rod-and-level survey. Intricacies of correct survey procedures are beyond the scope of this document. For details of the sag-tape procedure, the reader is referred to Ray and Megahan (1979). Benson and Dalrymple

(1967) present an excellent overview of rod-and-level survey procedures, including guidance on equipment, field notes, and vertical and horizontal control.

Information on water-surface slope also is required for analysis with the Manning

equation. Survey of water-surface slope is somewhat more complicated than the

cross-section survey in that slope of the individual channel unit at the location of

the section (e.g., pool, run, or riffle) must be distinguished from the more con-
60

High flow

Intermediate

flow

Low flow

Pool

Pool

Pool

Water Surface

Profile view

Riffle

Riffle

Riffle

Riffle

Pool

Pool

Riffle

Pool

Plan view

Figure 7. Diagram of longitudinal profile and plan view of a pool-riffle sequience. Water surface

profiles in upper figure represent high, intermediate, and low flow conditions.

stant slope of the entire reach. Water-surface slope in individual channel units

may change significantly with changes in stage and discharge (Figure 7), while

slope of the entire reach will remain essentially unchanged. Thus, at low flow,

slope of the individual channel unit will have a strong influence on the depthdischarge relationship, while at high water, average slope of the reach will

control the depth-discharge relationship. This is an important distinction to make

when water-surface slopes are surveyed in the field. Low-water slopes may be

approximated by change in elevation over the individual channel unit where the

cross section is located (usually 1 to 5 channel widths in length). High-water

slope is obtained by measuring change in elevation over a much longer reach of

channel (usually at least 15 to 20 channel widths in length).

Application of the Manning equation to estimate bankfull flow requires one

additional item of information, i.e., the roughness coefficient. Manning’s roughness coefficient is an empirically derived coefficient related to energy losses

from turbulence and friction and may be thought of as resistance to flow at the

channel boundary. The roughness coefficient may be estimated by one of three

methods. The direct solution method entails measuring stream discharge and the

other variables in the Manning equation and solving directly for the value of n.

The second method for estimating the roughness coefficient at a cross section

involves comparing the reach to a similar, measured reach for which Manning’s

n has already been computed. Theoretically, this is done by comparing the reach

with either a table of values or photographs of other natural channels. Practically, most experienced hydrologists estimate the channel roughness coefficient

from experience, and the tables and photographs are never even consulted.

However, unless the hydrologist has extensive experience analyzing channel
61

cross sections using direct methods and water-surface-profile models, the tables

and photographs are consulted to ensure a reasonable estimate of n. The third

method of estimating roughness uses empirical formulas relating n to other

hydraulic parameters. Frequently, these formulas make use of some variable

relating depth of flow to largest particles in the bed.

It is important to remember that channel resistance to flow from roughness at the

channel boundary will not be constant at all flow levels. Most authors have

found that Manning’s roughness coefficient decreases with increasing

streamflow, up to bankfull stage. Above bankfull, roughness may tend to increase with flow as cross sections further downstream and over bank areas begin

to influence the water surface elevation. Also, because of changes in roughness

with changes in flow, it may be necessary to analyze divided channels and

overbank areas separately, as each area may exhibit a different range in n-values.

Most open-channel flow software allows the user to enter roughness values

independently for overbank areas and the main channel, and some programs will

allow the user to vary the roughness with stage.

Once the channel has been surveyed and the water-surface slope and roughness

coefficient have been estimated, Manning’s equation may be solved for the

bankfull discharge. Comparison of bankfull flow with flood-frequency determinations described earlier allows the hydrologist to estimate frequency of flooding

of stream-adjacent areas with their various vegetation communities. As vegetation communities change composition with distance above and away from the

channel, changes in frequency of flooding may be related to changes in species

composition.

The description of water regime for nonstream wetlands generally is much less

involved. For marine and brackish-water systems, elevation of the riparianwetland site is determined by survey and compared to tidal information for the

area of interest. Similarly, in riparian-wetland areas associated with freshwater

impoundments, elevation of the site is related to pool elevations identified in the

operations plan and/or experienced historically from the project. Wetland

communities associated with playa lakes would be related to frequency of runoff

to the lakes as determined by statistical analyses of climate data and rainfallrunoff relationships and models. For most other freshwater riparian-wetland

areas, the water regime is either dominated by streamflow or local ground-water

flow systems (see below).

Field procedures for data elements describing ground water associated with

riparian-wetland sites require additional discussion. The extent of the groundwater flow system (local, intermediate, or regional) will influence the persistence

and reliability of subsurface water at the site. Field measurements of groundwater temperature and chemistry (discussed later in this section) may provide

information that will help determine the extent of the flow system. Also, the

nature of ground-water discharge as lateral or discrete will have a direct influence

on the spatial distribution of vegetation at a site. Finally, identification of

ground-water discharge to or recharge from a stream or other surface-water body

may help determine dependency of riparian-wetland vegetation on surface water

in the area.
62

The importance of documenting interactions between the SWA and the local

water table cannot be overemphasized for developing accurate site interpretations. This means that, wherever possible, field measurements of the water table

needs to be obtained, and the water table mapped along with vegetation at the

site. Few areas will have sufficient existing information or wells for mapping the

water table, so it may be necessary to install well points in selected SWAs.

Installed well points should be surveyed for vertical and horizontal control, and

water levels should be measured at least seasonally to document the relationship

between the water table and local expressions of surface water in the area.

Channels may gain or lose water depending on their position above or below the

water table. Figure 8C illustrates how the water table may change seasonally and

thus influence streamflow in a nearby channel. Figure 8C is typical of many

riparian-wetland sites and illustrates an important hydrologic function of such

sites. The conditions depicted in Figure 8 may change within short distances and

might not be identified with the limited data provided by well points. In such

cases, seepage runs conducted at different times of year may be used to determine if the stream is gaining from or losing to the local water table.

A seepage run consists of measurements of discharge along intervals of a channel

reach to identify small gains and losses of streamflow that may help to interpret

the system. Occasionally stream temperature and conductivity also are measured

to help interpret the data. As illustrated in Figure 8, the results of a seepage run

may change seasonally or in extended periods of drought or above-average

precipitation. Thus, it may be necessary to repeat the seepage run at different

water levels to identify temporal variation.

Because seepage runs are intended to detect small (often very small) changes in

streamflow, it is extremely important to use properly functioning dischargemeasuring equipment and correct standard procedures. It is counterproductive to

conduct seepage runs when water levels are fluctuating rapidly.

Standard current meters should be used and should be calibrated regularly and

checked (e.g., spin tests) before and after each measurement. Placement of

verticals for the cross-section measurement should make use of variable spacing

in an attempt to include no more than 5 percent of the flow in any single vertical.

Velocity in each vertical should be measured at the correct depth (either 0.6-

depth or 0.2- and 0.8-depth, depending on total depth in the vertical) to obtain an

accurate estimate of mean velocity. Meter limitations relative to depth, velocity,

and proximity to vertical barriers must be observed, and vertical and horizontal

angle coefficients used wherever applicable. While the intricacies of correct

discharge-measurement techniques are beyond the scope of this document, the

reader is referred to Buchanan and Somers (1969), and Rantz and others (1982)

for an in-depth treatment of standard USGS procedures. Also, Smoot and Novak

(1968) present procedures for calibration and maintenance of current meters to

ensure accurate measurement of velocity and discharge. When equipment is

functioning properly and standard procedures are followed correctly, it is possible to measure streamflow to within 5 percent of the true value.
63

Field measurements of water quality also provide useful information for describing ecological sites associated with riparian-wetland areas. In some situations the

quality of water in the stream or adjacent floodplain alluvium may directly

influence vegetation present along the channel margin. Trace elements such as

selenium may only be detected by direct sampling for the chemical of interest,

while heavy metal pollution associated with mine drainage may be obvious from

the color and pH of the stream.

Field measurements of water quality also are useful for defining surface-water/

ground-water relationships. For example, water quality may help distinguish

Stream

Water table

Baseflow Water table stage

Flood

stage

Bank

storage

Flood water table

Baseflow water

table

C

B

A

Figure 8. Cross sections of gaining and losing streams. A. A losing stream; B. A gaining stream;

C. A stream which is gaining during low flow periods but which may temporarily become a losing

stream during flood stage.
64

between ground-water discharge from deep regional flow systems and discharge

from shallow, more local flow systems. Water from deep regional systems

frequently is warmer than mean annual air temperature at the point of discharge,

while ground water in local flow systems frequently discharges at or near mean

annual air temperature. Similarly, ground water in deep regional systems frequently is more saturated with sulfate than bicarbonate, while the reverse is

usually the case in local flow systems. Also, in permafrost regions, the dissolved-solids content of ground-water discharge in areas of aufeis accumulation

may be indicative of the source of the ground water, i.e., whether it comes from

aquifers below or above the permafrost layer.

For field parameters such as pH, alkalinity, specific conductance, and dissolved

oxygen, the investigator needs to become familiar with the manuals and operating instructions that accompany probes and instruments to be used. Also,

dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and pH meters should be calibrated against

known standard solutions daily or before each measurement, if there is significant travel between measurement sites. For parameters to be analyzed in the

laboratory, the sampling technique must ensure a representative sample and must

include procedures for sample preservation and transportation that will depend on

the chosen analytical procedure; these should be coordinated with the lab.

Results of laboratory analyses are usually presented in milligrams or micrograms

per liter. Interpretation of the data is facilitated by converting all values to

milliequivalents per liter, using conversion factors available in standard texts

(Hem, 1985), and presenting the results in any of a variety of graphical displays

(e.g., stiff diagrams, vector diagrams, histograms, or pie charts). Analysis of

specific ions and ion ratios may reveal much about the geology of the aquifer and

associated ground-water flow system. Similarly, analysis of certain isotopes may

provide useful information regarding location of possible recharge areas. Massbalance calculations for conservative elements may also quantify ground-water

contributions to streamflow. The additional information gained from such water

quality analyses will assist greatly in developing a complete understanding of the

ground-water system associated with a site.

Information requirements for water features associated with riparian-wetland

ecological sites are extensive, and much of the information ordinarily will not be

available. While it is not critical to obtain all information allowed by

SITEFORM for associated water features, it is extremely important to gain as

much understanding as possible of relationships between the vegetation community, site characteristics, and hydrologic conditions associated with a site. The

quality of the site description and management interpretations for any riparianwetland ecological site will be strongly dependent on the amount of information

provided on surface water, ground water, and water quality conditions associated

with the site.

d. Biology

The biologist function is to support other team members in data collection and

gather additional data about wildlife using ecological site components of a map

unit to complete all or part of their life cycle. Documentation will be collected
65

on vegetation structure and function of present and potential communities as they

apply to wildlife species using the site. Particular attention will be given to

wildlife occurrence relative to landscape, soil taxa, present vegetation communities, season of use, and proximity to water.

When species lists are not available for a particular ecosystems, they can be

generated in a variety of ways. For terrestrial species, an excellent source is

“Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat,” by Cooperrider, et al., 1986.

This book has a section, titled “species groups,” which contains 13 chapters that

range from songbirds to ungulates. Within each chapter, there is a subcategory,

titled “population measurement techniques,” which gives various methods to

determine species present for that wildlife group.

For example, in the songbird subcategory of “population measurements techniques,” the following techniques are listed to determine what species may be

present:

Winter Bird Counts

Spot-Mapping Census

Transect Methods

Breeding Bird Surveys

Point Count Method

Winter Transects

Variable-Circular Plots

Mark and Recapture Methods

Nest Monitoring

For ungulates, this subcategory contains the following:

Presence/Absence

Density/Abundance

Condition Indexes

Population Structure/Productivity

For each technique listed, the chapter usually provides a discussion of who

developed it, who is using it, and the benefits, values, and weaknesses of the

procedure. It also gives additional references for the various techniques.

For aquatic species “Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat” can be used,

as well as “Fishery Techniques” (Nielson & Johnson, 1983) and “Field Methods

and Statistical Analyses for Monitoring Small Salmonid Streams” (Armor et al.,

1983). The various techniques discussed include, but are not limited to, seining,

electrofishing, toxicants, and hook-and-line. Additional references for the

various techniques are also listed.

There are many other documents on terrestrial and aquatic species that provide

techniques to collect species information. Additional techniques may be acquired from state fish and game agencies, universities, and/or professional

society organizations. Any one of them may be used because how the information is collected is not that important (there is no one standard). Rather, the
66

important thing is to determine what species exist, have existed, or have potential

to exist, in the various ecosystems, and what the habitat requirements are for that

species. If that is done, it will ensure that the map unit design is appropriate to

guarantee that wildlife habitat vegetation components are recognized and wildlife

interpretation needs are met.

6. Provisional Map Units

Valid and viable map units are the results of testing and documentation. These

products are used to initiate the field mapping process.

At this stage, these products are now considered to be provisional in that the map

units meet the tests, are described, and form part of the first draft of the soil survey

area descriptive legend. This first draft is reviewed and approved by the state soil

scientist or appropriate supervisor of the lead agency during the initial review per

section 602.01-6(c), NSH. These map units are the core starting point, and any

additional provisional map units may be proposed at any time during the survey by

soil survey party members in cooperation with the team. The new map units are also

described and tested to determine if there is justification for adding the unit to the

legend. The map unit description and information to justify adding it to the legend

are sent to the appropriate supervisory soil scientist along with the request for approval. If the unit is valid, it is approved by the appropriate supervisor during the

course of the survey.

The soil survey project leader has the responsibility to develop and maintain certain

items as part of any ongoing soil survey. These include decisions and support

documentation that involve all or parts of map units. Complete records are kept on

the use of all provisional map units. Recorded information includes:

• Acres mapped

• Exact locations where mapped

• Results of field studies

• Results of testing

• Records of soil behavior

• Records of interpretative data

• Records of ecological site assignment

• Map symbols

• Map symbols correlation and/or adjustment

7. Descriptive Legend

A descriptive legend, unique to each soil survey area, is required for all soil surveys

per section 602.01-7, NSH. This legend contains information about each of the soils,

map units, and symbols used by the team during the survey process. The descriptive

legend is the basic document that governs how every soil survey is conducted. The

soil survey project leader is responsible for developing and updating this document.

Assistance in maintaining this document is provided by the soil survey party members and the team members. The descriptive legend is composed of the following

parts:
67

• Description and classification of the soils. This is required for all soil taxons

and map units in the soil survey area. These documents provide the detailed

technical information necessary to identify soils and map units as they occur in

the landscape. The table of soil classification is an alphabetical listing by soil

series or higher level and its soil taxonomic classification. Representative soil

profile descriptions and their range of soil characteristics are provided for each

soil taxon identified in the soil survey area. The map unit description will

provide additional information about the makeup of the map unit delineated,

setting, inclusions, soils properties, and relevant soil and vegetation interpretations involving use and management. The project leader is responsible for

preparation. For further details see section 602.01-7(a), NSH.

• Identification legend. This is required for all map units in which occurrence

and justification were established during test mapping and agreed to during the

review process. It is a tabular list of map unit symbols and associated map unit

names. Map units are listed in alphabetical order of the series name and

sequence based on soil taxon phases, complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. All map units must also have a narrative description before they

can be approved and included as part of the legend. A working legend for field

mapping, in addition to the above, may also contain a listing, by order of

occurrence, of the soil component name, phase, percent composition, associated ecological site, and inclusions for each map unit.

As each map unit is approved, the map unit symbol and map unit name are

entered on Form SCS-SOI-6 for ease of tracking map units and recording

changes. These forms can be used to obtain computer printouts of the ID

legend for the area and correlation documents. See section 602.01-7(b), NSH

for more detailed information concerning the identification legend.

• Conventional and special symbols legend. This legend is required for all

survey areas. It consists of a list of conventional symbols to identify manmade

works and structures, boundaries, and drainages. An additional part may

include special symbols to identify areas of soil and vegetation, special features, or kinds of miscellaneous areas that are too small to be delineated at the

scale of mapping.

The conventional and special symbols legend is prepared by the project leader

for inclusion in field review reports and use by the field party during the

mapping process. Allowable symbols are noted on Form SCS-SOI-37A.

Symbols being used by the field party are usually underlined. A more detailed

review of the symbols legend may be found per section 602.01-7(c), NSH.

8. Provisional General Soil and Vegetation Map

A provisional general soil map is prepared by the project leader and a vegetation map

is prepared by the vegetation specialist during preliminary field study. The two maps

should coincide using the same general delineation because the soil and vegetation

relationships used in detailed mapping also apply to a more general map base. These
68

maps serve as a guide to the team during the initial stages of the survey. Provisional

maps are refined as map unit and vegetation concepts are clarified and boundaries are

confirmed after each year’s field work. Precise soil and vegetation association

boundaries are located on the provisional maps in the area recently mapped. By the

end of the survey, the general soil and vegetation maps are complete and no longer

considered provisional.

9. Field Mapping Process and Application

The prior parts of this technical reference, when put into place, have prepared the

team for implementation of actual progressive field mapping. The team members

have developed consistency in concepts and a solid understanding of the other

disciplines’ responsibilities.

All parts applicable to field mapping procedures are covered earlier in this technical

reference. The process has been condensed into a basic step-by-step list for use by

the team as follows:

• Identify the area(s) to be mapped.

• Predelineate field sheets.

• Field check delineations.

• Design or identify a map unit, including:

- major landscapes and landscape components;

- soil components up to a maximum of three;

- associated ecological sites for each soil component;

- all soil and ecological site inclusions in the map unit up to a maximum total

of 15 percent; and

- percent composition of each major component soil and inclusion using

field checking methods.

• Identify and determine documentation needs.

• Select a site. Each site must:

- be typical for the soil-ecological site relationship

- be representative of the soil component, ecological site component, hydrology and biological factors

• Assign a map unit symbol.

• Follow proper procedures and guidelines. Standardization of procedures are

provided in:
69

- National Soil Handbook (NSH), which sets the standards for soil scientists.

- National Range Handbook (NRH) and BLM Supplements, which set the

standards for range conservationists and other vegetation specialists.

- Agency handbooks and procedures, which set the standards for hydrologists and biologists.

• Follow review and correlation procedures. As noted previously, these are

accepted standards and procedures that provide direction to the team for

application throughout the survey process. These processes and procedures are

necessary for quality control in that they provide assistance to the team by

recognizing and solving problems, recording progress, and identifying the

workload remaining and the agreed to items for accomplishment. Quality

control in any soil survey inventory is highly dependent on the map unit and

soil-ecological site components. It is initiated through a correlation process.

- Importance of the map unit. This is the basic unit where all evaluations

and determinations are made.

- The correlation process. This is a standardized ongoing process carried

out by the team throughout the survey and at various intervals by assigned representatives of the state soil scientist, state range conservationist and/or other lead agency representatives.

- Soil correlation. This process ensures the validity of soil phase separation, naming, documentation, and manuscript accuracy. It also ensures

the accuracy and completion of all supporting attribute data and formalizes the correlation process.

- Soil-site correlation. This is an ongoing process that is part of and is

carried out during all phases of the total soil survey. This is the process

that establishes the map unit soil taxa-ecological site relationships.

- Ecological site correlation. This process ensures the validity of soilecological site correlation and site assignment within the survey process.

It assures that the ecological sites are adequately documented and all

existing or new sites are updated, revised, or proposed based on the

information gathered.
70
71

IV. Relationships and Use of ESI with BLM Planning and

Implementation Processes.

This section discusses sources of soil and vegetation information and general applications

relative to Prescribed Resource Management Plan actions (BLM Manual 1616), Supplemental Program Guidance (BLM Manual series 1620), subsequent activity plans or management

actions, and associated monitoring. Discussion is necessarily general since the number of

possibilities through data base manipulation for specific needs is nearly endless.

A. Data Analysis for Planning and Management Applications (from draft Vegetation

Management Handbook H-1621-1).

1. Basic Analysis - Analysis is required for the following:

a. Calculating ecological status to fulfill reporting requirements. The calculation is

based on a coefficient of community similarity (SRM, 1983) between the present

plant community and the PNC documented in the ecological site description.

b. Developing or updating known seral community type descriptions by aggregating

all present vegetation communities, documented in IDS, into groupings of similar

vegetation associations for interpretations. Seral community types are documented by ecological site and are stored in the interpretation section of site

descriptions. Seral community type descriptions can be developed by hand, but

are best developed through data base analysis using:

• PC based software (Bureau approved) ASPEN/2 or dBASE III+ for ad hoc

queries, sort routines, and screen entry/edit of data.

• PC based Inventory Data System Utility (IDSU) for standard sort routines

and screen entry/edit of data (available from BLM Service Center).

• Mainframe based ASPEN/2 for ad hoc queries and sort routines.

• Cluster analysis techniques available on commercial software.

Sorting of data in the IDSU program is based on ecological site, seral state, and

dominant species listed by highest producer.

2. Planning and Management Analyses - Components of the planning and management

analyses are as follows:

a. Resource value ratings can be developed for individual uses (specific wildlife

habitat elements, initial stocking rates for livestock, forage values, wood products, recreation, etc.). Resource values can be quantitative or qualitative and are

tied to specific community types and ecological sites.

b. Site conservation thresholds can be predicted by evaluating present plant community characteristics with areas of known accelerated soil erosion or by using

predictive models such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE),
72

Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model, and others. Other site limitations, such as vulnerability to weedy species, etc., can also be identified.

c. Vegetation requirements for multiple use alternatives can be evaluated by

relating possible/known seral community types to known or predicted areas of

use. Due to the utility of the vegetation cover attribute of a site to numerous

multiple uses, cover can normally be acquired during the inventory process.

Since cover can contribute significantly to the community and site, the cover can

be collected by species and/or by three structural layers (basal, less than 3 feet,

and above 3 feet). If cover is routinely acquired during the inventory/monitoring

process, important understandings can be formulated on watershed/site health.

d. ESI data are the basis and documentation needed to establish and clarify realistic,

achievable, and measurable vegetation management objectives.

• Resource condition objectives are usually based on more generalized

attributes of sites with similar vegetation attributes, response attributes,

and/or similar uses.

• Specific objectives for monitoring, activity plans, sensitive areas, etc., are

usually based on specific site capabilities.

e. Ecological site data analysis is the basis of benchmark site selection for monitoring. Benchmark sites are the most important sites because they represent:

• Large geographic extent.

• High resource values (forage production, water production, wood products,

wildlife habitat, etc.)

• Unique characteristics (threatened & endangered species, Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern, etc.).

f. ESI provides the basis for extrapolation of management successes (or failures) to

achieve Desired Plant Community (DPC) characteristics, and for the technical

transfer of that information.

g. ESI provides documentation for determining and reporting of vegetation management status.

B. Resource Management Plan (RMP)

The RMP provides a set of comprehensive, long-range objectives an decisions concerning the use and management of public resources in a planning area. Site specific information to resolve or address issues in the resource area is identified during development

of planning criteria. With the exception of ACECs, and other sensitive areas, most

analyses at the RMP level are more general, addressing broad geographic reference areas

within a planning area. Nevertheless, RMP objectives need to be clear enough to identify

the desired outcome of resources through management. If the RMP is not clear in this

regard, a planned amendment is needed. Site specific information is used to refine
73

resource management objectives associated with implementing actions such as activity

plans and management actions resulting from the RMP.

1. Identification of Issues and Development of Planning Criteria

When the RMP process is initiated prior to inventory, the identification of issues

related to vegetation and soils becomes the basis for the Purpose and Objectives

stated in the Inventory Plan. Likewise, the development of planning criteria for the

RMP becomes the basis for Information Required to Resolve Identified Issues in the

Inventory Plan.

Many inventories have preceded the RMP. If an inventory plan was prepared, the

Purpose, Objectives, and Information Required to Resolve Identified Issues sections

of the plan become an excellent start for identification of issues and development of

planning criteria for the RMP. However, some issues may have changed or were

overlooked in the original inventory plan. The interdisciplinary RMP team will need

to identify and document shortfalls in the present inventory and decide on a course of

action to update the inventory. Inventory updates to include riparian-wetland documentation and values is a typical example.

Data from the inventory process are often a source of new issue identification

whether the inventory was conducted in conjunction with an RMP or preceded it.

Typical examples are the SWA documentation of weed species or special status

species (threatened, endangered, endemic, etc.). Update of ecological site descriptions completed during inventory may also indicate previous overestimation or

underestimation of resource capabilities within an area.

2. Management Situation Analysis

The management situation analysis provides 1) an overview of resources in the

Resource Area Profile, 2) the Current Management Situation and Effects, and 3)

Resource Capability Level. Analysis at this level requires aggregation of soil and

vegetation data by resource area or geographic reference areas of interest.

a. Resource Area Profile (RAP)

General vegetation and soil maps produced during inventory provide an excellent

reference for describing the area in broad terms.

Approximate acreage or composition of major ecological sites and/or soils in the

Resource Area or specific Geographic Reference Areas (GRAs) can be determined from the Map Unit File (MUF) in the State Soil Survey Area Database

(SCS). An acreage summary of ecological sites and ecological status by allotment is also available as a standard report from IDS. Major ecological sites or

soils are usually those of importance because of large geographic extent, high

productivity, or high value (i.e., riparian-wetland sites). These sites are also the

ones most appropriately designated as benchmarks for management and monitoring.
74

Natural processes of management importance, such as fire frequency, flooding,

drought, etc., are determined from ecological site descriptions, either on the

SITEFORM program or hard copies.

Specific parts of some ecological site descriptions, such as climate factors and

community dynamics, will be applicable to more general statements within the

RAP. Partial outputs from SITEFORM can be saved to a file and accessed later

by WordPerfect or other word processing software for edit and direct inclusion

into the RAP, if desired.

b. Current Management Situation

Response of ecological sites to specific practices, such as prescribed burns,

seedings, timber harvest, etc., can be predicted by overlaying project locations

over the SWA map. Ecological site, vegetation species, percent composition,

production, etc., can be queries from IDS or IDSU by SWA(s) affected.

Response of ecological sites to broader practices such as grazing prescriptions is

best accomplished by reviewing allotment community types within IDSU or

developing a similar ad hoc query in IDS. This data can be compared with

information within allotment files on type of prescription, time practiced, monitoring data, etc., if desired.

3. Resource Capability Level

Standard IDS output report on Dominant Plant Species by SWA or the Community

Type report from IDSU provides basic information on resource capability levels.

However, ad hoc queries reordering information (i.e., listing in order of site name

instead of SWA# in IDS) or limiting species lists by minimum percent composition

(i.e., only those species ≥10 percent composition ADW) may help organize information and reduce volume.

SITEFORM is also useful in aggregating ecological sites into broader groups for

analysis and discussion at this level of planning. Ecological sites and community

type characteristics (part B.1.a. of the Standard Site Description) can be easily listed

by production breaks (i.e., ≤500 lbs. ave.; >500 and ≤1000 lbs. ave., etc.), elevation

breaks, presence of associated water features (riparian-wetland sites), or other criteria

as appropriate.

Note: Resource capability levels for riparian-wetland areas involve changes in the

extent of certain ecological sites as well as the vegetation resource capabilities.

Possible reductions in the extent of riparian-wetland areas from past impacts and

future capabilities are best identified from soil map unit descriptions and the State

Soil Survey Area Database (providing this information was identified as a survey

requirement). Drained phases of aquic subgroups or other wet soils presently correlated to drier ecological sites may indicate a possibility of reversal or at least partial

reversal depending upon other management considerations (i.e., impoundments, etc.).
75

4. Alternatives and Estimated Effects

The RMP must consider a range of management alternatives based on goods, values,

and services expected from the area. Estimated effects of changes associated with

each alternative must be summarized relative to resource conditions as well as uses

and value. Changes in soil, hydrologic, and vegetation conditions are most often

interdependent, but not always to the same degree between ecological sites.

Ecological site interpretations provide an opportunity to relate changes in vegetation

to resource values such as grazing, wildlife habitat, values, forestry, or other uses.

Limitations associated with soil erosion, streambank stability, stream type, or other

factors are often described. Ecological sites can be grouped by response similarity

for alternative analysis.

Unfortunately, ecological site interpretations in many areas are insufficient to use as

the primary information source for analysis. The interdisciplinary team needs to rely

on individual data bases to summarize information as it relates to each alternative,

then collectively analyze opportunities and risks as they relate to expected changes.

Collective analysis for planning purposes can provide the basis for updating ecological site interpretations. The interpretations developed can be further verified or

refined based on subsequent inventory or monitoring activities.

5. Preferred Alternative and Selected Plan

The preferred alternative and selected plan are developed from information previously described. Resource descriptions for various geographic reference areas are

translated into Resource Condition Objective decisions, Land Use Allocation decisions, and Management Action decisions for the selected plan.

C. Implementing Actions

Implementing actions begin with the RMP Implementation Schedule. This schedule

needs to include timeframes and guidance for 1) the development of the Monitoring

Evaluation Schedule, 2) development of specific activity plans, and/or 3) resource

conservation and improvements to meet land use goals.

The Monitoring Evaluation Schedule is prepared to 1) clarify and refine RMP objectives

for various geographic reference areas, 2) identify treatments needed to meet these

objectives, and 3) identify means to monitor success. This schedule is prepared by an

interdisciplinary team that uses the following process for evaluation:

• Describe the PRESENT SITUATION.

• Compare RMP “Objectives” within geographic reference areas to make sure they

are in COMPLIANCE and not in conflict. If conflicts exist, a plan amendment is

needed.

• Determine the DESIRED SITUATION to meet Land Use Plan objectives (i.e., for

vegetation, the desired plant community).
76

• Determine the TIME that is required/allowed to go from the “present” to the

“desired.” If the time period exceeds 20 years, it may be appropriate to reassess

what is “desired.”

• State the RATIONALE for the “Desired Situation.”

• Determine the ACTION(S) required to achieve the “Desired Situation.” The

actions will provide a reasonable chance for success.

• Identify how to MONITOR success. Determine how success will be measured, and

what determines success.

Present plant community characteristics are determined directly from the IDS. IDS

information can be queried by allotment or by groups of SWAs for a particular geographic reference area. Consult the IDS user guide for guidelines on outputs.

DPC characteristics can be developed from IDS by reviewing actual transect data for

individual sites or from community type summaries in the ecological site interpretations. If developed directly from IDS, several inventory areas may have to be queried to

provide the full range of communities documented for a particular site; specific examples of desired plant community development are provided in TR-1621-1 (draft

1991).

The present situation for many riparian-wetland attributes can be determined from the

RAIDS data base. Newer riparian-wetland inventories include ecological sites in the

RAIDS data base so that the desired situation can be determined based on the known

capability of a site or complex of sites. Older RAIDS data do not include ecological site

identification, so care must be taken that like situations are being compared when

assessing opportunities for change.

Present and desired situations for soils are dependent on interrelationships between soil

factors such as erodibility (K factor), soil loss tolerance (T factor), and Wind Erodibility

Group (WEG) with vegetation cover and degree of surface disturbance. Models such as

the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), Water Erosion Prediction Project

(WEPP), and Wind Erosion Prediction (WEP) model are helpful in establishing relationships between present and desired conditions. Hydrologic relationships between

water table characteristics and annual pattern of soil water states must also be considered relative to frequency, extent, and duration of flooding, channel characteristics, and

vegetation in riparian-wetland areas.

Actions to achieve or maintain desired situations nearly always include vegetation

management practices such as grazing prescriptions and/or silvicultural practices.

Spatial distribution of ecological sites and present vegetation within a particular management area will help determine the suitability of different management practices. The

ecological site map (based on soil map units) and SWA map provide the spatial relationships. Ecological site interpretations often provide additional information on suitability

for certain practices. However, additional information sources such as TR-1737-4,

Grazing Management in Riparian Areas (USDI, 1989) and others can be consulted as

well.
77

Additional actions such as mechanical, chemical, or fire manipulation may also be

required to achieve DPC characteristics. Support facilities such as fences, cattleguards,

roads, water developments, and others may be required to implement management

practices. The Soil Interpretations Record (SCS-SOI-5) in the State Soil Survey Area

Database provides considerable information regarding soil suitability and limitations

associated with these practices and facilities. Some interpretations apply directly, some

can be interpolated from other interpretations, and some must be developed from soil

property information.

Suitability and limitations for local roads (and streets), pond reservoir areas, and equipment limitations are directly applicable interpretations in many cases. Suitability for,

cattleguards, and certain other kinds of facilities can be readily interpolated from

building site interpretations such as shallow excavations, dwellings with or without

basements, etc.

Many other interpretations can be generated from the soil data base using local or

regional criteria like fencing and seeding. The Nevada Range Seeding Suitability Guide

provides an example of state criteria. Soil map units contained in the Bedell Flat Fire

were queried using criteria in the suitability guide to obtain a suitability rating. The

ratings apply equally well to any range improvement or reclamation project. All map

units within a survey area can be rated just as easily with one query routine and stored

in a computer file or hard copy for future evaluations.

Rosgen stream classification associated with ESI mapping procedures provides an

additional opportunity to determine suitable instream fish habitat structures. Additional

references are also listed in Appendix VII.

D. Monitoring

ESI provides the basis for extrapolation of monitoring information and analyses from a

key area or specific location to a broader geographic area. Similar vegetation community

types for an ecological site can be expected to respond the same way to various management practices over the extent of its distribution. Groups of similar ecological sites can

also be interpreted to respond similarly under certain situations. For instance, Wyoming

sagebrush/Thurber needlegrass, Wyoming sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass, and mountain big sagebrush/Idaho fescue sites can all be expected to respond similarly to prescribed fire under present conditions of similar brush canopy.

ESI also provides the basis for monitoring and extrapolation of information in riparianwetland areas. However, there are some special considerations that need to be accounted

for, especially in stream systems where aggradation and degradation processes lead to

changes in ecological site position over time or where site progression leads to a new

(different) ecological site. Monitoring studies must account for these changes as well as

changes in vegetation or other resource conditions within an individual site.

One method to account for these changes is to establish a minimum of three valley

bottom cross sections within a monitored stream segment. Each time the study is completed, the cross section must be replotted and site boundaries determined. Extent of site

change over time can be determined from mean cross-sectional change. Vegetation
78

transects (i.e., frequency, cover, etc.) or other studies such as soil moisture, water table,

etc., also need to be designed so that data apply to the appropriate site. Permanent, fixed

point plots or transects are, therefore, not recommended except for photo point stations.

E. Interpreting ESI Information for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional

Wetlands

The Corps of Engineers (COE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are responsible for making jurisdictional delineations of wetlands regulated under Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act (formerly known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 22

U.S.C. 1344). The COE also makes jurisdictional determinations under Section 10 of the

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). Under Section 404, the Secretary of the

Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to issue permits for the

discharge of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States, including

wetlands, with program oversight by EPA.

The following definition of wetlands is the regulatory definition used by COE and EPA

for administering the Section 404 permit program:

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency

and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

The COE and EPA have developed technical manuals for identifying and delineating

wetlands subject to Section 404 (Environmental Laboratory, 1987 and Sipple, 1988,

respectively). The SCS has developed procedures for identifying wetlands for compliance with the Food Security Act. While it has no formal method for delineating wetland

boundaries, the USFWS has established guidelines for identifying wetlands in the form of

its official wetland classification system report (Cowarden, et al., 1979).

In 1989, COE, EPA, SCS, and USFWS worked together to produce a manual describing

the technical criteria for identifying and delineating wetlands. The criteria presented in

that manual are under review. However, all wetlands possess three essential characteristics as follows:

1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion

An area has hydrophytic vegetation when, under normal circumstances: (1) more

than 50 percent of the composition of the dominant species from all strata are obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC) species,

or (2) a frequency analysis of all species within the community yields a prevalence

index value of less than 3.0 (where OBL = 1.0, FACW = 2.0, FAC = 3.0, FACU =

4.0, and UPL = 5.0). CAUTION: When a plant community has less than or equal to

50 percent of the dominant species from all strata represented by OBL, FACW, and/

or FAC species, or a frequency analysis of all species within the community yields a

prevalence index value of greater than or equal to 3.0, and hydric soils and wetland

hydrology are present, the area also has hydrophytic vegetation. (Note: These areas

are considered problem area wetlands.)
79

For each stratum (e.g., tree, shrub, and herb) in the plant community, dominant species

are the most abundant plant species (when ranked in descending order of abundance

and cumulatively totaled) that immediately exceed 50 percent of the total dominance

measure (e.g., basal area or areal coverage) for the stratum, plus any additional species

comprising 20 percent or more of the total dominance measure for the stratum. All

dominants are treated equally in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation.

2. Hydric Soils Criterion

Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough

during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA

SCS, 1987). In general, hydric soils are flooded, ponded, or saturated for usually 1

week or more during the period when soil temperatures are above biologic zero 41 °F

as defined by “Soil Taxonomy” (USDA Soil Survey Staff, 1975). These soils usually

support hydrophytic vegetation. The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils

(NTCHS) has developed criteria for hydric soils and a list of the Nation’s hydric soils

(USDA SCS, 1987). (Note: Caution needs to be exercised in using the hydric soils list

for determining the presence of hydric soil at specific sites.)

An area has hydric soils when the NTCHS criteria for hydric soils (USDA SCS, 1991)

are met:

“Unless drained or protected from inundation:

1) All Histosols except Folists, or

2) Soils in Aquic suborder, Aquic subgroups, Albolls suborder, Salorthids great

group, or Pell great groups of Vertisols, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are:

a) somewhat poorly drained and have a frequently occurring water table less

at the surface for a significant period (usually more than 2 weeks) during

the growing season, or

b) poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either:

(1) a frequently occurring water table at the surface for a significant period

(usually more than 2 weeks) during the growing season if textures are

coarse sand, sand, or fine sand in all layers within 20 in, or for other

soils

(2) a frequently occurring water table within 0.5 ft of the surface for a

significant period (usually more than 2 weeks) during the growing

season if permeability is equal to or greater than 6.0 in/h in all layers

within 20 in, or

(3) a frequently occurring water table within 1.0 ft of the surface for a

significant period (usually more than 2 weeks) during the growing

season if permeability is less than 6.0 in/h in any layer within 20 in, or
80

3) Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration

during the growing season, or

4) Soils that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration

during the growing season.”

(Note: Long duration is defined as inundation for a single event that ranges from 7

days to 1 month; very long duration is defined as inundation for a single event that is

greater than 1 month; frequently flooded is defined as flooding likely to occur often

under usual weather conditions — more than 50 percent chance of flooding in any

year or more than 50 times in 100 years. Other technical terms in the NTCHS criteria

for hydric soils are generally defined in the glossary.)

3. Wetland Hydrology Criterion

Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally,

are the driving forces behind wetland formation. The presence of water for a week or

more during the growing season typically creates anaerobic conditions in the soil,

which affect the types of plants that can grow and the types of soils that develop.

Numerous factors influence the wetness of an area, including precipitation, stratigraphy, topography, soil permeability, and plant cover. All wetlands usually have at

least a seasonal abundance of water. This water may come from direct precipitation,

overbank flooding, surface water runoff due to precipitation or snow melt, groundwater discharge, or tidal flooding. The frequency and duration of inundation and soil

saturation vary widely from permanent flooding or saturation to irregular flooding or

saturation. Of the three technical criteria for wetland identification, wetland hydrology is often the least exact and most difficult to establish in the field, due largely to

annual, seasonal, and daily fluctuations.

An area has wetland hydrology when saturated to the surface or inundated at some

point in time during an average rainfall year, as defined below:

• Saturation to the surface normally occurs when soils in the following natural

drainage classes meet the following conditions:

- In somewhat poorly drained mineral soils, the water table is less than 0.5

feet from the surface for usually 1 week or more during the growing

season; or

- In low permeability (<6.0 inches/hour), poorly drained, or very poorly

drained mineral soils, the water table is less than 1.5 feet from the

surface for usually 1 week or more during the growing season; or

- In more permeable (> 6.0 inches/hour), poorly drained, or very poorly

drained mineral soils, the water table is less than 1.0 feet from the

surface for usually 1 week or more during the growing season; or

- In poorly drained or very poorly drained organic soils, the water table is

usually at a depth where saturation to the surface occurs more than
81

rarely. (Note: Organic soils that are cropped are often drained, yet the

water table is closely managed to minimize oxidation of organic matter;

these soils often retain their hydric characteristics, and if so, meet the

wetland hydrology criterion.)

• An area is inundated at some time if ponded or frequently flooded with surface

water for 1 week or more during the growing season.

(Note: An area saturated for a week during the growing season, especially early

in the growing season, is not necessarily a wetland. However, in the vast majority of cases, an area that meets the NTCHS criteria for hydric soils is a wetland.)

The above criteria will be changed as new information and research are obtained

and conducted. These criteria serve only as technical guidance to identify and

delineate boundaries of areas that meet wetland definitions provided by statute or

regulation.

The field information collected on vegetation, soils, and hydrology are recorded

during ESI and on SITEFORM and can be used to make an initial jurisdiction

wetland determination so that managers will be aware of regulatory requirements.
82
83

V. Conclusion

BLM has the responsibility to inventory, document, and describe resources on public lands.

The procedure presented will provide the framework on how to collect, compile, store, and

evaluate this information to determine current ecological status and potential for all riparianwetland and upland sites. The interdisciplinary approach to ecological site inventory is

designed from the beginning to provide a coordinated approach in obtaining soil, vegetation,

hydrology, and biological information for management to use on public lands.

Maintaining the ecological site information as a permanent record will provide baseline

information and will allow the use of this information to determine how various management

practices are performing in maintaining, enhancing, or restoring the proper functioning

condition of these areas. The permanent record will also be instrumental in periodically

evaluating if RMP objectives are being met.
84
85

Literature Cited

Armor, C.L., K.P. Burham, and W.S. Platts. 1983. Field methods and statistical analyses for

monitoring small salmonid streams. FWS/OBS-83/33, December 1983, Ft Collins, CO.

200 pp.

Batson, F.T., P.E. Cuplin, and W.A. Crisco. 1987. Riparian area management: The use of

aerial photography to inventory and monitor riparian areas. USDI, BLM/YA/PT-87/

021+1737, Denver, CO. 16 pp.

Benson, M.A. and T. Dalrymple. 1967. General field and office procedures for indirect

discharge measurements. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigation of the United

States Geological Survey, Book 3, Chapter A1, Washington, DC. 30 pp.

Buchanan, T.J. and W.P. Somers. 1969. Discharge measurements at gaging stations. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigation of the United States Geological Survey, Book 3,

Chapter A8, Washington, DC. 65 pp.

Cooperrider, A.Y., R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart. 1986. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife

habitat. USDI, BLM/YA/PT-87/001, Denver, CO. 858 pp.

Cowarden, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and

deepwater habitats of the United States. USDI, FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, DC. 103

pp.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual, U.S. Army

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Rpt. Y-87-1. 100+ pp.

Hansen, P., S.W. Chadde, and R. Pfister. 1989. Riparian dominance types of Montana.

Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of

Montana, Missoula, MT. 411 pp.

Hem, J.D. 1985. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water.

USGS Water-Supply Paper 2254, Washington, DC. 263 pp.

Kinch, G. 1989. Riparian area management: Grazing management in riparian areas. USDI,

BLM/YA/PT-89/021+1737, Denver, CO. 48 pp.

Kovalchik, B.L. 1987. Riparian some associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and

Winema National Forests. USDA, FS/TP/279-87, Portland OR. 171 pp.

Meyers, L.H. 1989. Riparian area management: Inventory and monitoring riparian areas.

USDI, BLM/YA/PT-87/022+1737, Denver, CO. 89 pp.

Nielson, L.A. and D.L. Johnson. 1983. Fishery techniques. American Fishery Society,

Bethesda, Maryland. 468 pp.

Neiman, K.F., Jr. and M. Hironaka. 1989. Soil-habitat type relationships: A theoretical

model. Proceedings - Land Classifications Based on Vegetation: Applications for

Resource Management. USDA, FS/GT/RPT/INT-257, Moscow, ID. pp. 193-196.
86

Peterson, F.F. 1981. Landforms of the Basin and Range Province defined for soil survey.

Technical Bulletin 28. Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nevada,

Reno, NV. 52 pp.

Rantz, S.E. and others. 1982. Measurements and computation of streamflow: Volume 1.

Measurement of stage and discharge, USGS Water-Supply P-2175, Washington, DC. 284

pp.

Ray, G.A. and W.F. Megahan. 1979. Measuring cross sections using a sag tape: a generalized procedure. USDA, FS/TP/INT-47, Ogden, UT. 12 pp.

Rosgen, D.L. 1985. Stream classification system. in: Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management—An Interagency North American Riparian Conference. USDA/FS/GT/Rpt/ROM120, Ft. Collins, CO. pp. 91-95.

Sipple, W.S. 1988. Wetland identification and delineation manual. Volume I. Rationale,

Wetland Parameters, and Overview of Jurisdictional Approach. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC. 30 pp.

Sipple, W.S. 1988. Wetland identification and delineation manual. Volume II. Field Methodology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC. 40 pp.

Smoot, G. F. and C.E. Novak. 1968. Calibration and maintenance of vertical-axis type current

meters. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the USGS, Book 8, Chapter B2,

Washington, DC. 15 pp.

Society for Range Management. 1983. Guidelines and terminology for range inventories and

monitoring. Report of the Range Inventory Standardization Committee. Denver, CO. 13

pp.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1975. Soil taxonomy. A basic system of soil

classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. U.S. GPO, Washington, DC.

Agriculture Handbook No. 436. 754 pp.

_________. 1976. National range handbook, as amended. SCS, Washington, DC. 143 pp.

_________. 1983. National soils handbook, as amended. SCS, Washington, DC. 619 pp.

_________. 1985. National range handbook, Sec. 302.10 as amended. SCS, Washington,

DC. 2 pp.

_________. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States. SCS, Washington, DC.

_________. Soil survey manual, in press. SCS, Washington, DC. 379 pp.

_________, and United States Department of Interior. 1991. SITEFORM: A user’s guide for

computer entry and retrieval of standard site descriptions (draft). NSRT, SCS-BLM,

Reno, NV. 56 pp.
87

United States Department of Interior. 1986. Supplemental program guidance. BLM Manual

series 1620, Washington, DC. 15 pp.

_________. 1984. Prescribed resource management planning actions. BLM Manual 1616,

Washington, DC. 30 pp.

_________. 1990. National range handbook. BLM Manual Handbook H-4410-1, Washington, DC. 37 pp.

_________. 1991. Vegetation management. BLM, Draft Handbook H-1621-1, Washington,

DC. 38 pp.

Youngblood, A.P., W.G. Padgett, and A.H. Winward. 1985. Riparian community type

classification of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. USDA, FS/R4-ECO-85-01, Salt Lake

City, UT. 78 pp.
88
89

List of Acronyms

Agencies:

BLM Bureau of Land Management

COE Corps of Engineers

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

SCS Soil Conservation Service

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

Others:

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ADW Air-Dry Weight

ESI Ecological Site Inventory

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

FSSD Federal Soil Survey Database

GIS Geographic Information System

GRA Geographic Reference Area

IDS Inventory Data System

IDSU Inventory Data System Utility

MLRA Major Land Resource Area

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MUUF Map Unit Use File

NBM National Biology Manual

NCM National Cartographic Manual

NCSS National Cooperative Soil Survey

NFM National Forestry Manual

NRH National Range Handbook

NSH National Soil Handbook

PNC Potential Natural Community

PRIA Public Rangeland Improvement Act

RAIDS Riparian Aquatic Information Data Summary

RAWS Remote Automatic Weather Station

RMP Resource Management Plan

RUSLE Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

SNTC South National Technical Center

SMSS Soil Management Support Services

SRM Society of Range Management

SSM Soil Survey Manual

SSQA Soil Survey Quality Assurance

SWA Site Writeup Area

WEG Wind Erodibility Group

WEP Wind Erosion Prediction

WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project
90
91

Appendix I

Taxonomic Class Phases

Common kinds of phases for components of map units. Additional information in Part. 602

of the National Soils Handbook.

1. Surface texture phases, e.g., Alpha silt loam.

2. Organic surface layers, e.g., Alpha peat.

3. Texture phases of soils with rock fragments, e.g., Alpha gravelly loam.

4. Surface phases of soils having stones and boulders, e.g., Alpha stony loam.

5. Surface phases of soils having stones or boulders on the soil surface, e.g., Alpha

silt loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes, bouldery.

6. Slope phases, e.g., Alpha silt loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes.

7. Eroded soils, e.g., Alpha loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded.

8. Depositional phases, e.g., Alpha sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, overwashed.

9. Depth phases, e.g., Alpha silt loam, shallow, 4 to 8 percent slopes.

10. Substratum phases, e.g., Alpha silt loam, gravelly substratum.

11. Phases related to soil water, e.g., Alpha silt loam, drained.

12. Saline phases, e.g., Alpha loam, slightly saline.

13. Sodic phases, e.g., Alpha loam, slightly saline-alkali.

14. Physiographic phases, e.g., Alpha gravelly loam, fan, 0 to 8 percent slopes.

15. Climatic phases, e.g., Alpha sandy loam, cool.

16. Other phases, e.g., frequently flooded, occasionally flooded, rarely flooded, burned,

calcareous, or leached surface.
92
93

Appendix II

Draft

Technical Note

Riparian-Wetland

Soil Map Unit Delineations

04/21/92

Prepared by George J. Staidl, NSRT

Background

Soil survey techniques and procedures guiding soil surveys, soil scientists, and SCS SSQA

staff, have generally concentrated on the major soil components and map unit delineations

with substantial acreage. These procedures, in conjunction with cartographic policy, only

allow for a closed line delineation or general spot symbols to identify unique areas. Use of

delineations or spot symbols is highly dependent upon the scale of the photobase maps.

Many unique areas are comprised of riparian zones and wetlands of minor acreage. These

unique areas contain contrasting soils and are usually the most vegetatively productive soils

within any survey area. The typical field mapping process identifies these areas with a

broadly defined spot symbol or as contrasting soil inclusions within map units. This is a

result of not identifying the riparian-wetland mapping objectives in the soil survey area MOU

and the emphasis put upon the soil scientist to increase their production of acres mapped.

The result is a tradeoff in detail of mapping and reduced ability to provide soil information

concerning riparian and wetland areas.

The present farm bill and other congressional legislation have emphasized preservation and

management of these unique riparian-wetland areas. They are, for the most part, the more

productive and fragile parts of the ecosystem. The soil survey and cartographic procedures

presently in use are not conducive to identifying and delineating many of these smaller areas

as soil map units. These areas need to be part of a permanent soil database. Without this

data, quality information cannot be disseminated to the user to meet the legislative needs.

New techniques need to be explored, tested, and implemented within the soil survey process

to give the soil scientist the tools to incorporate past, present, and future data into soil survey

activities.

Statement of Needs

As noted previously, congressional legislation has pointed out a need for additional soil

survey information applicable to riparian and wetland areas. Availability of this information

for total resource planning and conservation practice application is also vitally important in

the decision making process. It is recognized that data collection should be initiated in many

areas thought to be of less importance, or at least unmappable, using the policy and techniques available to the soil scientist at the time. Implementation would require that the

resulting soil and plant data obtained be incorporated into a permanent database. This would

maximize its utility for present and future data dissemination. This can be accomplished by

developing a mechanism to identify these unique areas on field sheets, orthophoto quads, and

in a GIS database where available. To maintain a permanent database, some modification of

procedures will be needed. This should include modification of requirements using innovative cartographic techniques, map unit design, map unit descriptions, correlation to the series
94

and phase level, and data entry to the soil survey database. Field applications would take into

account only that which is normally expected for delineation and documentation common to

other map units. Addressing the inequities of the present procedures will minimize the need

for continued onsite investigation where soil and vegetation data is presently maintained in a

nonpermanent form. Positive changes to the present system will maximize soil data availability for use by managers and others.

Requirements

A. Any modifications to the existing soil survey procedures will be applicable to a soil

survey where:

1. GIS capability may or may not be available.

2. Targeted areas will include:

a. New SSA(s) c. Newly completed SSA(s)

b. Ongoing SSA(s) d. SSA(s) undergoing update

3. The need exists for information on unique lands (riparian-wetland areas and others)

and is presently unavailable.

B. Development and expansion of procedures for implementation will:

1. Be incorporated into any existing GIS database where the potential exists.

2. Allow for the correlation of minimal acreage unique soils to the series level. This

will initiate data entry into the soil survey database.

3. Allow for the correlation of minimal acreage unique soil mapping units. This will

initiate data entry into the soil survey database.

4. Provide techniques for unique delineations and spot symbols that will represent map

units, but do not meet the present cartographic requirements.

5. Provide procedures to use the unique delineations and spot symbol map units to

represent spatial area and allow for acreage determination.

6. Allow for the description of spatial area concepts for the unique delineation and spot

symbol map units as a component in map unit descriptions.

C. Proposed methods for use in soil survey areas:

1. Line segment (e.g., dot to dot or line break to line break) vector format.

a. Determine and designate the representative delineations line segment width for

each map unit (e.g., the map unit line segment represents an average width of 120

feet). This information, along with the line length and scale of map, will determine map unit acreage.
95

b. Suggested line width groupings are 1-50, 50-100, 100-150, and 150-200 feet.

Areas that are greater than 200 feet wide will typically be located by an enclosed

line polygon.

c. Assign a map unit symbol to each line segment using a leader technique. A

unique Alpha or Numeric code, representing an average width within a line

segment group, will be assigned as the last character in the map unit symbol. An

example of a symbol is 103X, where “103” is the map unit name and “X”

indicates an average width of 75 feet in the 50-100 feet group.

d. Utilize the existing drainage spot symbols as line segment breaks to minimize

map clutter.

2. Spot symbols.

a. Use ad hoc symbols or a dot to represent a map unit.

b. Determine the acreage that each spot symbol or dot represents for the map unit

(e.g., averages 2.5 acres). Suggested spot symbol grouping are <1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4,

and 4-5 acres. Those areas that are greater than 5 acres will typically be located

by an enclosed line polygon.

c. Assign a map unit symbol to each spot symbol or dot using the leader technique.

A unique Alpha or Numeric code representing an average acreage for the spot

symbol group will be assigned as the last character in the map unit symbol. An

example of a symbol is 103P, where “103” is the map unit name and “P” indicates an average acreage of .5 acres for the <1 acre group.

D. Field procedures for soil survey areas:

1. Field check the area to be mapped in terms of the normal map unit concept.

2. Design a map unit using accepted soil survey procedures.

3. Determine if the map unit is a consociation, association, complex, or undifferentiated

group.

4. Identify each major and minor component soil within the proposed map unit, preferably at the soil series level, and assign phases as needed.

5. Obtain all necessary documentation for soils, vegetation, hydrology, etc.

6. Using the documentation collected, correlate each major soil component of the map

unit to the series level.

7. Assign each new map unit its own unique map unit symbol and display with representative line segments or spot symbols on the soil map.

8. Designate the representative line segment width and spot symbol acreage in each

applicable map unit description.
96

9. Determine acreage for each line segment or spot symbol on each completed soil map.

10. Continue using accepted National Cooperative Soil Survey procedures throughout the

survey.

E. Delineation and map symbol application will be as follows:

1. Line segments or spot symbols will be on original field sheets and orthophotoquad

soil maps.

2. Line segments or spot symbols will be on registered mylar overlays with a stable

base map.

3. Line segments or spot symbols will be transferred to scribe coat of orthophotoquad

for publication processes.

4. Line segments and spot symbols will be digitized as part of the GIS database.

F. Data permanence procedure within the soil survey area:

1. Identify and implement the soil mapping options noted in (E) above that are applicable to the soil survey area status.

2. Undergo the review and final correlation process common in any soil survey as

outlined in the National Soils Handbook.

3. Prepare and process all necessary soil series and map unit information into the

National Soil Survey Database for future access of output data.
97

Appendix III

Exhibit 302.7A

Plant Association Tables

Plant Association Table (First Assemblage)

/T means trace; blanks mean did not occur/

Species Production at Location No.

1234567

Pounds per acre (air-dry)

bluebunch wheatgrass 910 1,190 1,690 960 1,380 1,260 1,620

Sanberg bluegrass 110 120 260 95 185 70 375

Thurber needlegrass 15 T 15 10

needle-and-thread 10 10 T

cheatgrass 10 T T T

Pacific fescue 15 T T T

squirreltail T T

Idaho fescue 400 460 250

lineleaf fleabane 15 15 20 15 25

snow eriogonum 15 15 50 15 50 T 25

cluster phlox 15 25 30 15

longleaf phlox 10 50 25 50 T 25

yarrow 20 15 50 20 50 15 30

pussytoes T 15 T

arrowleaf balsamroot 50 25 50

hangingpod milkvetch 25 25 25

silky lupine 25 25 25

specklepod loco T 25 25

indianwheat 10

tarweed T T

tapertip hawksbread 50 50 25

filaree T

gray rabbitbush 10 T T 5 T 15 T

gray horsebrush T T T

Total 1,140 1,420 2,650 1,195 2,325 1,400 2,500

Soil Taxonomic Unit No. 1 2 3 1 4 1 3

NRN-1, July 13, 1976
98

Exhibit 302.7B

Plant Association Tables

Plant Association Table (Final Assemblage)

/T means trace; blanks mean did not occur/

Species Production at Location No.

1246357

Pounds per acre (air-dry)

bluebunch wheatgrass 910 1,190 960 1,260 1,690 1,380 1,620

Sanberg bluegrass 110 120 95 70 260 185 375

Thurber needlegrass 15 T 15 10

needle-and-thread 10 10 T

cheatgrass 10 T T T

Pacific fescue 15 T T T

squirreltail T T

Idaho fescue 400 460 250

lineleaf fleabane 15 15 20 15 25

snow eriogonum 15 15 15 T 50 50 25

cluster phlox 15 25 30 15

longleaf phlox 10 25 T 50 50 25

yarrow 20 15 T

pussytoes T 15 T

indianwheat 10

tarweed T T

filaree T

arrowleaf balsamroot 50 25 50

hangingpod milkvetch 25 25 25

silky lupine 25 25 25

specklepod loco 50 50 25

tapertip hawksbread 50 25 25

gray rabbitbush 10 T 5 15 T T T

gray horsebrush T T T

Total 1,140 1,420 1,195 1,400 2,650 2,325 2,500

Site No. 1 Site No.

Soil Taxonomic Unit No. 1 2 1 1 3 4 3

NRH-1, July 13, 1976
99

Appendix IV

Site Correlation Procedures

The formal site correlation procedures are designed to standardize and supplement part of

Section 302.8 Naming and Correlating Range Sites of the National Range Handbook (NRH).

This procedure will also supplement the applicable sections of the National Biology Manual

(NBM), National Forestry Manual (NFM) and National Soil Handbook (NSH) as appropriate.

The “Site Correlation Procedures” will establish compatibility with current soil correlation

standards as set forth in the NSH. This is accomplished by providing site correlation with

soil correlation from the start of field work through the formal correlation process. (See NSH

Section 602.00-4).

Site correlation is a process for consistently relating ecosystem components within and

between ecosystems perceived as having the same climax or potential natural vegetation.

The site correlation process also provides quality control for consistent description and

documentation of the ecosystem components as well as subsequent interpretations associated

within the site.

Wildland (grassland, woodland, wetland, etc.) resource inventories are basically “ecosystem

inventories.” These ecosystems include not only vegetation and soil, but also the associated

climate, water, and animal life. Ecosystem components, including vegetation, soil, water, air,

fire, animals, topography, temperature, solar energy, and man, are closely and completely

interrelated. Any influences exerted on one affects the others.

In order for any site correlation process to proceed in an orderly manner, the following items

need to be understood and addressed by all participants.

1. Responsibility

a. The Director, Ecological Sciences Staff, National Office, SCS, through the

National Technical Centers (NTCs) has the responsibility for the correlation and

establishment of sites.

The NTC Director will be responsible for correlating sites within his region and

will maintain a file of all correlated sites by using a numbering system and

retaining copies of all correlated site descriptions.

b. State Conservationists will be responsible for maintaining a record of all sites

within their state according to their status and for proposing sites to the NTC.

State Conservationists in consultation with administrators of cooperating agencies will also be responsible for correlating all sites within their state. When a

site occurs in more than one state, the NTC Director will designate the state

responsible for maintaining and updating the site.
100

c. Field personnel of all cooperating agencies will be responsible for collecting the

necessary documentation for each site used and will propose draft descriptions as

needed for further consideration and approval by the SCS State Conservationist.

2. Timing

a. Site correlation is a continuous process initiated at the beginning of any soil or

vegetation survey and progressing through a final correlation (which may also

include an interstate correlation).

b. Site correlation is normally done in conjunction with soil survey correlation.

However, site correlation may also be necessary because of updates or revisions

to site descriptions.

c. Preparation for intrastate and interstate site correlation should include:

(1) Six months prior to correlation:

(a) The states involved should communicate as the soil survey(s) progress to

correlate common site descriptions. If there is disagreement on some

sites, than a formal interstate correlation will be arranged.

(b) States involved will have exchanged proposed and/or established site

descriptions for the area to be correlated.

(c) States will coordinate with field staff to jointly select locations to be

correlated (it is not necessary to visit every site if there are no disagreements).

(d) States involved will document which sites can be correlated and those

that cannot at this time.

(2) Three months prior to correlation:

(a) States will make an initial grouping or separation of sites based on the

criteria in Part 3.B. of the site correlation procedures.

(b) States will submit a proposal to NTC for correlating comparable sites

and/or resolving issues that remain.

(3) One month prior to correlation:

(a) States will have available all necessary documentation as outlined in Part

3.C., including soil pits at the review sites.

3. Procedures

A. Internal consistency - site forming factors should be checked to insure compatibility within each factor and between individual factors.
101

(1) Entries for each individual factor should::

(a) be representative of the site throughout its normal area of occurrence.

e.g. Minor occurrence of the site in odd areas (landscapes, slopes, etc.)

are not considered to be representative.

(b) Accurately describe the site by portraying the narrowest range of characteristics feasible. e.g. In mountainous areas, elevation-aspect relationships may be important. Original entries may show the site on all aspects

at elevations of 5,200 to 6,800'. The actual intent was for the site to be

on north aspects at elevations of 5,200 to 6,400' and on south aspects at

elevations of 6,400 to 6,800'. The original entries should be changed to

reflect the elevation-aspect differences.

(2) Entries for combinations of factors should:

(a) Be compatible between the range of characteristics described for each

individual factor with other related individual factors. e.g. A common

inconsistency is between the soil classification criteria and the climate

factors.

(b) Be compatible between the plant species listed and soil landscape or

climate factors. e.g. The presence of obligate wetland plant species are

not common where the soil properties listed under the soil factors

indicate the absence of a water table or other wetness characteristics.

B. Comparison between sites - Comparisons of site descriptions are made and

documented when 1) new sites are proposed or 2) correlations are made between

survey areas, MLRA's or states. The criteria used for making comparisons

between sites are:

(1) Compare all sites that have two or more major species in common (10% or

more composition by weight each) and/or that have the same soil family,

groups of similar families or other taxons.

(2) For correlation purposes, initial guidelines for determining significant

differences between sites will be:

(a) The presence (or absence) of one or more species that make up 10% or

more of the potential natural plant community, as defined in the NRH, by

air dry weight, or equivalent forest composition, by production (Site

Index and volume) or cover.

(b) 20% (absolute) change in composition air dry weight between any two

species in the potential natural plant community as defined in the NRH.

(c) Culmination of mean annual growth increment difference of 15 or mor

for tree species in forest or woodland sites.

(d) A difference in average annual herbaceous production of:
102

50% @ 200 - 500 #/Acre

30% @ 500 - 1000 #/Acre

20% @ >1000 #/Acre

(e) Any differences in criteria (a, b, c, or d), either singly or in combination,

great enough to indicate a different use potential or to require different

management are basis for establishing (or differentiating) a site (NRH

Sec. 302.6).

(f) Upon correlation of the kind, proportion and production of plants within

or between sites, the landscape, soils and climate characteristics should

be reviewed to insure they reflect the range of characteristics representative of the plant community.

The above criteria are merely guidelines for initiating comparison during the correlation

process and would not necessitate site differentiation or combination. The breaks between

sites may be finer or broader than the above guidelines, if supported by rationale and the

differences can be readily and consistently distinguished by the site factors listed in the

respective descriptions. Notable exceptions might include sites where one species makes up

more that 70% of the production or the occurrence of highly site-specific, minor indicator

species.

C. Documentation required

(1) Acreage requirement

(a) A minimum of 200 acres must be identified to propose a site.

(b) A minimum of 2000 acres must be mapped to become an established

site.

(c) An exception might be for highly unique or important sites, such as in

riparian areas.

(2) Physiographic factors - Copies of field sheets and any supporting maps

(geology, topographic, slope, etc.).

(3) Climate - Data from nearest representative weather station(s), research or

field study.

(4) Soils - Copies of SCS official series descriptions, SOI-5's and supporting

232's used to describe the range of soil properties typifying the known range

of the site.

(5) Vegetation

(a) Sufficient SCS Range 417(s), Range Condition Worksheets or equivalent

woodland data, (e.g., SCS-WOOD-5(s), should be completed per soil

taxa listed in each site description. If documentation cannot be provided

for each soil correlated to the site, soils without such documentation must

be designated.
103

(b) A plant association table (NRH Exhibit 302.7A, or equivalent display)

for each site.

(6) Wildlife - Historical accounts, special studies, field observations, species list,

etc.

(7) General - Field notes, photographs, etc.

D. Preparation of Reports

(1) Field Review Checklist (Exhibit 1)

(a) To be completed by the responsible range conservationist or the designated representative as a supplement to soil survey area initial, progress

and final field review reports. It is also applicable to internal site review

processes.

(b) Intended to document the overall status and applicability of the site

descriptions, vegetation support data and related actions within the soil

survey area on an ongoing basis.

(2) Site correlation checklist (Exhibit 2) - to be completed by the responsible

range conservationist or the designated representative to document formal

site correlation activities.

4. Records of Site Descriptions

A. Site description files containing complete site descriptions will be maintained by

Proposed, Established and Inactive status. The file contents will include:

(1) Site Number

(2) Site Name

(3) Responsible State (As designated by the first two letters FIPS code for state

abbreviations used in the standard site description number system)

(4) Status in the following format:

(a) Proposed site descriptions to be field tested for at least one year prior to

consideration for acceptance. Files will be maintained by the responsible

State Offices and NTC's. Proposed site descriptions will be identified

with a (P) following the site name indicating its present status.

(b) Established site descriptions will be maintained by the responsible State

Offices and NTC's. State Offices will maintain supporting documentation of the site descriptions.

(c) Inactive site descriptions will be maintained by responsible states.
104

B. Site record card files will be maintained by the responsible NTC for tracking site

status and actions.

(1) Contents will include:

Site Number ________________

Author State Approval NTC Approval Date

Proposed _______ ____________ ____________ _______

Established _______ ____________ ____________ _______

Revised _______ ____________ ____________ _______

_______ ____________ ____________ _______

_______ ____________ ____________ _______

_______ ____________ ____________ _______

Inactive Site # Name

Combined with ____________ ________________

____________ ________________

____________ ________________

dropping because: ____________________________

______________________________________________

(2) All users will be notified of any change in status upon approval by NTC.

5. Updating or Revising Site Descriptions

Site descriptions will be updated or revised according to procedures estab

lished in the National Range Handbook Section 302.10 (NRH-5, Feb., 1985)
105

Appendix V

Standard Site Description

Site Number:_____________________

Site Name:_______________________

Plant Name:______________________

Date:____________________________

Initials (Author’s/Agency):__________

Part A: Description of Site

1. Landscape Factors

a. Geographic Location:

(1) MLRA Name:____________________________________________

(2) Local Area:________________________, _________________________,

________________________

(3) Typical Location:

Legal:____1/4;____1\4;____1\4; Sec._____ T.____ R._____ Meridian_____

Latitude: Deg.____ Min.____ Sec.____

Longitude: Deg.____ Min.____ Sec.____

UTM Coordinate: _____________________

b. Physiography:

(1) Landform:

(a) Broad:___________________________________________________

(b) Specific:_______________________, ______________________,

(c) Microrelief:____________________, ______________________,

(2) Elevation/Aspect:

Low_____________/______ ______ High____________/_______ _______

(3) Slope: Low: _______% High _______%

c. Landscape Narrative:

d. Associated Water Features:

(1) Non-stream Characteristics:

(a) Non-stream Type(s): (Indicate the appropriate designation(s). If associated with a stream, go to “stream”.)

_______________ _______________ _______________

_______________ _______________ _______________

Enter: Lake, Reservoir, Pool, Pond, Spring, Seep, Marsh, Bog, Potholes,

Irrigation Conveyance or Other (Specify).

(b) Drawdown Characteristics (reserved)

(c) Turnover (reserved)
106

(2) Stream Characteristics:

(a) Major Stream Type Characteristics

Stream Gradient Sinuosity W/D Ratio

Type Low High Low High Low High

1. ____________ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____

2. ____________ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____

3. ____________ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____

4. ____________ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____

5. ____________ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____ ____.____

Materials Confinement Ratio of

Floodplain width/bankfull

Channel Bed Bank width

1. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A) Confined (1.0 - 1.5)

2. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ B) Moderately Confined

(1.5 - 2.5)

3. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ C) Unconfined (2.5+)

4. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D) Not Determined

5. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

(b) Flow Regime (Discharge and channel capacity)

[1] General

Kind: ____________________, ______________________

(Enter: ephemeral, Perennial, Intermittent or Subterranean)

[2] Specific

[a] Position of the Water Column (Channel capacity)

Stage Season

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Low _______ _______ _______ _______

High _______ _______ _______ _______

[b] Average Annual Discharge: _________._ to __________ ._
107

[c] Ratio of 7-day duration high and low flows to the average annual

discharge

(c) Drainage Area and Stream Size For Multiple Systems

Extremes of Condition

Stream Stream

Width (Ft) Depth (Ft) Watershed Area (Acres)

Low High Low High Low High

___.___ ___.___ ___.___ ___.___ ______ ______

(d) Special Modifiers

[1] Organic Debris, Channel Blockages, Controls (3 Entries Maxi mum)

_________________________, ________________________,

_________________________

[2] Depositional Features (3 Entries Maximum)

_________________, _________________, ________________

[3] Stream Adjustment Features (3 Entries Maximum)

_________________, _________________, ________________

[4] Other Special Modifiers (3 Entries Maximum)

_________________, _________________, _________________

Recurrence Interval

Stage 1.25 2 5 10 25 50

Year Year Year Year Year Year

Low 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

High 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0
108

(e) Ground Water Factors

[1] System Extent: ______________

[2] Source Type: _________________

[3] Source Dependence: __________ D = Dependent

I = Independent

Note: The following questions can only be answered when source

dependence is answered D (Dependent).

Floodplain Recharge: _____ A = Active, I = Inactive

Adjacent Pond Water Recharge: _____ Y = Yes or N = No

Bank Recharge: _____ Y = Yes or N = No

Channel Bed Loss: _____ L = Low, M = Moderate or H = High

(3) Associated Water Features Narrative:

2. Climate Factors

a. Soil Moisture Regime: _____________________, ______________________

b. Soil Temperature Regime: _____________________, ___________________

c. Mean Annual Soil Temperature: ______________ to _______________ (°F)

d. Mean Summer Soil Temperature: ______________ to _______________ (°F)

e. Mean Annual Air Temperature: ______________ to _______________ (°F)

f. Mean Annual Precipitation: ______________ to ______________ (inches)

g. Frost-Free Period: _________________ to ______________ (days)

h Moisture and Temperature Distribution:

 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

PPT HI ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ (in.)

MEAN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

LOW ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

TEMP HI ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ (°F)

MEAN ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

LOW ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

i. Climatic Weather Station:

(1) Location: ___________________________

(2) Station Number: ______________

j. Climate Narrative:
109

3. Soil Factors

a. Major Soil Family(s) and Classification Typical for the Site:

Subgroup Family Adjectives

(1) _____________________________ _______________________________

(2) _____________________________ _______________________________

(3) _____________________________ _______________________________

b. Geologic Formation:

(1) Formation(s): ___________________________, ___________________

(2) Parent material: _______________, ___________________

c. Features of Soil Surface:

(1) “O” Horizon:

(a) Thickness Minimum ________(inches) Maximum _____(inches)

(b) Type _______

(2) Rock Fragments (% cover):

Pebbles Low _____ High _____ Boulders Low _____ High _____

Cobbles Low _____ High _____ Channers Low _____ High _____

Stones Low _____ High _____ Flagstone Low _____ High _____

d. Surface Horizon:

(1) Diagnostic Surface Horizon: __________ Epipedon

(2) Thickness: Minimum ______(inches) Maximum _______(inches)

e. Surface Texture: ____________, ___________, ___________, ___________

f. Soil Depth; (not to exceed 2 classes)

Minimum ___________(inches) Maximum ___________(inches)

g. Major Root Zone Thickness: (for common and many roots)

Minimum ___________(inches) Maximum ___________(inches)

h. AWC for Effective Plant Root Zone: Low _____ High _____(inches/inch)

i. Accumulation (clay CaCO3, etc.):

Depth

Minimum Maximum Amount Measurement

(Inches) (Inches) Type Low High (%, PPM, meq/100gm)

________ to _______ _________ ____ to ____ ___________________

________ to _______ _________ ____ to ____ ___________________

________ to _______ _________ ____ to ____ ___________________

________ to _______ _________ ____ to ____ ___________________

j. 35% to 50% (vol) Rock Fragments:

(1) Depth: Minimum _____ (inches) Maximum _____ (inches)

(2) Average Thickness: ______(inches)
110

k. 50% (vol) Rock Fragments:

(1) Depth: Minimum _____(inches) Maximum ______(inches)

(2) Average Thickness ______(inches)

l. Reaction:

Depth Range (Inches) Amount (Ph)

Minimum Maximum Low High

Surface Layers: ________ ________ ____ _____

Layers: ________ ________ ____ _____

All Other Layers: ________ ________ ____ _____

m. Salinity:

Depth Range (Inches) Amount (mmhos/cm)

Minimum Maximum Low High

Surface Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

All Other Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

n. Sodicity:

Depth Range (Inches) Amount (SAR)

Minimum Maximum Low High

Surface Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

All Other Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

o. Annual Pattern of Soil-Water States:

Depth JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

 0- 4" ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

 4-10" ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

10-20" ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

20-40" ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

40-60" ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

F: Frozen more than half of the month

W: Wet more than half of the month

M: Moist more than half of the month

D: Dry More than half of the month

p. Water Table (During Growing Season):

(1) Depth: Minimum _____(Ft) Maximum ______(Ft)

(2) Kind: ________________

(3) Month(s): ____________ to ____________
111

q. Flooding:

(1) Frequency: _______________

(2) Duration: _______________

(3) Months: __________ to __________

r. Ponding

(1) Depth: Minimum ____ Maximum ____(ft)

(2) Duration: __________

(3) Month(s): ___ to ___

s. Soil Narrative:

4. Vegetation Factors

a. Cover:

(1) Canopy Cover and Structure:

% Cover

(Vertical View) Height (ft)

Trees _____ - ______ ____ - ____

Shrubs _____ - ______ ____ - ____

Grasses, Grass Like,

& Forbs _____ - ______ ____ - ____

Cryptogams _____ - ______ ____ - ____

(2) Basal Cover: ________% total

(3) Litter/Residue:

Kind1 % Cover lbs./Acre (ADW)

__________________ ___ - ___ _______ - _______

__________________ ___ - ___ _______ - _______

__________________ ___ - ___ _______ - _______

1 N = non-persistent

P = persistent

R = residue
112

b. Vascular Plant Community Composition and Production:

(1) Overstory Trees:

Basal Area (all Trees) ________ - ________ ft2

% % Av.

Site Canopy Composition Density

Symbol Common Name Index Ft3/Acre/Yr Cover Canopy (No./Acre)

_______ _________________ ___-___ _____-_____ ___-___ ___-___ _________

_______ _________________ ___-___ _____-_____ ___-___ ___-___ _________

_______ _________________ ___-___ _____-_____ ___-___ ___-___ _________

_______ _________________ ___-___ _____-_____ ___-___ ___-___ _________

_______ _________________ ___-___ _____-_____ ___-___ ___-___ _________

Site Index References: ________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

(2) Understory:

(a) Shrubs (and understory trees, if applicable) - - _____ - _____ Total

% %

Canopy Comosition Group %

Symbol Common Name Group Cover Air Dry Wt Allowable

_______ ________________ ______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

_______ ________________ ______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

_______ ________________ ______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

_______ ________________ ______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

_______ ________________ ______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

Other .............................................................................................. ____-____NTE____ea

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________
113

(b) Grasses and Grass Like ................................. ____-____ Total

% %

Canopy Composition Group %

Symbol Common Name Group Cover Air Dry Wt Allowable

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ ________

Other .............................................................................................. ____-____NTE____ea

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

(c) Forbs ............................................................. ____-____ Total

% %

Canopy Composition Group %

Symbol Common Name Group Cover Air Dry Wt Allowable

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ _________

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ _________

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ _________

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ _________

_______ ________________ _______ ____-____ ____-____ ____-____ _________

Other .............................................................................................. ____-____NTE____ea

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________
114

(d) Total Annual Production - Vascular Vegetation

Favorable _________lbs/acre Average _________ lbs/acre

Unfavorable ___________lbs/acre

c. Cryptogamic Community Production and Composition (for tundra and similar

ecosystems):

(1) Lichen Biomass (100%)

% Canopy % Composition Group %

Symbol Common Name Cover Air Dry Wt. Allowable

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-_____

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-_____

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-_____

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-_____

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-_____

Other ............................................................................................. ____-____NTE____ea

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

(2) Moss/Clubmoss Biomass (100%)

% Canopy % Composition Group %

Symbol Common Name Cover Air Dry Wt. Allowable

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-____

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-_____

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-_____

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-_____

_______ _________________ ______-______ _____-_____ _____-_____

Other .............................................................................................. ____-____NTE____ea
115

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

__________ _________________________

(3) Cryptogamic Community Production

(a) Total Lichen Biomass:

Range: Low ______ High ______ lbs/acres

Average: __________ lbs/acres

(b) Total Moss/Clubmoss Biomass:

Range: Low ______ High _____ lbs/acres

Average: __________ lbs/acre

d. Documentation:

Seral Stage (Condition) # Transects # Data Sheets

Potential (Climax) ____________ _____________

Late (Good) ____________ _____________

Mid (Fair) ____________ _____________

Early (Poor) ____________ _____________

e. Vegetation Narrative:

5. Wildlife

a. Species List:

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________

b. Wildlife Narrative:
116

6. Community Dynamics (Fire, etc.):

7. List of Commonly Associated Sites (number and names):

a. Upland:

b. Riparian or Wetland:

8. List of Competing Sites (number and name):

9. List of Soils Grouped Into the Site By:

Soil Map

Survey Unit

Area Symbol Soil Name and Phase

_______ _______ __________________________________________

_______ _______ __________________________________________

_______ _______ __________________________________________

_______ _______ __________________________________________

_______ _______ __________________________________________

_______ _______ __________________________________________

_______ _______ __________________________________________
117

Standard Site Description

Site Number:

Date:

PART B: Major Vegetation Interpretations for Use and Management of the Site

1. General Interpretations (narrative) for use and management of the site.

a. Plant Community Characteristics:

b. Riparian or Wetland Site Progressions (Riparian Area Only)

(1) Aggradation:

(2) Degradation:

c. Grazing:

d. Forestry

(1) General Description:

(2) Managed Stands:

(a) Possible Management Regimes:
118

(b) Expected Increases in Cumulative Yields:

(c) Growth Predictions for Onsite Conditions: (Based on

on-site inventory data, the model(s) that can be used to

predict the effects of management on associated yields

at various time intervals.)

(3) Silviculture:

e. Insects and Disease Pests and Animal Damage:

f. Wildlife:

g. Recreation and Natural Beauty:

h. Fire:

i. Range and Forest Understory Rehabilitation:

j. Other Interpretations:

k. Applicable Field Offices:
119

Appendix VI

Example Riparian-Wetland Site Description

Standard Site Description

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Site Name: MOUNTAIN STREAM MEADOW

Plant Name: DECAS-AGTR

Date: 08/90

PART A: DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1. Landscape Factors

a. Geographic Location:

(1) MLRA Name:

SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARKS

(2) Local Area:

LONG GULCH

(3) Typical Location:

Legal: 1/4; 1\4; 1\4; Sec. 30 T. 49N R. 2E Meridian

Latitude: Deg Min. Sec.

Longitude: Deg. Min. Sec.

UTM Coordinate:

b. Physiography:

(1) Landform:

(a) Broad: MOUNTAIN VALLEY STREAMS

(b) Specific: FLOODPLAIN TERRACES, ALLUVIAL FAN SIDE SLOPES

(c) Microrelief: SMOOTH-TERRACES, CONCAVE-ALLUVIAL FANS

(2) Elevation/Aspect:

Low 7000 / ALL High 11500 / ALL

(3) Slope: Low: 0 % High 4 %
120

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 2

c. Landscape Narrative:

This site occurs in the SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARKS Major Land

Resource Area (MLRA 48B). It occurs on level to gently sloping soils in smooth

floodplain terraces of small stream valleys and high mountain streams, and concave

outer margins of seeps or springs at the base of alluvial fans. Slope has no significant

influence on plant growth.

Elevation range from 7000 to 11500 feet.

d. Associated Water Features:

(1) Non-stream Characteristics:

(a) SEEP SPRING

(b) Drawdown Characteristics

(c) Turnover

(2) Stream Characteristics:

(a) Major Stream Type Characteristics

Stream Gradient Sinuosity W/D Ratio

Type Low High Low High Low High

1. B3 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.2 8.0 12.0

2. B4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.

4.

5.
121

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 3

Materials Confinement Ratio Of

Floodplain width/bankfull

Channel Bed Bank width

1. CB GR S SI C Confined

2.

3.

4.

5.

(b) Flow Regime (Discharge and channel capacity)

[1] General

Kind: Intermittent

[2] Specific

[a] Position of the Water Column (Channel capacity)

Stage Season

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Low None Moderate

High Low Low

[b]Average Annual

Discharge: 0.0 to

0.9 CFS/Sq. Mi.

[c]Ratio of 7-day

duration high and

low flows to the

average annual

discharge

Recurrence Interval

Stage 1.25 2 5 10 25 50

Year Year Year Year Year Year

Low 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

High 6.600 0.000 0.000 81.11 0.0 172.2
122

The 7-day duration low and high flows are to expressed relative to the

average annual discharge (i.e., 1.5, 0.55, 10.0, etc. times the average annual

discharge).

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 4

(c) Drainage Area and Stream Size For Multiple Systems

Extremes of Condition

Stream Stream

Width (Ft) Depth (Ft) Watershed Area (Acres)

Low High Low High Low High

5.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 12000

(d) Special Modifiers

[1] Organic Debris, Channel Blockages, Controls (3 Entries Maximum)

MAN-MADE DAMS, INFREQUENT DEBRIS

[2] Depositional Features (3 Entries Maximum)

[3] Stream Adjustment Features (3 Entries Maximum)

[4] Other Special Modifiers (3 Entries Maximum)

(e) Ground Water Factors

[1] System Extent: LOCAL

[2] Source Type: LATERAL

[3] Source Dependence: DEPENDENT
123

Floodplain Recharge: Inactive

Adjacent Pond Water Recharge: No

Bank Recharge: Yes

Channel Bed Loss: Low

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 5

(3) Associated Water Features Narrative:

This site is associated with B3 and B4 stream types (Rosgen, 1989), and localized lateral flow from up slope seeps or springs, B3 stream types are described as

moderate gradients, unstable, with cobble/gravel streambeds. Width/depth

rations run 8 to 20, with the mean being 12. These systems are generally well

confined.

Landforms/soils are usually depositional, coarse unconsolidated material, steep to

moderate rejuvenated slopes with unstable banks.

B4’s are moderate gradients, unstable, with sand/gravel channels. Landforms/

soils are fine textured noncohesive depositional soils and unstable banks. Width/

depth ratios have a mean of 10. These systems are generally well confined.

For associated sites, riparian vegetation is dependent upon streamflow to recharge the groundwater except in localized areas of lateral flow from adjacent

seeps or springs. Bank recharge is usually active with channel bed loss being

low. Floodplain recharge is usually inactive when the site is in an degraded

condition and usually active in an aggraded condition.

2. Climate Factors

a. Soil Moisture Regime: AQUIC

b. Soil Temperature Regime: FRIGID, CRYIC

c. Mean Annual Soil Temperature: 42 to 47 (°F)

d. Mean Summer Soil Temperature: 50 to 60 (°F)

e. Mean Annual Air Temperature: 30 to 44 (°F)

f. Mean Annual Precipitation: 12 to 40 (inches)

g. Frost-Free Period: 40 to 70 (days)

h. Moisture and Temperature Distribution:

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

PPT HI 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.3 0.9 1.2

MEAN 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.5 0.9 0.7 O.5 0.8

LOW 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3

TEMP HI 26 31 41 55 66 76 80 79 73 62 46 30
124

MEAN 9 15 26 39 48 56 62 59 52 42 28 14

LOW -8 -2 11 22 29 36 42 41 32 21 11 -2

(PPT is in inches and TEMP is in deg F.)

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 6

i. Climatic Weather Station:

(1) Location: GUNNISON

(2) Station Number: 3662

j. Climate Narrative:

The climate of this site is characterized by cool summers and cold winters. The site

has a Snow cover through the winter and early spring and often into late spring at

some locations. The average annual precipitation for this site ranges from 12 to 40

inches with the major portion in the form of snow. Maintenance of the site is dependent on natural subirrigation in a cool mountain climate, rather than the amount of

precipitation or flooding. The average annual temperatures range from 30 to 44

degrees F. and the frost free period is 40 to 70 days.

Optimum plant growth occurs from mid-May to early June and continues through

mid-July or August, although the growing season varies because of the wide range in

elevation where the site occurs. Some plants start growth under the snow and

develop rapidly following snowmelt. Due to the influence of the ground water table,

there is a low or non-existing moisture deficit that seems to favor certain characteristic plants that are scarce or absent on similarly wet soils in drier climates.

3. Soil Factors

a. Major Soil Family(s) and Classification Typical for the Site:

Subgroup

Family Adjectives

(1) FLUVAQUENTIC HAPLAQUOLLS

FINE-LOAMY, MIXED, FRIGID

b. Geologic Formation:

(1) Formation(s):

(2) Parent

MIXED ALLUVIUM

c. Features of Soil Surface:
125

(1) “O” Horizon:

(a) Thickness Minimum 0.0 (inches) Maximum 0.0 (inches)

(b) Type

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 7

(2) Rock Fragments (% cover):

Pebbles Low _____ High _____ Boulders Low _____ High _____

Cobbles Low _____ High _____ Channers Low _____ High _____

Stones Low _____ High _____ Flagstone Low _____ High _____

d. Surface Horizon:

(1) Diagnostic Surface Horizon: MOLLIC Epipedon

(2) Thickness: Minimum 10 (inches) Maximum 15 (inches)

e. Surface Texture: SIL, L

f. Soil Depth; (not to exceed 2 classes)

Minimum 60 (inches) Maximum 75 (inches)

g. Major Root Zone Thickness: (for common and many roots)

Minimum 10 (inches) Maximum 14 (inches)

h. AWC for Effective Plant Root Zone: Low 1.60 High 2.90 (inches/inch)

i. Accumulation (clay CaCO3, etc.):

Depth

Minimum Maximum Amount Measurement

(Inches) (Inches) Type Low High (%, PPM, meq/100gm)

________ to _______ _________ ____ to ____ ___________________

j. 35% to 50% (vol) Rock Fragments:

(1) Depth: Minimum 0 (inches) Maximum 0 (inches)

(2) Average Thickness: 0 (inches)

k. 50% (vol) Rock Fragments:

(1) Depth: Minimum 0 (inches) Maximum 0 (inches)

(2) Average Thickness 0 (inches)

l. Reaction:

Depth Range (Inches) Amount (Ph)

Minimum Maximum Low High
126

Surface Layers: 0 6 7.9 8.4

Layers: 6 14 7.4 7.8

All Other Layers: 14 60 6.6 7.3

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 8

m. Salinity:

Depth Range (Inches) Amount (mmhos/cm)

Minimum Maximum Low High

Surface Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

All Other Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

n. Sodicity:

Depth Range (Inches) Amount (SAR)

Minimum Maximum Low High

Surface Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

All Other Layers: ________ ________ _____ _____

o. Annual Pattern of Soil-Water States:

Depth JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

0- 4" F F F M M M M M D D M F

4-10" F F F M M M M M M M M F

10-20" M M M W W W W M M M M M

20-40" W W W W W W W W W W W W

40-60" W W W W W W W W W W W W

F: Frozen more than half of the month

W: Wet more than half of the month

M: Moist more than half of the month

D: Dry More than half of the month

p. Water Table (During Growing Season):

(1) Depth: Minimum 1.0 (Ft) Maximum 1.5 (Ft)

(2) Kind: APPARENT

(3) Month(s): APR to JUL

q. Flooding:

(1) Frequency: NONE, OCCASIONAL

(2) Duration: V BRIEF-BRIEF

(3) Months: MAY to SEP

r. Ponding
127

(1) Depth: Minimum ____ Maximum ____(ft)

(2) Duration: __________

(3) Month(s): ___ to ___

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 9

s. Soil Narrative:

The soils of this site have dark-colored (mollic) surface layers with loam and silt

loam textures. Typical subsoils are stratified loam, silt loam, silty clay loam and

clay loam with thin strata of extremely gravelly sand common at any depth below

14 inches.

These soils are very deep and very poorly drained. The root zone is shallow due

to depths ranging from 12 to 18 inches at some time during the months of April

through July. Therefore the available water capacity for the soil profile is high

and for the root zone is low. Soils that occur on floodplain terraces are occasionally flooded for very brief to Brief periods at some time during the months of

May through September and soils outside the floodplain, but along the outer

margins of springs and seeps are not subject to flooding. Ground water seems to

have the most influence on the vegetation.

Reaction is moderately alkaline in the surface layer, mildly alkaline in the

underlying layer, and neutral throughout the remainder of the soil profile.

4. Vegetation Factors

a. Cover:

(1) Canopy Cover and Structure

% Cover

(Vertical View) Height (ft)

Trees 0 -0 0.0 - 0.0

Shrubs 0 - 5 2.0 - 8.0

Grasses, Grass Like,

& Forbs 70 - 90 1.2 - 2.0

Cryptogams 0 - 0 0.00 - 0.00

(2) Basal Cover: 40 % total

(3) Litter/Residue:

Kind1 % Cover lbs./Acre (ADW)

0 - 0 0 - 0

1 N = non-persistent
128

P = persistent

R = residue

b. Vascular Plant Community Composition and Production:

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 10

(2) Understory:

(a) Shrubs

(and understory trees, if applicable) Total 0 - 10

% %

Canopy Composition Group %

Symbol Common Name Group Cover Air Dry Wt Allowable

SABE BEBB WILLOW 1 0 - 0 0 - 3 0 - 5

SABO BOOTH WILLOW 1 0 - 0 0 - 3 0 - 5

SADR DRUMMOND WILLOW 1 0 - 0 0 - 3 0 - 5

POFR4 SHRUBBY CINQUEFOIL 0 0 - 0 0 - 2 0 - 5

Other 0 - 5 NTE 2 ea

Symbol Common Name

ROWO WOODS ROSE

ARCA13 SILVER SAGEBRUSH

CHRYS RABBITBRUSH

(b) Grasses and Grass Like Total 75 - 90

% %

Canopy Composition Group %

Symbol Common Name Group Cover Air Dry Wt Allowable

DECA5 RUFTED HAIRGRASS 0 0 - 0 40 - 50 0 - 0

AGTR SLENDER WHEATGRASS 0 0 - 0 10 - 20 0 - 0

AGRI STREAMBANK WHEATGRASS 0 0 - 0 2 - 10 0 - 0

AGSM WESTERN WHEATGRASS 0 0 - 0 2 - 5 0 - 0

CAREX SEDGES 0 0 - 0 2 - 10 0 - 0

JUBA BALTIC RUSH 0 0 - 0 3 - 5 0 - 0

JUNCU RUSHES 0 0 - 0 3 - 5 0 - 0

Other 3 - 5 NTE 2 ea

Symbol Common Name

FEOV SHEEP FESCUE

FETH THURBER FESCUE

POPR KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS

AGAL3 REDTOP BENTGRASS

(c) Forbs Total 10 - 20

% %

Canopy Composition Group %

Symbol Common Name Group Cover Air Dry Wt Allowable

POTEN CINQUEFOIL 0 0 - 0 3 - 5 0 - 0

ACM12 COMMON YARROW 0 0 - 0 3 - 5 0 - 0
129

ASTER ASTER 0 0 - 0 3 - 5 0 - 0

TRIFO CLOVER 0 0 - 0 3 - 5 0 - 0

IRMI ROCKY MOUNTAIN IRIS 0 0 - 0 2 - 3 0 - 0

Other 5 - 10 NTE 2 ea

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 11

Symbol Common Name

SENEC GROUNDSEL

VICIA VETCHES

CIRSI THISTLES

EPAN2 COMMON FIREWEED

THERM GOLDENPEA

MENTHA MINT

LIGUS LICORICEROOT

(d) Total Annual Production - Vascular Vegetation

Favorable 3000 lbs/acre

Average 2500 lbs/acre

Unfavorable 2000 lbs/acre

d. Documentation:

Seral Stage (Condition) # Transects # Data Sheets

Potential (Climax) ____________ _____________

Late (Good) ____________ _____________

Mid (Fair) ____________ _____________

Early (Poor) ____________ _____________

e. Vegetation Narrative:

Grasses and sedges give this site its characteristic meadow appearance and comprise

75 to 90 percent of the annual yield. A great variety of forbs are showy when in

bloom and may comprise up to 20 percent of the annual yield. Tufted hairgrass is

dominant in potential. Slender wheatgrass, streambank Wheatgrass, sedges, and

rushes are other common grasses. Kentucky bluegrass and redtop may also be

conspicuous introduced grasses. Common forbs include herbaceous cinquefoils,

yarrow, asters, mints clovers, and iris. Goldenpea, groundsels, licoriceroot, and

fireweed may also be present. Shrubs when present, may include shrubby cinquefoil,

and Bebb, Booth and/or Drummond Willow. Some rabbitbrush, rose, or silver
130

sagebrush may also be present in small amounts.

The vegetation of this site is influenced by a seasonally high water table that usually

recedes to deeper than 20 inches late in the growing season.

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 12

5. Wildlife

a. Species List:

MULE DEER ELK

PRONGHORN MALLARD DUCK

SAGE GROUSE GOLDEN EAGLE

COTTONTAIL RABBIT JACKRABBIT

GROUND SQUIRREL COYOTE

HUMMINGBIRD GARTER SNAKE

TOADS REDTAIL HAWK

KILLDEER OWLS

FLICKERS FLYCATCHER

ROBINS WRENS

THRUSHES WARBLERS

MEADOWLARK GROSBEAK

FINCHES SPARROWS

BATS BOBCAT

VOLES JUMPING MICE

BEAVER

b. Wildlife Narrative:

This site can provide habitat for a wide array of wildlife species as noted in the

species list. The number of species and size of populations is related to the number

of acres of habitat.

Systems that are degraded (incised gullies) provide little or no habitat for wildlife.

Most species would only use the site for watering when and if it was available.

In aggrading systems (gully healing), most species present with potential become

common. As the site aggrades channel types, vegetation succession can advance to

higher ecological stages and the extent of the site will approximate historic positions.

This will allow for significant increases in numbers of wildlife. Species that will

show significant increases include waterfowl, mule deer, rabbits, shorebirds, songbirds, beaver, jumping mice, bats, bobcats, raptors, and sage grouse.

6. Community Dynamics (Fire, etc.):

7. List of Commonly Associated Sites (number and names):

a. Upland:
131

048XY245CO Mountain Swale - The Mountain Swale range site is located on

adjacent rarely or non-flooded valley bottom positions. Vegetation is a basin or

mountain big sagebrush/basin wildrye-rhizomatous wheatgrass potential.

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 13

b. Riparian or Wetland:

048BY002CORTEST Mountain Stream Bank - The Mountain Stream Bank site is usually

located adjacent to the stream channel or concave positions that remain moist to the surface

throughout the growing season and maintain a higher water table. Vegetation is dominantly

willow/carex in potential.

8. List of Competing Sites (number and name):

9. List of Soils Grouped Into the Site By:

Soil Survey Area Map Unit Symbol

Soil Name and Phase

CO000 1

FLUVAQUENTIC HAPLAQUOLLS, FINE-LOAMY, MIXED, FRIGID, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES
132

CO000 1

FLUVAQUENTIC HAPLAQUOLLS, FINE-LOAMY, MIXED, FRIGID, MODERATELY

WET, NON-FLOODED, 1 TO 4 PERCENT SLOPES

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 14

PART B: Major Vegetation Interpretations for Use and Management of the Site

1. General Interpretations (narrative) for use and management of the site.

a. Plant Community Characteristics:

On relatively undisturbed sites, tufted hairgrass is dominant over other graminoids

and forbs. Litter is dense on drier extremes of the site but may be absent on moist

extremes. Willows may be present in small amounts where this site occurs as a result

of site progression from the Mountain Stream Bank site.

Moderate grazing reduces the reproductive potential and vigor of tufted hairgrass

through reduced seedhead production and depletion of carbohydrate reserves. Under

heavy grazing, tufted hairgrass vigor is further reduced and other graminoids and

forbs dominate the site. Species most likely to invade the site are dandelion and

introduced forage grasses, especially timothy, redtop, and Kentucky bluegrass.

Canada thistle is a troublesome invader in some places. Annual forbs such as owl

clover may also come in. Several plants natural to the site in small amounts also tend

to increase at the expense of the major climax grasses. Typical plants in this category

are Baltic rush, iris, yarrow, herbaceous cinquefoils, false hellebore, rose, and

shrubby cinquefoil. Sheep fescue and silver sagebrush also tend to increase but are

not consistently on the site. Shrubby cinquefoil gives the dominant aspect to many

deteriorated spots.

Successional Communities:

CLIMAX/PNC GOOD/LATEF AIR/MID POOR/EARLY

CT 1.1 CT 2.1 CT 3.1 CT 4.1

DECA5-AGTR JUBA-DECA5- AGAL3-JUBA- AGAL3(PHPR3)-

AGTR AGTR JUBA

CT 2.2 CT 3.2 CT 4.2

SALIX/AGTR- SALIX/CAREX- POPR-AAFFDECA5 JUNCUS PPFF

CT 3.3 CT 4.3

POFR4-CAREX- POFR4-AAFFJUNCUS PPFF
133

CT 4.4

AAFF-PPFF

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 15

b. Riparian or Wetland Site Progressions (Riparian Area Only)

(1) Aggradation:

With aggradation of the stream channel or blockages such as beaver dams to

raise the water table, this site can progress to a willow/carex potential of the

Mountain Stream Bank site.

(2) Degradation:

Lowering of the water table by stream incision, bank widening, or loss of blockages can result in site progression to the upland site potential of big sagebrush/

basin wildrye-rhizomatous wheatgrass of the Mountain Swale range site.

c. Grazing:

Tufted hairgrass is preferred as mid to late season pasture by livestock following

forage depletion on adjacent uplands. However, earlier use may occur when in

complex with willow dominated sites used for shade and when near available water

sources. Grazing has limited impact on tufted hairgrass meadows when done in

moderation. Grazing should be deferred until surface soils are dry. Proper levels of

grazing should range from light to moderate. When in complex with willow or aspen

dominated sites, grazing should also be keyed to browse utilization on those sites.

Sustained close grazing reduces the reproductive potential and vigor of tufted

hairgrass through reduced seedhead production and depletion of carbohydrates

reserves. With continued overuse, tufted hairgrass becomes subordinate to other

graminoids and forbs.

This site in mid seral or better ecological status will respond rapidly to improved

grazing strategies. Time season of use to both the drying of the soil surface and to

maturation of seedheads of tufted hairgrass. Livestock should be removed when 40

percent or less utilization is obtained.

Sheep have light impact on this site when herded. Bed sheep in adjacent uplands.

Reference: Hansen et al. 1989. Classification and management of riparian sites in

southwestern Montana. Draft version 2, University of Montana.
134

Kinch, Gene. 1989. Grazing management in riparian areas. TR 1737-4, BLM.

Kovalchick, B. L. 1987. Riparian zone associations Deshutes, Ochoco, Fremont,

and Winema National Forests. R6 ECOL TP-279-87, FS.

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 16

d. Forestry

(1) General Description:

There are no forest or wood product values associated with this site.

(2) Managed Stands:

(a) Possible Management Regimes:

(b) Expected Increases in Cumulative Yields:

(c) Growth Predictions for Onsite Conditions: (Based on

on-site inventory data, the model(s) that can be used to

predict the effects of management on associated yields

at various time intervals.)

(3) Silviculture:

e. Insects and Disease Pests and Animal Damage:

f. Wildlife:

g. Recreation and Natural Beauty:

This site provides opportunities for viewing big game during the summer and fall,

especially at higher elevations, and winter at lower elevations. Those sites near

streams provide access for fishing. Roads, trails, and campgrounds should not be

located on this site.

h. Fire:

Tufted hairgrass is resistant to damage from fire. Root crowns are rarely damaged,
135

even by hot, intense fires. However, repeated burning of this site can favor rhizomatous species such as Kentucky bluegrass and the wheatgrasses. Burning should be

postponed if livestock are present to avoid attracting animals to young, palatable

regrowth of tufted hairgrass (Hansen et al., 1989).

Site Number: 048BY001CORTEST

Page 17

i. Range and Forest Understory Rehabilitation:

This site in mid seral or better ecological status will respond rapidly to improved

grazing strategies.

On stands in early seral status the density of tufted hairgrass is too low to achieve

rapid response, so more intensive rehabilitation strategies will be required. Domestic

species such as Kentucky bluegrass, timothy, and meadow foxtail may be seeded but

tufted hairgrass is preferable (Kovalchick, 1987).

Where this site borders a stream, tufted hairgrass shows little potential for use in

streambank rehabilitation because of its thin fibrous root system. Baltic rush produces a deep fibrous root system, with a mass of coarse and creeping rhizomes, and

once established, rapidly spreads. These soil holding characteristics may make it

valuable for stabilizing streambanks.
136
137

j. Other Interpretations:

k. Applicable Field Offices:

Appendix VII

Other Suggested Technical References

A. Rosgen, D. and B. Fittante. 1986. Fish habitat structures: A selection guide using stream

classification. Fifth Trout Stream Habitat Improvement Workshop. Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, August 11-14, 1986. 18 pp.

B. Part 602 - Soil Classification

Exhibit 602-4 Reference materials that may be helpful to increase accuracy and

efficiency of soil surveys

1. Older soil surveys of survey area

2. Soil surveys of adjoining counties

3. Soil surveys for conservation planning

4. Major land resource maps

5. General soil maps

6. All available airphoto coverage

7. Topographic and slope maps

8. Maps and texts on geology and geography

9. Maps and texts on water resources

10. Maps and text on vegetation and land use

11. Climatic maps and data

12. Census reports

13. Crop reporting service reports

14. Multispectral data

15. River basin reports

16. State, regional, or county land use plans and regulations

17. RC&D work plans

18. Public lands management reports and inventories

19. Bulletins and reports of state agricultural experiment stations

20. Thesis of college or university students

21. Soil Survey Investigations Reports

22. Scientific and technical journal articles

23. Well logs from local or state agencies

24. SCS drainage, irrigation, and erosion control guides

25. Percolation test results from local agencies

26. Highway soil tests

27. Forest inventories

28. First draft interpretive tables by computer printout generated from Forms

SCS-SOI-5

602-82

(430-VI-NSH, July 1983)