ABSTRACT Title of Document: CARBON STORAGE AND POTENTIAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN DEPRESSIONAL WETLANDS OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION. Daniel E. Fenstermacher, Master of Science, 2012 Directed By: Professor Martin C. Rabenhorst, Department of Environmental Science and Technology With recent concern over climate change, methods for decreasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gasses such as CO2 have been of particular interest, including carbon sequestration in soils that have depreciated levels of carbon from cultivated agricultural crop production. The Delmarva Peninsula contains many Delmarva Bay landforms, which commonly contain wetlands. Five pairs of Delmarva Bays were selected to examine change in carbon stocks following conversion to agriculture and to assess the potential for carbon sequestration if these soils were to be restored hydrologically and vegetatively. A loss of approximately 50 % of the stored soil carbon was observed following the conversion to agriculture. If these agricultural soils were to be restored, the wetland soils within the Delmarva Bay basin are predicted to sequester a total of approximately 11 kg C m-2 and the upland soils of the rim would be expected to sequester a total of approximately 4 kg C m-2. CARBON STORAGE AND POTENTIAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN DEPRESSIONAL WETLANDS OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION. By Daniel E. Fenstermacher Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science 2012 Advisory Committee: Professor Martin C. Rabenhorst, Chair Brian Needelman Andrew Baldwin Megan Lang Greg McCarty ? Copyright by Daniel E. Fenstermacher 2012 ii Acknowledgements This research was funded through a cooperative agreement through the wetland component of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Many have provided their assistance, guidance, and support that has contributed to my success. Some of the individuals that have contributed the most are: Phil Clements, who?s contributions in the field as well as in the lab were immense, and for which thank you is an understatement. Also Michelle Hetu, Annie Rossi, and George Geatz for all of their support and distractions that helped to make my time at the University of Maryland enjoyable and go by quickly. Also, those who have provided assistance in the field and lab including Andrea Barker, Mark Matovich, and, Chris Palardy. My family, who may not understand why I am interested in soil and will crack the occasional joke? but none the less have supported me along the way. And Dr. Rabenhorst, my advisor, who?s dedication and support through the completion of this project has more than exceeded what I could have asked for. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii? Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii? List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi? List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii? Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1? Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 3? Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................. 3? Chapter 2 - Background .................................................................................................................. 4? Delmarva and Carolina Bays ....................................................................................................... 4? Climate Change ........................................................................................................................... 6? Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................... 7? Soil Carbon .................................................................................................................................. 9? Conversion of Wetlands to Agricultural Land .......................................................................... 11? Ecosystem Restoration .............................................................................................................. 13? Recent Soil Erosion and Deposition.......................................................................................... 14? Chapter 3 - Morphometric Analysis of Delmarva Bay Landforms .............................................. 17? Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 17? Materials and Methods .............................................................................................................. 18? Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 20? Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 30? Chapter 4 - Carbon Storage in Delmarva Bay Wetlands .............................................................. 32? Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 32? Materials and Methods .............................................................................................................. 35? Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 40? iv Impact of Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 40? Effect of Topo-hydrologic Gradient on Carbon Stocks ........................................................ 44? Deep Carbon Pools ............................................................................................................... 45? Potential Carbon Sequestration ............................................................................................. 50? Observed Variance ................................................................................................................ 52? Basin Fill ............................................................................................................................... 54? Recent Soil Erosion and Deposition ..................................................................................... 54? Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 58? Chapter 5 - Soil Carbon and Recent Soil Erosion in Depressional Wetlands Under Different Managements in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain .......................................................................... 60? Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 60? Materials and Methods .............................................................................................................. 62? Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 64? Soil Properties ....................................................................................................................... 64? MD, DE, and VA Sites ..................................................................................................... 64? NC Sites ............................................................................................................................ 66? Soil Carbon Stocks ................................................................................................................ 68? MD, DE, and VA Sites ..................................................................................................... 68? NC Sites ............................................................................................................................ 72? Recent Soil Erosion and Deposition ..................................................................................... 74? MD, DE, and VA Sites ..................................................................................................... 74? NC Sites ............................................................................................................................ 78? Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 80? Chapter 6 - Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 81? Appendix A: Site Locations and Labels ...................................................................................... 84? v Delmarva Bay Study Sites......................................................................................................... 84? CEAP Study Sites...................................................................................................................... 84? Appendix B: Profile Descriptions, Delmarva Bay Study ............................................................. 85? Natural Sites .............................................................................................................................. 85? Prior Converted Cropland Sites ............................................................................................... 106? Appendix C: Bulk Density and Carbon Data, Delmarva Bay Study .......................................... 128? Natural Sites ............................................................................................................................ 128? Prior Converted Cropland Sites ............................................................................................... 134? Appendix D: Profile Descriptions, CEAP .................................................................................. 139? Appendix E: Bulk Density and Carbon Data, CEAP .................................................................. 239? References ................................................................................................................................... 244? vi List of Tables Table 2-1. Natural Soil Drainage Classes for the Mid-Atlantic Region and the associated diagnostic soil morphological features. .......................................................................................... 9? Table 3-1. Number and proportion of quads in each density level found on the Delmarva Peninsula and the number of quads from each density level that were included in the morphometric analysis. ................................................................................................................. 19? Table 3-2. Mean values for Delmarva Bay morphometrics, with standard errors, for the 15 quadrats selected for the detailed analysis. ................................................................................... 24? Table 4-1. Carbon stocks to a depth of 1m, for the three sampled landscape positions in the natural (NAT) Delmarva Bays. ..................................................................................................... 43? Table 4-2. Carbon stocks to a depth of 1m, for the Delmarva Bays that were converted to agriculture and historically cultivated (PCC). .............................................................................. 43? Table 4-3. Occurrence of drainage class, epipedon, and the presence of silty basin fill in soil profiles for each for the landscape positions (basin, transition zone [trans] and rim) in Delmarva Bays under natural (NAT) land cover and those prior converted to cropland (PCC). .................. 43? Table 4-4. Statistics for bulk density samples collected from the deepest horizon that was sampled for bulk density in the three landscape positions (basin, transition zone [trans], and rim). ....................................................................................................................................................... 49? Table 4-5. Statistics for percent carbon in the horizons located between the depths of one and two meters at the three landscape positions (basin, transition zone [trans], and rim). ................. 49? vii List of Figures Figure 2-1. Carbon content in soils included in fine silty, and fine and coarse loamy particle size catenas from the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain in Maryland. Means for the fine silty catena were based on data from 11, 7, 7, and 4 pedons for the well, moderately well, poorly and very poor classes while means for the fine and coarse loamy catena were based on data from 5, 5, 3, and 3 pedons respectively. Data obtained from the National Cooperative Soil Survey Characterization Database (2011). ........................................................................................................................... 10? Figure 2-2. Estimate of average annual net loss and gain of wetlands in the conterminous United States, 1954-2009. Adapted from Dahl, 2011.............................................................................. 12? Figure 3-1. Map showing Delmarva Bays that were identified using LiDAR imagery, n=14,930. Gray areas represent zones where LiDAR data was lacking. ....................................................... 21? Figure 3-2. Identification of Delmarva Bays in a test area using only aerial photography. The total number of features that could be identified was 47. ............................................................. 22? Figure 3-3. Identification of Delmarva Bays for the same test area used in Fig. 3-2, but using LiDAR elevation data. Total number of features that could be identified was 169 ..................... 23? Figure 3-4. Map showing 15 randomly selected quads; Inset map shows individual Bays that were measured within the sampled quad. ..................................................................................... 24? Figure 3-5. Histogram showing the elevation of the basin of the Delmarva Bays examined (n=1090). ....................................................................................................................................... 25? Figure 3-6. Histogram showing the orientation of the 1090 Delmarva Bays examined in detail (0? represents east and 90? represents north). ..................................................................................... 26? Figure 3-7. Example of Delmarva Bays that overlap causing the major axis to go against true orientation. .................................................................................................................................... 27? Figure 3-8. Histogram showing the orientation of only those Delmarva Bays having a major to minor axis ratio >1.5. .................................................................................................................... 27? Figure 3-9. Histogram showing the relief for the Delmarva Bays examined in detail (n=1090). 28? Figure 3-10. Land use of the 1090 Delmarva Bays examined in this study. The number of Bays that qualify for each class based upon dominant (>50%) land cover or entire (100%) land cover. Natural land cover is undisturbed (within the past 50-100 years) vegetation. Agricultural land use has been ditched and tilled for crop production. Residential areas includes homes and lawns. Former Ag areas were cultivated <50 years ago. Mixed areas include everything that does not fit into another category. .................................................................................................................... 30? Figure 4-1. Carbon content in soils included in fine silty, and fine and coarse loamy particle size catenas from the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain in Maryland. Means for the fine silty catena were based on data from contained 11, 7, 7, and 4 pedons for the well, moderately well, poorly and very poor classes while means for the fine and coarse loamy catena contained were based on data from 5, 5, 3, and 3 pedons respectively. Data obtained from the National Cooperative Soil Survey Characterization Database (2011). ................................................................................... 32? viii Figure 4-2. Area and relief of selected pairs of prior converted to agricultural wetland (PCC) and natural (NAT) Delmarva Bay sites. Numbers indicate sites that were paired. ............................. 36? Figure 4-3. Schematic diagram of a Delmarva Bay (including cross section) showing 3 landscape positions sampled and an example of sampling locations. ........................................................... 37? Figure 4-4. Carbon stocks for the basin position in each of the 10 sites (5 pairs). The mean for the nine sites is approximately 20 kg C m-2. The site BT site (55 kg C m-2) was determined to be a statistical outlier because it is greater than four standard deviations away from the mean for all of the other sites. ........................................................................................................................... 38? Figure 4-5. Plot of carbon stocks as a function of relief in the basin soils of Delmarva Bays under both natural and prior converted conditions. Carbon stocks are mean values of three sample points in each basin to a depth of a meter. .................................................................................... 41? Figure 4-6. Plot of carbon stocks in the basin soils of Delmarva Bays under both natural and prior converted to cropland conditions as a function of basin elevation. Carbon stocks are mean values of three sample points in each basin to a depth of a meter. Basin elevations are a mean of three random points with in the basin derived from LiDAR data. ................................................ 42? Figure 4-7. Soil carbon stocks, reported to a depth of 1 m, for Delmarva Bays with natural land cover along a topo-hydrologic sequence; sample points were at the rim, transition zone (Trans), and basin. The carbon stocks of the basin are significantly higher than both the rim (p=<0.01) and the Transition zone (p=0.02). ................................................................................................. 45? Figure 4-8. Soil carbon stocks, reported to a depth of 1 m, for the prior converted to cropland Delmarva Bays along a topo-hydrologic sequence; sample points were at the rim, transition zone (Trans), and basin. The basin is significantly higher than the rim (p=<0.05). ............................ 45? Figure 4-9. The estimate of the ?deep? soil carbon stocks that occur from a depth of 1 to 2 m at Delmarva Bay landscape positions of basin, transition zone (trans), and rim. Both natural and agricultural sites were combined. ................................................................................................. 47? Figure 4-10. The mean mass of soil carbon per centimeter at each of the three landscape positions. include both natural and agricultural land uses, plotted with soil depth. ..................... 48? Figure 4-11. The mean mass of soil carbon per centimeter for the basin and rim landscape positions; natural and agricultural sites are plotted separately. .................................................... 49? Figure 4-12. Proportions of the Delmarva Bay landscape occupied by basin, transition zone (trans) and rim as determined from mapping of the soils at all five pairs of sites (n=10). ........... 51? Figure 4-13. Histogram of the coefficient of variation for carbon stocks among replicate basin profiles at each site (n=10), including the PCC outlier BT (CV = 39 %) and it?s paired NAT site (JL) (CV = 23 %). ......................................................................................................................... 52? Figure 4-14. Histogram showing the coefficient of variation for bulk density between duplicate samples collected within the same soil horizon. Includes all horizons across all land managements (n=437 pairs; mean = 7.0 %; median = 3.3%). ...................................................... 53? ix Figure 4-15. Histogram of the coefficient of variation for carbon contents between the duplicate samples collected in the same horizon. Includes all horizons across both land managements (n=252 pairs; mean = 19.2 %; median = 12.8 %). ........................................................................ 53? Figure 4-16. Total inventories of 137Cs in the upper 30 cm of the soils in the basin and rim positions for four NAT Delmarva Bays (natural forested ecosystems). Error bars represent the counting uncertainty associated with the measurement of 137Cs activity. .................................... 55? Figure 4-17. Total inventories of 137Cs in the upper 30cm of soils in the basin and rim positions for four PCC Delmarva Bays (agricultural land use). Error bars represent the counting uncertainty associated with the measurement of 137Cs activity. ................................................... 57? Figure 5-1. Carbon content and bulk density of O and A horizons from natural, agricultural and restored wetlands on the coastal plain of DE, MD, and VA ......................................................... 66? Figure 5-2. Carbon content and bulk density of O and A horizons from the natural, agricultural and restored wetland sites on the coastal plain of NC. ................................................................. 67? Figure 5-3. Mean total carbon stocks for natural (NAT, n=11), prior converted to cropland (PCC, n=13), and restored (RSW, n=15) depressional wetlands located in the coastal plain of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Designations using the same lowercase letter indicate that there is no significant difference between the data. ........................................................................................ 69? Figure 5-4. Mean total carbon stocks for the wetland restoration practices of plugging drainage (n=5) and scraping (n=9) utilized in the coastal plain region of DE, MD, and VA. Means were statistically different using an alpha of 0.1. .................................................................................. 71? Figure 5-5. Mean total carbon stocks for natural (NAT, n=3), prior converted to cropland (PCC, n=3), and restored (RSW, n=3) depressional wetlands located in the coastal plain of North Carolina. No significant difference was observed between land uses. ......................................... 73? Figure 5-6. Total inventories for 137Cs at the natural sites in DE, MD, and VA. Samples were collected at each site from an upland position (source of sediment) and a lowland position (area of deposition). Error bars indicate the counting uncertainty associated with the measurment of 137Cs activity. ................................................................................................................................ 75? Figure 5-7. Total inventories for 137Cs at the prior converted to cropland sites in DE, MD, and VA. Samples were collected at each site from an upland position (source of sediment) and a lowland position (area of deposition). Error bars indicate the counting uncertainty associated with the measurment of 137Cs activity. ......................................................................................... 76? Figure 5-8. Total inventories for 137Cs at the restored wetland sites in DE, MD, and VA. Samples were collected at each site at an upland position (source of sediment), and at a lowland position( area of deposition). Error bars indicate the counting uncertainty associated with the measurment of 137Cs activity. The absence of data for a lowland measurement iindicate that the inventory was zero. ....................................................................................................................... 77? Figure 5-9. Total inventories for 137Cs at prior converted to cropland (PCC), natural (NAT), and restored wetland sites (RSW) in North Carolina. Samples were collected at each site at an upland position (source of sediment) and a lowland position (area of deposition). Error bars indicate the counting uncertainty associated with the measurment of 137Cs activity. .................. 79? 1 Chapter 1 - Introduction Wetlands are identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers by a three factor approach including wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils (USACE, 2010). The wetland hydrology could be considered as the master variable, because without wetland hydrology the wetland plants would not be present nor would hydric soils form. Wetlands are unique environments where processes occur that cannot elsewhere. It is the wetland hydrology that promotes the unique functions and ecosystem services of wetlands, such as carbon sequestration. Since there has been an increasing concern of climate change, carbon sequestration has been of particular interest as a method to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and store it as organic carbon in the soil. The quantity of carbon that most soils are able to retain is limited, but soils that are very poorly drained have the potential to accumulate more carbon. This is possible because of the presence of a shallow water table which helps to promote the formation of anaerobic conditions. It is the anaerobic conditions that retard microbial oxidation of carbon, thus allowing it to accumulate (Collins and Kuehl, 2001). Also, studies have found that input of small quantities of low carbon sediment into a carbon rich wetland can help to stimulate carbon sequestration. Over the past 200 years, over half of the pre-colonial wetlands in the conterminous United States have been lost due to agriculture and development. More specifically, in the state of Maryland approximately 73 % of the pre-colonial wetlands have been lost (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007), with a considerable amount lost on the Delmarva Peninsula (DNR, 2000). The dominant land use on the Delmarva Peninsula is agriculture (Norton and Fisher, 2000). Therefore, most of the wetlands probably were lost from drainage and the conversion to 2 agriculture. When a wetland is drained for agriculture it loses the wetland hydrology. The change in hydrology diminishes the occurrence of anaerobic conditions, and thus the soil?s ability to retain carbon is lowered. The carbon that had accumulated at elevated levels becomes vulnerable to microbial oxidation, and thus these converted wetlands are expected to lose carbon as they reestablish a new soil carbon steady state (Collins and Kuehl, 2001). One way to reverse the effects caused by drainage and conversion to agriculture would be through ecosystem restoration. Restoration is the return of an ecosystem to its conditions prior to disturbance including physical, chemical and biological characteristics (NRC, 1992). If the wetland hydrology is returned to a prior converted cropland, then other soil and vegetative conditions should follow. Therefore, wetlands that have lost carbon following drainage and cultivation should be able to sequester carbon, eventually returning to levels near to those it had prior to disturbance. Delmarva Bays are a type of depressional landform, which commonly contain wetlands, and that can be found on the Delmarva Peninsula. They are similar to Carolina Bays and are believed to have formed from similar processes. The Carolina Bays have been the focus of many studies (Ross, 1987), however surprisingly few studies have focused on the Delmarva Bays, particularly in regards to geomorphology. Delmarva Bays differ from Carolina Bays by being much smaller and having been found to contain a silty basin fill material which is absent from all Carolina Bays (Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a). 3 Objectives 1.) To determine ?typical? morphological characteristics of Delmarva Bay landforms. 2.) To assess the impact of cultivation and agricultural drainage on the carbon stocks of depressional wetlands located on the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, including Delmarva Bays. 3.) To assess the potential for carbon sequestration in the agricultural Delmarva Bay landscapes through ecosystem restoration. 4.) To assess the effectiveness of wetland restoration programs in regards to the ecosystem services of carbon sequestration and sediment removal. Hypotheses Because wetlands have been found to be carbon sinks due to the presence of wetland hydrological conditions, it is hypothesized that: 1.) the soils of wetlands that have been subject to artificial drainage and have historically been cultivated for agriculture will contain less organic carbon than natural wetland soils of similar origin, and 2.) the restoration of wetland hydrology in previously drained and cultivated wetlands will result in an increase in soil organic carbon. 4 Chapter 2 - Background Delmarva and Carolina Bays Carolina Bays are geographically isolated wetlands which can be found on the Atlantic Coastal Plain from Florida to New Jersey (Bruland et al., 2003; Caldwell et al., 2007; Prouty, 1952; Sharitz, 2003; Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a), although the text book Carolina Bays can be found primarily in southeastern North Carolina and mid-coastal South Carolina (Prouty, 1952; Tiner, 2003). They are characterized geomorphologically by their overall elliptical shape that is often oriented northwest to southeast along the major axis (Bruland et al., 2003; Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982; Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a). The major axis tends to have an orientation that systematically changes with geographic location, ranging from 55? to 15? East of South from the northern to southern parts of North Carolina (Prouty, 1952). Carolina Bays commonly have a sandy rim, particularly in the southeast end of each Bay (Prouty, 1952; Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987b; Thom, 1970; Tiner, 2003). The Carolina Bays studied in North and South Carolina, were found to have an approximate area of 46 ha (Bennett and Nelson, 1991; Prouty, 1952), relief of 1.81 m (Prouty, 1952; Thom, 1970), and major to minor axis ratio of 1.51 (Melton and Scriever, 1933). The ?Carolina Bays? located on the Delmarva Peninsula are typically smaller than Carolina Bays, and therefore are generally known as Delmarva Bays and are referred to locally as ?whale wallows? or ?potholes.? They can be found primarily near the state border between Maryland and Delaware between the Nanticoke and Sassafras rivers (Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a; Tiner, 2003). In these areas where the Carolina and Delmarva Bays are readily found, they can cover as much as 50 % of the land area (Prouty, 1952) and can sometimes be superimposed upon each other (Prouty, 1952; Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982). Earlier work by 5 Prouty (1952) estimated that nearly half a million Bays exist, along the coastal shore of the eastern US, but more recent estimates by Richardson and Gibbons (1993) suggested that only 10,000 to 20,000 currently exist. More specifically on the Delmarva Peninsula, Stolt and Rabenhorst (1987a) estimated that there are approximately 1,500 to 2,500 Bays. The Carolina and Delmarva Bays are believed to have formed from similar processes. There are many different theories on their origins, most of which are erroneous, including 1.) the formation from artesian springs, 2.) solution, 3.) coastal wind and water action forming a sand bar across the mouth of a Bay , 4.) submarine formation of eddies, 5.) segmentation of lagoons by a south easterly wind, 6.) shoals of fish or whales (giving rise to the term ?whale wallow?), and 7.) meteor impacts (Prouty, 1952; Savage, 1982). Theories 1 and 2 have been proven incorrect because coarse fragments are found to be level in the landscape; if they had been associated with a sinkhole, from a spring or from solution, the coarse fragments would be sloping toward a center point. Theories 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been discarded due to fact that many of the features are generally located at elevations that have not been influenced by marine processes since Miocene times. Also, there were freshwater fauna present and certain types of diatoms, indicative of fresh, rather than marine fauna, even in buried horizons. Theory 7 (meteoric impact) is inconsistent with what are often multiple lithologic discontinuities present in the sand rims. A meteoric impact would have deposited the rim in a single event, but the discontinuities indicate that the rims were created over time through a series of events. The most accepted theory is that they are the product of blowouts, which are depressions created from strong winds removing sandy soil material. The blowouts became locations where the water table was above the surface. It is postulated that the blowouts became elongated due to wind driven 6 currents in the ponded water, moving sands to form the characteristic elliptical shape and sandy rim (Prouty, 1952; Savage, 1982; Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a). The Carolina Bays have been the focus of many studies (Ross, 1987), however, the Delmarva Bays have not been studied as thoroughly, and little has been reported on their geomorphology. The typical Carolina Bays have a major axis length that ranges from 0.5 to 8 km (Prouty, 1952; Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982) and can be as great as 11 km (Prouty, 1952). Delmarva Bays, on the other hand, tend to be much smaller and may range in length between 100 to 1000 m (Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a). In addition, over half (29 of 53) of the Delmarva Bays studied by Stolt and Rabenhorst (1987a; 1987b) contained a silty basin fill, which is absent from most southern Carolina Bays. They postulated that the basin fill had most likely originated from loess that was blown from the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays during the last glacial period and was relocated to the center of the Bay by erosion (Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a). Hydrologically, undisturbed Delmarva Bays function as a type of geographically isolated wetland (Tiner, 2003). These formations interact with the regional surficial groundwater table and can act as both a recharge wetland during the late summer months and as a discharge wetland during the winter and spring months (Phillips and Shedlock, 1993). Climate Change Recently there has been much discussion over climate change. It has been found that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which can contribute to climate change, has been increasing rapidly over the last decades and is expected to continue to rise at increasing rates over the next several decades (Raupach et al., 2007). A carbon pool is a reservoir of carbon that can either act as a sink by having more carbon enter than exit or as a source by having more 7 carbon exit than enter. Five of the major global carbon pools are the ocean, geologic deposits (fossil fuels; excluding inorganic geologic forms), soils (excluding inorganic forms), the atmosphere, and vegetation containing approximately 38,000 Pg, 5,000 Pg, 1,550 Pg, 760 Pg, and 560 Pg, respectively (Batjes, 1996; Eswaran et al., 1995; Lal, 2003). The soil carbon comprises a significant pool of carbon. The ability of a soil to retain carbon can be affected by disturbance. In a natural setting a soil can be a sink, particularly in wetlands, but if that soil is disturbed by clearing and cultivation for agriculture, then that soil could be turned into a carbon source (Houghton et al., 1983). A lot of land has been converted to agriculture and thus has inevitably released carbon to the atmosphere. Therefore, these carbon depreciated agricultural soils have been the focus of various studies in order to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it as soil carbon in order to revert the changes that have occurred and as an attempt to mitigate climate change. Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (2010) recognizes wetlands through the use of a three- factor approach that includes hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. This combination of wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology creates an environment which promotes ecosystem services that are unique to these ecosystems. One of the ecosystem services that wetlands provide is the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere which helps to reduce the levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Although the sequestration of carbon, and the resulting lowered levels of atmospheric CO2, can help to mitigate climate change, wetlands are also known to produce other greenhouse gasses such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) which have warming potentials that are 23 and 296 8 times that of CO2, respectively (Schimel and Holland, 2005). The production of CH4 is of particular concern in freshwater wetlands where the levels of sulfate (SO42-) are insufficient to inhibit methanogenisis. When SO42- is present in excess, it inhibits the reduction of carbon, from CO2 to CH4, because it is a more efficient terminal electron acceptor. Therefore, the redox potential tends to be poised by the presence of SO42-, preventing the production of methane (Vepraskas and Faulkner, 2001). Another ecosystem service that wetlands can provide is the removal of nutrients from ground and surface water. This occurs primarily through the reduction of nitrate and the settling of sediment which can remove phosphorus sorbed to the sediment (Vepraskas and Faulkner, 2001). This ecosystem service is one of potentially great importance in Delmarva Bays since they are located in a region which is dominated by agriculture (Norton and Fisher, 2000) and in watersheds that feed the impaired waters of the Chesapeake Bay (EPA, 2011). Another ecosystem service of wetlands is providing habitat for a broad array of plants and animals. Geographically isolated wetlands, like Delmarva Bays, contain many rare and endangered species, particularly amphibians. These species are able to thrive in these environments because they have adapted to a habitat that is ponded during breeding season but dries up in late summer. The seasonal drying of Delmarva Bays creates an environment that precludes predators, such as fish, which cannot survive through the period when the wetland has no ponded water, and contains no surface connection to facilitate escape or repopulation (Sharitz, 2003; Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982). Natural Soil Drainage Classes divide soils into groups based upon morphological characteristics intended to reflect the depth to the seasonally high water table. They are distinguished by the depth at which depletions are present, and in the wetter situations the 9 Table?2?1.?Natural?Soil?Drainage?Classes?for?the?Mid?Atlantic?Region?and?the?associated? diagnostic?soil?morphological?features.? Drainage?Class? Diagnostic?Soil?Morphological?Features Very?Poorly? Thick?dark?surface?horizons?(Histic,?Mollic,?or?Umbric?Epipedon)? Depleted?matrix?under?O/A?horizons? Poorly? Ochric?Epipedon Depleted?matrix?occurs?immediately?under?O/A?horizons? Somewhat?Poorly? Shallowest?redox?depletions?occur?within?50?cm Moderately?Well? Shallowest?redox?depletions?occur?50?100?cm from?soil?surface? Well? Shallowest?redox?depletions?occur?>100?cm from?soil?surface? thickness and darkness of the A and O horizons (Table 2-1). Soils found in wetlands typically are either very poorly, or poorly drained. Because Natural Soil Drainage Classes are based on soil morphology developed under natural (undrained) conditions, they are only useful in describing hydrological conditions for undrained soils. Soil morphology is very slow to change following hydrological changes. Therefore, if a soil has been drained then the morphological characteristics used to determine the Drainage Class would not accurately indicate the current hydrological conditions (Soil Survey Staff, 1993). Soil Carbon Several factors affect the quantity of carbon that a soil will contain. On a regional scale climate, including temperature and precipitation, can have an effect on the quantity of carbon soils can retain. However with in a particular region where those two factors are fairly consistent, the one factor that has the most influence is hydrology. When examining soil carbon content in soils across a catena, the values appear to be relatively similar for the well drained, moderately well drained and poorly drained soil classes. However, when one moves into the very poorly drained portion of the catena the quantity of carbon stored increases greatly (Fig. 2- 1). This trend is present because the very poorly drained soils are saturated and anaerobic long enough and high enough in the profile to substantially inhibit the aerobic decomposition of soil organic matter. Although, the poorly drained soils also have wetland hydrology, the duration of the anaer Stolt and generally of organi deep ove and Rabe S studies co be used t required (Ellert et a bulk de Figure?2 particle? the?fine? moderat loamy?ca obtained (2011).? obic conditi Rabenhorst poorly to v c matter. De rlying an A nhorst, 1987 oil carbon st mmonly m o calculate t when calcul al., 2001). nsity of app ?1.??Carbon?co size?catenas?fr silty?catena?w ely?well,?poor tena?were?ba ?from?the?Nat ons near the (1987a) rep ery poorly d lmarva Bay horizon with b). ocks, are of easure organ he amount o ating the ma In Carolina roximately 0 ntent?in?soils?in om?the?Mid?A ere?based?on?d ly?and?very?po sed?on?data?fro ional?Coopera surface is to orted that th rained and t s were obse either a Cg ten reported ic carbon to f pore space ss of carbon Bays with h .15 g cm-3 ( 10 cluded?in?fine tlantic?Coastal ata?from?11,?7 or?classes?whil m??5,?5,?3,?and tive?Soil?Surve o short to p e undrained hus would b rved to have horizon, or in kg C m-2 a much sha of a soil (B stored in a istosols, und Bruland et a ?silty,?and?fine ?Plain?in?Maryl ,?7,?and?4?ped e?means?for?th ?3?pedons?res y?Characteriza romote the basin soils e expected O-horizons Btg with a to a depth o llower dept lake and Ha given volum isturbed org l., 2003; Ca ?and?coarse?lo and.?Means?fo ons?for?the?we e?fine?and?coa pectively.??Dat tion?Database accumulatio of Delmarv to promote t that ranged Cg horizon f one meter h. The soil rtage, 1986 e of soil (c anic horizo ldwell et al amy? r? ll,? rse? a? ? n of carbon a Bays are he accumul from 5 to 3 below that ( , but numero bulk density ) and is also arbon stocks ns typically ., 2007; Ewi . ation 0 cm Stolt us can ) have ng 11 and Vepraskas, 2006). Histosols in natural Carolina Bay wetlands in North Carolina have been found to have carbon stocks of 84 and 130 kg C m-2 to a depth of a meter (Bruland et al., 2003). Other histosols, such as coastal marshes, have been found to contain 9-191 kg C m-2 with averages of 59 (Griffin and Rabenhorst, 1989) and 64 kg C m-2 (Rabenhorst, 1995). For comparison, natural prairie potholes, depressional wetlands in the Midwest, have been found to contain 9 kg C m-2 in the upper 30 cm (Gleason et al., 2008). Conversion of Wetlands to Agricultural Land It is estimated that over the last 200 years, approximately fifty percent of the pre-colonial wetlands in the conterminous US have been lost due to being drained or filled for agriculture or commercial and residential development (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). The rate of wetland loss in the conterminous US has decreased since implementation of the clean water act in the 1970s. Between 1998 and 2004 it was estimated that there was a net gain of wetlands of about 13,000 ha. Between 2004 and 2009, however, it was estimated that there was a net loss of 5,600 ha of wetlands (Fig. 2-2). More specifically, freshwater forested wetlands were estimated to have decreased by 256,320 ha between 2004 and 2009, which is more than any other wetland type during that period. This is most likely a result of silviculture in southeastern states (Dahl, 2011). In the state of Maryland, over the past 200 years it is estimated that there has been a loss of approximately 73 % of the pre-colonial wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). Much of this loss has occurred on the Delmarva Peninsula (DNR, 2000) where there are a variety of wetland types, including Delmarva Bays. The Delmarva Peninsula is an area in which the dominant land use is agriculture (Norton and Fisher, 2000), which most likely is the leading cause of historic wetland loss in the area. Figure?2?2. 2009.??Ada W structure The remo processes environm inefficien is lowere be presen microbia (Wolf an quantity expected ??Estimate?of?a pted?from?Dah etland loss s which low val of wetla that occur ent in the u t anaerobic d for agricu t, and allow l community d Wagner, 2 of carbon th to lose carb verage?annual l,?2011.? due to land er the water nd hydrolog in the soil. T pper part of microbial d lture it also r s oxygen to would oxid 005). A new an could be on (Arment ?net?loss?and?g conversion t table to mak y by draina he presenc the soil whi ecompositio emoves the readily diffu ize carbon t ly drained supported u ano and Men 12 ain?of?wetland o agricultur e the field w ge also resu e of the wetl ch promotes n (Collins a saturated an se into the ransforming wetland soil nder aerobic ges, 1986). s?in?the?conte e occurred p orkable (S lts in the cha and hydrolo the accumu nd Kuehl, 2 d anaerobic soil. In an a it into CO2 would ther conditions rminous?Unite rimarily thr haritz and G nge of the b gy creates a lation of ca 001). When soil conditi erated envir through aer efore contai , and therefo d?States,?1954 ough draina ibbons, 198 iogeochem n anaerobic rbon due to the water ta ons that use onment, the obic respira n a higher re would be ? ge 2). ical ble d to tion 13 Although there have been numerous studies that have examined the quantity of carbon present in various wetland types, there have been surprisingly few that have compared the quantity of carbon in natural wetlands to those that have been converted to agriculture in order to assess the amount of carbon that has been lost as a result of the conversion of wetlands to agriculture. One study conducted on prairie potholes observed a loss of approximately 26 % of the stored soil carbon in the wetland zones due to the conversion to agriculture (Gleason et al., 2008), while another study in prairie potholes did not observe a significant difference between carbon stocks in the reference (wetland) and cultivated sites. However, it was observed that the quantity of carbon in the upper 15cm of the cultivated sites was lower than the reference sites, suggesting that there had been an increase in oxidation of carbon due to the conversion to agriculture (Euliss Jr. et al., 2006). Numerous studies have been conducted on the magnitude of soil carbon that has been lost following the conversion of forest land to agricultural land in areas that are not wetlands. In non- wetland soils, the conversion of forest to agriculture has been found to result in losses of 20 to 40 % of carbon stocks (Anderson, 1995; Davidson and Ackerman, 1993; Gleason et al., 2008; Mann, 1986; Murty et al., 2002). This change is primarily the result of the replacement of the native vegetative community with harvested crops and cultivation stimulating organic matter decomposition (Six et al., 2002). Cultivated non-hydric soils in the Maryland Delmarva Peninsula region have been found to contain approximately 5.7 kg C m-2 (Weil et al., 1988). Ecosystem Restoration Ecosystem restoration is the ?return of an ecosystem to a close approximation to its condition prior to disturbance? which would include physical, chemical, and biological 14 characteristics (NRC, 1992). If wetland hydrology is restored, then the soil biogeochemical processes as well as the hydrophytic vegetation would be expected to follow. Assuming that natural wetlands have a soil carbon content that is at some dynamic equilibrium, if a wetland that had been previously converted to agriculture were to be restored to its original wetland hydrology, then the quantity of carbon would be expected to return to its original level prior to drainage. Most cultivated Delmarva Bays use a ditch to facilitate artificial drainage. Since undisturbed Delmarva Bay landforms are depressional geographically isolated wetlands, they would be very easy to restore. Restoration of hydrology can be achieved simply by plugging the ditch where it dissects the rim, which would require little time and material. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) promotes the restoration of ecosystems through conservation programs such as their Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) where farmers receive incentives to restore farm land to original land uses when considered to be environmentally critical, such as prior converted croplands and agricultural land in close proximity to streams that could be used as riparian buffers (NRCS, 2011). Recent Soil Erosion and Deposition The conversion of a stable natural ecosystem to an agricultural one can result in an increased redistribution of sediments in the landscape. Vegetation communities such as forested ecosystems provide rainfall interception to help reduce the impact of rain fall on the soil surface, as well as roots to hold soil in place. The biomass also provides organic matter which helps to increase aggregate stability and improve infiltration. Overall, the forested ecosystem helps to protect the soil from erosional forces. Therefore the replacement of the forested vegetation with 15 cultivated crops increases the vulnerability of soil to erosion. In a Delmarva Bay landscape, the eroded material would likely be deposited in the wetland basin area. A study conducted by McCarty and Ritchie (2002) sought to assess the influences that erosion and deposition have on carbon sequestration rates of wetlands. They observed that deposition of low carbon mineral soil (~1% OC) into wetlands with high soil carbon contents (~20 % OC) stimulates carbon sequestration in the wetland soils. This is believed to happen because the input of low carbon soil material lowers the concentration of carbon below the steady state level for the wetland soil, stimulating the sequestration of carbon to a point of re-equilibration. One method to measure the input of recent soil deposition from erosion is to use chronological markers. One such marker, 137Cs, is a radio isotope that does not exist naturally in soil (Ritchie and McHenry, 1990). Around 1952, 137Cs was introduced into the environment as a result of atmospheric nuclear testing (Robbins et al., 1978) and was distributed globally because it was injected into the stratosphere. Measurable quantities began to accumulate in the soil around 1954 and the concentration peaked around 1963. Therefore, it is a useful marker in measuring the amounts of recent erosion and deposition that have occurred since the 1960s (Longmore, 1982). 137Cs is useful in measuring erosion and deposition because it strongly adsorbs onto clay and organic matter and is essentially non-leachable. It behaves similarly to potassium (K+) in the soil (Davis, 1963), thus it becomes fixed to the soil or sediment (Ritchie et al., 1970). Physical process such as tillage and erosion are capable of causing the redistribution of 137Cs in soils. Erosion moves sediment and any sorbed 137Cs down slope increasing the thickness of the 137Cs enriched soil (Ritchie and McHenry, 1990). The general approach for using 137Cs in natural systems is to take a 15 cm diameter core which is divided into multiple vertical sections of 2 to 5 16 cm so one can measure the change in concentration with depth. By examining the vertical distribution of 137Cs with depth, one would be able to determine where the original soil surface was in the 1950?s. However, that approach is ineffective in soils that have been cultivated because plowing causes an even distribution or homogenization within the plow zone eliminating the vertical trends with depth. Therefore, an alternative method would be to take cores to a specific depth and determine the total quantity of 137Cs in the entire sample (Ritchie et al., 2007). Cores collected in locations where erosion and deposition may have occurred could be compared to reference samples collected at sites where it would be expected that no erosion and deposition, or other soil disturbance, would have occurred since the 1950s (McCarty et al., 2009; Ritchie and McCarty, 2003). Soils that have higher quantities of 137Cs compared to the reference would be locations of deposition, and those that have lower quantities would be locations of erosion. In the case of cultivated Delmarva Bays, which are closed depressions, the 137Cs sorbed to transported sediment would be expected to move from the surrounding rim and accumulate in the basin and not be lost from the system. 17 Chapter 3 - Morphometric Analysis of Delmarva Bay Landforms Introduction The improvement of water quality of Chesapeake Bay is imperative to the restoration of aquatic life and recreation. Most of the Delmarva Peninsula drains into Chesapeake Bay and more than 50 % of the land area is used for agriculture (Norton and Fisher, 2000). The region includes a great many depressional landforms called Delmarva Bays, which typically contain wetlands. They are primarily found between the Sassafras and Nanticoke Rivers near the state border between Maryland and Delaware (Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a; Tiner, 2003). Historically, a large percentage of these wetlands have been drained for agriculture. The state of Maryland has lost 73% of its wetlands over the past two centuries (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007) and the Delmarva Peninsula has experienced the greatest wetland loss for the state (DNR, 2000). The quantification and characterization of Delmarva Bay land forms could be an aid in site location and selection in wetland conservation programs. Only a few studies have focused on the Delmarva Bays, and most do not address the geomorphology and spatial characteristics of these landforms (Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a). In contrast, more studies have focused on Carolina Bays farther to the south (Ross, 1987). Both Carolina Bays and Delmarva Bays are believed to have formed from similar processes related to ?blowouts? (depressions created from strong winds removing sandy soil material) during the Pleistocene. It is postulated that the blowouts became elongated due to wind driven currents in the ponded water, moving sands to form the characteristic elliptical shape and a sandy rim (Prouty, 1952; Savage, 1982). 18 The objectives of this study were to determine the population and aerial density of Delmarva Bays, to determine their typical morphometric characteristics, to compare them with parameters of Carolina Bays and to examine the current land use associated with these landforms. Materials and Methods Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data, and aerial photography were used to manually identify and locate, and then quantify Delmarva Bay landforms with the use ArcGIS (9.2). Delmarva Bay landforms identified on LiDAR as areas that had a somewhat circular area of low elevation (the basin) surrounded by an area of higher elevation (the rim). The rim may or may not be continuous if the landform is dissected by a ditch. Some Bays overlap each other, which causes the rim to appear like the outermost line of a Venn Diagram. The Basin of these overlapped features may or may not have a continuous basin. Those in which the basin was continuous were identified as a single feature. Those in which there was a zone of slightly higher elevation (although not as high as the rest of the rim) would divide the basin into two separate features. Those that lacked a zone of raised elevation between overlapping features (therefore making the basin continuous) were recognized as a single feature. Manmade depressions, such as ponds or reservoirs, which typically have a flat side for the dam, were not included in the study. After all of the Bays were manually identified and located, a grid of 1.875-minute quadrants was created by dividing quarter-topo quad layers into quarters (sixteenth quads). Fifteen of these sixteenth quads were randomly selected for more detailed analysis using four strata based upon densities of Bays. The four density strata were 1 to 20, 21- 50, 51-100, and > 100 Bays per sixteenth quad, which corresponds to approximately >0 - 2.1, 2.2 - 5.3, 5.4 - 10.6, 19 and >10.6 Bays per square km. Quads that contained no Bays were ignored during the landform analysis. The number of quads selected for each density level was based on the goal of having an approximately equal number of quads per density level (Table 3-1). Within each of the fifteen quads, Bays that touched the upper and right quad boundaries were included, while those that touched the left and lower boundaries were excluded. A total of 1090 Delmarva Bays were examined. Within each quadrant, each identified Delmarva Bay was manually outlined around the rim by drawing a polygon for each individual bay, following the highest elevation surrounding the basin, as one would do when delineating a watershed. The following morphometric parameters were collected using the zonal geometry tool in ArcGIS: raster area, raster perimeter, major axis, minor axis, and orientation. Vector data for area and perimeter were obtained using the calculate geometry tool in the attributes table of ArcGIS. An analysis of the data obtained from raster derived perimeters was found to be a severe overestimation, with an average divergence from the vector data of about 25 %. Therefore vector data were used in all calculations involving area and perimeter. To ensure that the elevation of ditches were not included in the calculation of the basin elevation, the relief for each Bay was determined manually by comparing the average elevations of three randomly selected points from the basin and the average of three randomly selected points on the rim. Land cover was documented using Table?3?1.??Number?and?proportion?of?quads?in?each?density?level?found?on?the?Delmarva? Peninsula?and?the?number?of?quads?from?each?density?level?that?were?included?in?the? morphometric?analysis.? Density?levels? (Bays?/?quad)? Number?of? quads?per? density?level? %?of? quads? Number?of?quads? selected?per? density?level? %?of?quads? selected?per? density?level? 1?20? 472? 69.5? 3? 0.6? 21?50? 119? 17.5? 4? 3.4? 51?100? 67? 9.9? 5? 7.5? >100? 21? 3.1? 3? 14.3? Total? 679? 100? 15? 2.2? 20 aerial photography by estimating percentages of each cover class in each bay. Statistical comparison of relief between natural and agricultural bays was conducted using a t-test. Results and Discussion Using the approach described above, a total of 14,930 Delmarva Bays were observed (Fig. 3-1). However, LiDAR data were missing for some parts of the study area, as shown in Figure 3- 1. Densities of Delmarva Bay in the sixteenth quads surrounding the quads with missing LiDAR data were used approximate the spatial concentration of Bays where LiDAR data were missing. Quads that had similar topography with an adjacent quad of known density was estimated to contain an equal concentration of Bays. If a quad of unknown density had a river dissecting it, then the density of the adjacent quads were applied to the area of the quad in which Delmarva Bays would be expected to be present. Therefore, we estimated that there are roughly 17,000 Delmarva Bays are present in Maryland and Delaware. This population estimate is an order of magnitude greater than that previously reported by Stolt and Rabenhorst (1987) who suggested there were 1,500-2,500 Bays on the Delmarva Peninsula. Their estimate relied upon aerial photography rather than LiDAR, which is less effective in observing these landforms, especially in forested environments. For example, in one test area, Delmarva Bays were first identified by using only aerial photographs and then again with the use of LiDAR. Using only aerial photographs, 47 bays were identified (Fig. 3-2). When the LiDAR was used, 169 bays were identified (Fig. 3-3).Therefore, the high vertical resolution of available LiDAR data has greatly improved our ability to identify and quantify these landforms. The mean values for the morphometric data for each of the 15 quads is presented in Table 3-2. The 15 quads selected for morphometric analysis (Fig. 3-4) had an average density of 7.7 bays km- densities two quad landform reported were exc 2 (median 5. of 21.7 and s with the h s was found by Prouty (1 luded from t Figure?3 imagery 84). Two o 27.5 bays k ighest densi to be 52 an 952). Ther he morphom ?1.?Map?show ,?n=14,930.?G f the quads h m-2 as comp ties, the land d 54 %, whi e were some etric analy ing?Delmarva? ray?areas?repre 21 ad much hi ared to the n area covere ch is compa regions tha sis. Bays?that?were sent?zones?w gher densiti ext closest d in each q rable to land t contained ?identified usi here?LiDAR?dat es compared of 14.7 bays uad by Delm coverage o no Delmarv ng?LiDAR? a?was?lacking to the rest, km-2. In th arva Bay f Carolina B a Bays; thes .? with e ays e Figure?3 identifie ?2.?Identification?o d?was?47.? f?Delmarva?Bays?in?a?test?area?using 22 only?aerial?photography.?The?total?number?of?features?that?could?be? 23 Figure 3-3. Identification of Delmarva Bays for the same test area used in Fig. 3-2, but using LiDAR elevation data. Total number of features that could be identified was 169. Table?3?2.? the?detaile Quad ID 1141 649 1959 489 1847 1190 719 50 1260 1505 615 955 1925 961 1621 Over All Mean?values?f d?analysis.? # of Bays De (Bay 259 2 204 2 138 1 78 8 77 8 60 6 55 5 56 5 44 4 30 3 28 2 23 2 18 1 17 1 3 0 1090 7 s or?Delmarva?B nsity s km-2) A 7.50 1 1.66 2 4.65 3 .28 0 .18 1 .37 2 .84 2 .95 3 .67 2 .19 2 .97 1 .44 2 .91 2 .81 1 .32 5 .72 2 Figure?3?4.?Ma hows?individu ay?morphome rea (ha) M .91 ? 0.15 .51 ? 0.19 .15 ? 0.41 .72 ? 0.07 .89 ? 0.22 .73 ? 0.37 .01 ? 0.26 .69 ? 0.56 .14 ? 0.16 .97 ? 0.72 .40 ?0.26 .36 ? 1.11 .17 ? 0.42 .85 ? 0.66 .48 ? 0.72 .28 ? 0.09 p?showing?15? al?Bays?that?w 24 trics,?with?stan ajor:Minor Axis Ratio 1.32 ? 0.02 1.35 ? 0.02 1.36 ? 0.03 1.34 ? 0.03 1.32 ? 0.03 1.28 ? 0.02 1.32 ? 0.04 1.38 ? 0.03 1.40 ? 0.03 1.26 ? 0.03 1.40 ? 0.04 1.26 ? 0.03 1.26 ? 0.04 1.26 ? 0.04 1.83 ? 0.30 1.33 ? 0.01 randomly?sele ere?measured dard?errors,?fo Orientatio (circle deg 102 ? 3 108 ? 3 108 ? 4 107 ? 6 112 ? 5 121 ? 6 98 ? 7 98 ? 5 110 ? 7 85 ? 9 122 ? 8 91 ? 13 88 ? 13 118 ? 12 160 ? 7 106 ? 1 cted?quads;?In ?within?the?sam r?the?15?quad n .) Relief?(m 1.37 ? 0 1.54 ? 0 1.02 ? 0 0.62 ? 0 0.80 ? 0 1.62 ? 0 0.95 ? 0 1.82 ? 0 1.53 ? 0 0.88 ? 0 0.88 ?0 0.81 ? 0 1.03 ? 0 0.91 ? 0 2.25 ? 0 1.24 ? 0 set?map? pled?quad.? rats?selected?f )? Basi Elevatio .03 18.3 ? .04 17.0 ? .03 20.3 ? .03 9.9 ? .05 14.9 ? .10 16.1 ? .05 15.6 ? .08 13.7 ? .09 16.2 ? .08 17.4 ? .06 12.7 ? .07 13.5 ? .11 21.3 ? .08 12.6 ? .15 5.8 ? .09 16.6 ? or? n? n?(m)? 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.37 0.13 0.16 0.22 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.20 0.08 0.26 0.09 T are the S there is a to be abs mouths o The abse removing or greate previousl streams r that conta from the typically elevation he four river assafras, Ch zone, of app ent, although f the rivers t nce of bays the landfor r, streams bi y have had emoved the in primarily landscape. occur at ele of 16.6 m ( Figure?3?5 examined s that flow ester, Chopt roximately , there are a he zone wh within this z ms. Of the secting the q higher densi features. Th first order It had been vations of 1 Fig. 3-5). .?Histogram?s ?(n=1090).? from the cor ank, and Na 0.5 to 2 km few bays th ere bays are one could b fifteen quad uads, so it c ties of Delm e two quad streams whi observed by 4-20 meters howing?the?ele 25 e of the Del nticoke Riv in width, in at have per absent exten e the result s studied, se ould be pos arva Bays b s with the hi ch lack the e Stolt and R which is sim vation?of?the? marva Penin ers. Along t which Delm sisted close ds to about of erosional ven contain tulated that efore erosio ghest densit rosional en abenhorst (1 ilar to this basin?of?the?De sula to the hese rivers arva Bays to the rivers 3 to 5 km o processes e ed portions these region n associated ies are loca ergy to remo 987a) that t study with a lmarva?Bays? Chesapeake and tributari generally ap . Towards t n either side ffectively of second or s might with the ted in region ve the featu hese format mean basin Bay es pear he . der, s res ions 26 The orientation of Carolina Bays was fairly consistent and characteristic of the landforms in North and South Carolina. They have been found to be oriented within the ranges of 55? east of south in the northern part of North Carolina to 15? East of South in the southern part of North Carolina (Prouty, 1952). Based on our analysis, Delmarva Bays appear to be less clearly oriented, but some orientation was evident among the population (Fig. 3-6). Some Delmarva Bays that were found to be oriented west of south were pairs of overlapping bays resulting in the major axis providing a false direction of orientation (Fig. 3-7). Since many of the Delmarva Bays were observed to be nearly circular features, those Bays with a major to minor axis ratio of less than 1.5 were ignored during subsequent analysis of orientation to remove instances where orientation was simply an artifact within a nearly equidimensional feature (Fig. 3-8). This resulted in the middle fifty percent having an orientation between 15 and 55? east of south, providing evidence that the orientation most likely is genuine and not an artifact. This orientation is similar to that of Carolina Bays (Prouty, 1952) offering evidence that these two landforms were formed by similar processes. It was also noticed that in the southeastern part of ? Figure?3?6.?Histogram?showing?the?orientation?of?the?1090?Delmarva?Bays?examined?in?detail?(0?? represents?east?and?90??represents?north).? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 10 5 12 0 13 5 15 0 16 5 18 0 fr eq ue nc y Degrees the Delm very low more line This prov they have U typical ch were esti percentil of what w Bays wer 0.54 to 2 to 2.19 (m ha (calcu Fig axi arva Penins , Delmarva B d up along ides further formed fro sing the mo aracteristic mated by ex e for each m ill be referr e found to h .10 m (Fig. 3 ean 1.33, m lated from m ure?3?8.?Histog s?ratio?>1.5.? ula, where?p ays often o a similar NW support for m wind. rphometric a s for the Del cluding the etric. The r ed to as the ave an area -9; mean, 1 edian 1.26) ean major a ram?showing? opulation de ccur in strin to SE orie the hypothe nalyses des marva Bay upper and lo emaining, ce typical char of 0.41 to 4 .24 m, medi . Carolina B xis data fro the?orientatio 27 nsities are gs of 3 or ntation. sis that cribed, landforms wer 10 ntral 80 % acteristics fo .94 ha (mean an 1.14 m) ays have b m Bennet an n?of?only?those of Delmarva r the landfo 2.28 ha, m and a major een found to d Nelson, 1 ?Delmarva?Bay Figure?3?7 that?overl against?tr Bays repre rms. Typic edian 1.33 h to minor ax have a mea 991 and me s?having?a?ma .?Example?of?D ap?causing?the ue?orientation sents the ran al Delmarva a), a relief is ratio of 1. n area of 45 an major to jor?to?minor? elmarva?Bays ?major?axis?to .? ge of 09 .9 ? ?go? Fi minor ax minor ax S might be Bays are for this d Bays. Du closer to glacier as Therefor the Carol these fea developm in the mo part of D gure?3?9.?Histo is ratio from is ratio of 1. ince Delmar anticipated clearly muc ifference is ring the Ple the southern compared t e the perigla inas. Ponds tures, would ent of the D rphological elmarva Pen gram?showing Prouty, 195 51 (Melton va and Caro that they wo h smaller th that the Delm istocene, w extent of th o the Caroli cial climate formed by have been f elmarva Ba characterist insula in Vi ?the?relief?for? 2), relief of and Scriever lina Bays ar uld be more an the Carol arva Bays hen the featu e Laurentid nas which w in the Delm the blowout rozen for lo y landforms ics of the D rginia (Blile 28 the?Delmarva? 1.81 m (Pro , 1933). e believed t similar in s ina Bays in formed in a res were fo e Ice Sheet, ere more th arva region s, which pla nger period . Additiona elmarva Bay y and Pettry Bays?examine uty, 1952; T o have form ize and shap all three me colder envir rmed, the D being only an 600 km a would have yed a crucia s which mig l support fo s that are lo , 1979), jus d?in?detail?(n=1 hom, 1970 ed from sim e. Howeve trics. The b onment tha elmarva Pen 150-300 km way (Ives, been much l role in the ht have inhi r this theory cated on the t outside of 090).? ), and major ilar process r, Delmarva est explanat n the Caroli insula was south of the 1978). colder than developmen bited the fur can be obse southernm our study ar to es, it ion na in t of ther rved ost ea of 29 Maryland and Delaware. The majority of Bays in this region were found to have a mean area of 25.8 ha and a major to minor axis ratio of 1.28. Although these features have a similar elliptical shape as the Delmarva Bays in our study, they are much larger features, being an order of magnitude greater in area. They are located slightly farther south than the Delmarva Bays in this study, so when they formed they would have been in a slightly warmer environment, but not as warm as the Carolina Bays. These climatic conditions might have allowed for the features to increase in size more so than the rest of the Delmarva Bays but would have still limited their development as compared to the Carolina Bays. Land cover of Delmarva Bays was found to be nearly evenly divided between natural, (mostly forested with some areas of emergent vegetation) and agricultural classes. The number of Bays that were dominated (>50 %) by natural land cover was slightly greater than those dominated by agriculture. However, when considering only those Bays that were composed entirely of a single land use, agricultural Bays were slightly more numerous (Fig. 3-10). Of the 1090 Bays examined in detail, 65 % had been clearly impacted by agriculture (having some portion of the Bay in agriculture), while only 35 % appeared to be unaffected. However, it is likely that many of those apparently unaffected bays in natural vegetation have in the past been affected by drainage structures in the area, even if there is currently no drainage present in the landform. Delmarva Bays that were entirely in natural vegetation had a relief of 1.30 m. Bays that were entirely in agriculture had a relief of 1.10 m. The reliefs of these two land uses were found to be significantly different (p<0.001). One explanation for this lower relief in agricultural bays could be erosion and sedimentation following tillage. Alternatively, it is possible that the bays Fi th N us Fo fit selected f drainage D populatio previousl of LiDAR T m, and a Carolina gure?3?10.?Lan at?qualify?for?e atural?land?cov e?has?been?dit rmer?Ag?areas ?into?another? or agricultu which woul elmarva Ba n estimated y estimated data which ypical Delm major to mi Bays, howe d?use?of?the?10 ach?class?base er?is?undisturb ched?and?tille ?were?cultivat category.? re may have d have led to ys appear to to be appro . The improv increases e arva Bays w nor axis rati ver they bot 90?Delmarva? d?upon?domin ed?(within?the d?for?crop?pro ed?<50?years?a originally h greater eas Co be much m ximately 17 ement of th fficiency an ere found to o of 1.09-2. h have simil 30 Bays?examined ant?(>50%)?la ?past?50?100?y duction.?Resid go.??Mixed?are ad lower to e or simplic nclusions ore abundan ,000, which is estimate w d accuracy have an ar 19. They ar ar orientatio ?in?this?study. nd?cover?or?en ears)?vegetat ential?areas?in as?include?eve pographic re ity in install t than previo is an order o as mainly of identifyin ea of 0.41-4 e much sma ns which su ?The?number?o tire?(100%)?lan ion.?Agricultur cludes?homes? rything?that?d lief and bet ing drainag usly though f magnitud the result of g landforms .94 ha, a rel ller and less pports the h f?Bays? d?cover.? al?land? and?lawns.?? oes?not? ter natural e structures. t, with a e greater tha the availabi . ief of 0.54-2 elliptical th ypothesis th n lity .10 an at 31 both landforms were formed from similar processes which would have occurred during the Pleistocene. The Delmarva Bays are smaller and less elliptical because they are believed to have formed in a colder periglacial climate than the Carolina Bays which that could have lessened the processes that lead to the larger and more elliptical features, which is supported by the medium sized Bays on the southern tip of the Delmarva Peninsula. The identification and characterization of these landforms can aid in the identification of current wetlands and also wetlands that have been converted to cropland. Also, these data could be used to locate prior converted cropland sites that could have the greatest potential for restoration. They could also be coupled with data from other studies to develop models to predict the effects of climate change or what the potential might be for carbon sequestration through ecosystem restoration. Chapter It approxim draining specifica during th Delmarv dominate In from veg respiratio 4 - Carbon is estimated ately fifty p of wetlands lly, there ha e same perio a Peninsula d by agricul soils, the q etation and n. One fact Figure?4 loamy?p Means?f pedons? for?the?f and?3?pe Survey?C Storage in by Mitsch ercent of th for agricultu s been a loss d (Mitsch a where there ture (DNR, uantity of or the outputs f or that can a ?1.??Carbon?co article?size?cat or?the?fine?silt for?the?well,?m ine?and?coarse dons?respecti haracterizatio Delmarva B Int and Gosseli e wetlands i re, and com of approxim nd Gosselin is an abund 2000). ganic carbo rom the oxi ffect the qu ntent?in?soils?in enas?from?the y?catena?were? oderately?wel ?loamy?catena vely.?Data?obta n?Database?(2 32 ay Wetlan roduction nk (2007) th n the conterm mercial and ately 73 % k, 2007), m ance of vario n is at a dyn dation of org antity of car cluded?in?fine ?Mid?Atlantic?C based?on?data l,?poorly?and?v ?contained?we ined?from?the 011).? ds at over the l inous US h residential of the wetla ost of which us types of amic equilib anic matter bon that a s ?silty,?and?fine oastal?Plain?in ?from?contain ery?poor?class re?based?on?d ?National?Coo ast 200 year ave been lo developmen nds in the s has occurre wetlands th rium betwe through mi oil can retain ?and?coarse? ?Maryland.? ed?11,?7,?7,?an es?while?mean ata?from??5,?5, perative?Soil? s, st due to the t. More tate of Mary d on the at are in an en the input crobial is the heig ? d?4? s? ?3,? land area s ht 33 and duration of the water table. Soils that are well, moderately well, and poorly drained tend to contain similar quantities of organic carbon (Fig. 4-1). However, very poorly drained soils tend to store greater amounts of carbon than better drained soils, and therefore can act as carbon sink. The rate of oxygen diffusion through water is approximately 10-4 times the rate through air. If the soil is saturated, the slow diffusion of oxygen can result in an anaerobic environment where microbial oxidation of carbon is less efficient. Very poorly drained soils are saturated and anaerobic long enough and high enough in the profile to substantially inhibit the decomposition of soil organic matter and therefore enhances its accumulation (Collins and Kuehl, 2001). On the other hand, poorly drained soils are saturated high enough in the profile to create anaerobic conditions in the upper part, however the period during which the soils are aerobic is long enough to allow aerobic oxidation of the soil carbon. Therefore these soils do not readily accumulate such high levels of soil carbon as very poorly drained soils. When a wetland is drained for agriculture it causes a shift in the hydrology by lowering the water table. If a very poorly drained soil is drained, its hydrology shifts toward being somewhat poorly or moderately well drained, depending on the effectiveness of drainage. This shift in drainage class would decrease the duration of anaerobic conditions in the upper part, and increase the duration of aerobiosis. Therefore, the increased aerobic microbial oxidation of carbon, would cause a net loss of carbon from the wetland. Therefore when drained, very poorly drained soils become a carbon source instead of a carbon sink. Ecosystem restoration is the ?return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance? which would include physical, chemical, and biological characteristics (NRC, 1992). If wetland hydrology is restored to a drained wetland, then generally the biological and chemical processes will follow (Kusler and Kentula, 1990). If an 34 agricultural area that was formerly a wetland were to be hydrologically restored, then the quantity of carbon in the soil would likely be lower than that which the new hydrological conditions could support. Therefore, additional carbon sequestration would be expected to occur until the wetland achieved a new steady state similar to the original soil prior to drainage. Carbon sequestration in wetlands has been found to be stimulated by small inputs of low carbon sediment (McCarty and Ritchie, 2002). The amount of recent soil erosion and deposition can be assessed through the use of 137Cs, a radionucleotide that originated from nuclear testing. It was distributed globally because it was released into the stratosphere during bomb testing. Deposition of 137Cs began to occur around 1952 (Robbins et al., 1978) with the peak of deposition occurring around 1963 (Longmore, 1982). In the soil, 137Cs behaves similarly to potassium by adsorbing to soil particles, and thus it is essentially immobile in the soil except when the soil particles are physically moved as by erosion (Davis, 1963). Therefore it can be used to help evaluate the amount of erosion and deposition that has occurred since the 1960s. Delmarva Bays are one type of wetland that occurs on the Delmarva Peninsula. They are similar to the well-studied Carolina Bays in that they are geographically isolated wetlands with sandy rims and are located on the coastal plain. There are numerous theories on the formation of these landforms, however the most accepted theory is that they have formed as blowouts that were elongated by wind acting on ponded water. This resulted in a higher sandy rim and the unique elliptical shape seen in Carolina Bays (Bruland et al., 2003; Prouty, 1952; Savage, 1982; Sharitz, 2003; Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982; Stolt and Rabenhorst, 1987a; Tiner, 2003). There may be some similarities between the two landforms, but, Delmarva Bays differ from Carolina Bays in a number of characteristics. The Delmarva Bays are much smaller in size, more circular, less clearly oriented (see chapter 3), and commonly contain a silty basin fill (Stolt and Rabenhorst, 35 1987a). In contrast, Carolina Bays are much larger, have a strong elliptical shape, being mostly oriented in the same direction and lack the silty basin fill (Bennett and Nelson, 1991; Prouty, 1952; Savage, 1982; Thom, 1970). Most natural Delmarva Bays contain wetlands in the basin which typically are forested, although some support emergent vegetation. The hydrology of Delmarva Bays alternates from being a discharge wetland in the spring to being a recharge wetland in the late summer and early fall without ponded water (Phillips and Shedlock, 1993). Delmarva Bays, like other wetlands, can provide a wide array of ecosystem services. Nutrient removal occurs primarily through the reduction of nitrate and the entrapment of sediment to remove phosphorus (Vepraskas and Faulkner, 2001). They are located in a region that is dominated by agriculture (Norton and Fisher, 2000), so that during the spring when they function as discharge wetlands, they contribute to the reduction of nitrate to help improve water quality. Also, they provide habitat for many rare and endangered species, particularly amphibians, which are able to thrive in these environments. Predators like fish are excluded because they cannot survive when Delmarva Bays dry out as water tables drop below the surface in most years during late summer (Sharitz, 2003; Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982). The objectives of this study were 1) to assess the impact of cultivation and agricultural drainage on the soil properties of Delmarva Bays with an emphasis on soil carbon and recent soil erosion and deposition, and 2) to assess the potential for carbon sequestration in previously drained and cultivated Delmarva Bay wetlands through wetland restoration. Materials and Methods Five pairs of Delmarva Bay wetlands were selected for study. Each pair included one that was natural and one that had been previously converted to agriculture. The pairs were 36 selected on the basis of similar morphological characteristics of area and relief (Fig. 4-2) that were within the typical ranges of characteristics of the landforms (see chapter 3). The pairs were also selected based upon their geographical proximity to each other. For each pair of sites, three different positions in the landscape were selected for sampling (Fig. 4-3). The basin is the lowest position in the landscape and is found near the center of the depression which is generally level and contains hydric soils. The transition zone is a relatively narrow zone located at the hydric soil boundary. The rim is the highest position in the Delmarva Bay landscape. Within the basin, three representative sample locations were identified at each site, while at the transition zone and the rim, a single representative sample location was selected for each. At each sampling location, a soil morphological description was made from a shallow excavated pit, and a bucket auger was used for deeper observations. Bulk soil samples were collected by horizon to a depth of 2 m. Bulk density samples were collected in duplicate by horizon using the core method (Blake and Hartage, 1986) to the depth of 100 cm. In cases where shallow water tables impeded the use of Figure?4?2.??Area?and?relief?of?selected?pairs?of?prior?converted?to?agricultural?wetland? (PCC)?and?natural?(NAT)?Delmarva?Bay?sites.?Numbers?indicate?sites?that?were?paired.? the core m soft enou This devi diameter lengths s Bulk den reaching required soil samp deep) we carbon an glass vial grinding. sample a combusti carbon va of variati measures T sample w sample, t thickness depth of ethod and gh, a McCa ce permits c half core th o that volum sity samples a constant w 3 days. Bul les for deep re homogen alysis. Sam containing These vial gainst the st on method ( lues for rep on greater th of variance otal carbon ith its respe he duplicate of the horiz 1 m were su where the so uley sample ollection of at was then e could be c were dried eight, whic k density sa er horizons ized and sub ples were pl two steel ro s were then eel rods. Ca Nelson and licate analy an 7 %, the was attaine stocks for ea ctive mean p samples for on and were mmed to ge il material w r was used. a 5 cm split into 10 alculated. at 60?C unt h usually mples and b (from 1 to 2 sampled for aced into a ds for fine placed on a rbon analys Sommers, 1 ses had a sta sample wou d or until eig ch horizon ercent carb each horizo reported on t the total ca 37 as cm il ulk m table with ro is was perfo 996) on a L ndard devia ld be analy ht replicate were calcula on. After ca n were then a 1 m2 are rbon stocks Figure (inclu positi locati llers that ro rmed in dup ECO TruSp tion greater zed again un analyses w ted for each lculating th averaged a a. All of the (kg C m-2). ?4?3.?Schemat ding?cross?sect ons?sampled?a ons.? tated the via licate using ec CN Anal than 0.15 an til at least o ere done. duplicate b e quantity o nd multiplie horizons in When the c ic?diagram?of? ion)?showing? nd?an?example ls, tumbling the dry yzer. When d a coeffici ne of these ulk density f carbon in e d by the the profile t oefficient o a?Delmarva?Ba 3?landscape? ?of?sampling? the ent two ach o a f y? Figure?4?4. approxima greater?tha variation samples w calculate Followin locations B high quan more tha determin examinat type of D the popul years (La greater am from all a compare PCC and was used ?Carbon?stocks tely?20?kg?C?m n?four?standa for the perc ere also an d using the m g this appro (basin, tran ased on bas tity of carb n 4 standard ed to be a st ion of the so elmarva Ba ation, and w ng, persona ount of car nalyses leav the three lan NAT classe to compare ?for?the?basin? ?2.?The?site?BT? rd?deviations?a ent carbon o alyzed for p ean for the ach, the carb sition zone, in carbon sto on (Fig. 4-4 deviations a atistical outl il morpholo y wetland w hich has a m l communic bon. There ing four pa dscape posi s independe the mean ca position?in?eac site?(55?kg?C?m way?from?the? f the duplic ercent carbo values of p on stocks fo rim). cks, the BT ), even exce way from t ier. The rea gy at this lo hich is not v uch greate ation 2011). fore, the BT irs of sites. S tions sampl ntly. For th rbon stocks 38 h?of?the?10?sit ?2)?was?determ mean?for?all?o ate samples n and carbo ercent carbo r each basin (agricultura eding all of he mean of t son it is a st cation revea ery commo r hydroperio This likely site as well tatistical an ed along the e basin and between th es?(5?pairs).??T ined?to?be?a?s f?the?other?sit was greater n stocks for n and using were deter l) site appe the natural s he other nin atistical out led that this n, perhaps r d that is sus results in th as its natura alysis by an topo-hydro transition zo e NAT and P he?mean?for?t tatistical?outli es.? than 20 %, that horizon the mean bu mined in the ared to have ites. Its carb e sites and w lier is becau site represe epresenting tained even e soil accum l pair (JL) w ANOVA w logic gradie ne position CC sites. A he?nine?sites?is er?because?it?is the bulk soi were lk density. three diffe an abnorma on value w as therefor se closer nts a differe less than 5% through dry ulating a m ere remove as used to nt in each o s, a paired t- paired test ? ? l rent lly as e nt of uch d f the test was 39 used in order to maintain the significance of the pairing based upon morphometric parameters of area and relief. A standard t-test was used in the rim position to compare mean carbon stocks of the NAT and PCC sites, rather than a paired t-test, because the size or relief of the depression would not be expected to have any influence. The estimate of the quantity of carbon that could potentially be sequestered through ecosystem restoration was determined as the quantity of carbon that was lost following the conversion to agriculture. In an attempt to estimate the amount of recent soil erosion and deposition, the total inventory of 137Cs, activity on a soil volumetric basis, was measured at the rim and in the basin at each site. The standard method of sampling usually is by vertical increments in order to find the zone of peak deposition which would correspond to the 1963 surface (Longmore, 1982). However, this technique would be meaningless in agricultural systems where the surface soils have been homogenized by plowing. Therefore, samples were collected in an attempt to capture the total amount of 137Cs that was present in the upper 30 cm, the plow zone. Soils that have been eroded would be expected to have lower total inventories of 137Cs, while soils that have received sediment would be expected to have elevated inventories (Ritchie et al., 2007). Two different sampling techniques were utilized due to overlapping projects (chapter 5). At three of the sites, as well as a reference site, samples were collected to a depth of 30 cm with the use of a 1.9 cm push probe at six random points within a square meter area which were then combined to create one composite sample for each position. Bulk density was calculated from the volume of six push probes and mass of the dry soil sample in order to calculate total inventories of 137Cs (Ritchie et al., 2007). At the remaining five sites, bulk soil samples were used from each horizon to a depth of 30 cm and any A horizons that extended deeper. The mean 40 bulk density for each horizon was used to calculate the inventory for each horizon. All of the analyzed horizons in each profile were summed to get the total inventory. The reference site was a nearby cemetery that is fairly flat and has a well maintained lawn. All but one of its occupants arrived prior to 1925. Therefore, the soil at the reference site should have been undisturbed since the period of deposition of 137Cs. Samples were collected at three locations at the reference site in order to obtain an average for the total inventory of an undisturbed soil in the area. Each sample was dried at 60?C and homogenized before being analyzed by Viktor Polyakov, USDA-ARS Tucson, AZ using the method described by McCarty et al. (2009). Results and Discussion Impact of Agriculture The comparison of natural Delmarva Bays soils with those that had been converted to agriculture and cultivated, was conducted to evaluate the impact of conversion to agriculture on the quantity of soil carbon. Carbon storage data are shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Soils in the basin position of the PCC sites contained significantly less carbon than the NAT sites (p=<0.05). The decrease in soil carbon in the PCC basin soils, of about 11.1 ? 7.0 kg C m-2 (approximately 48 %) relative to that in the NAT basin soils, follows the loss of wetland hydrology, a change in vegetation, and regular tillage. The loss of carbon in the PCC basin could be facilitated by an increase in oxygen diffusion into the soil which would promote microbial oxidation of the carbon that had accumulated during the previous anaerobic conditions. Also, the change in vegetative community from a forested ecosystem to an agricultural field could result in a change of biomass composition and also the regular cultivation of the soil would stimulate microbial oxidation. T relief. It carbon be bring the expectati relationsh with less closer to carbon. H there app in the bas table wou for this p he pairing o was anticipa cause they groundwate on, when th ip was obse relief might the surface, owever, w ears to be a in soils. As ld also incr henomenon Figure?4?5.? under?both three?samp f sites was b ted that the would have r nearer to t e basin carb rved in both be located creating a w hen examini positive rela elevation in ease. Unfor eludes us. Plot?of?carbon? ?natural?and?p le?points?in?ea ased primar basins with the greater c he surface c on stocks we the PCC an at a lower pa etter hydrop ng the carbo tionship bet creases, on tunately no stocks?as?a?fun rior?converted ch?basin?to?a?d 41 ily on the la greater area ontributing reating a lon re plotted a d NAT site rt of the lan eriod and r n stocks as ween the ba e might anti hydrologic d ction?of?relief ?conditions.?Ca epth?of?a?mete ndform mor and greater area and tha ger hydrop gainst relief s. Our first t dscape, whe esulting in g a function o sin elevatio cipate that th ata were co ?in?the?basin?s rbon?stocks?a r.? phometrics relief migh t the greate eriod. How (Fig. 4-5), hought was re the wate reater accum f basin elev n and the qu e depth to t llected, so a oils?of?Delmarv re?mean?value of area and t contain mo r relief migh ever, contrar an inverse that the bay r table could ulation of ation (Fig. 4 antity of ca he groundw n explanatio a?Bays? s?of? re t y to s be -6), rbon ater n A the NAT were not (n=4) wit might ha hydric is sharp cha out the qu T transition than the N of 4.39 ? following Figure?4?6.? and?prior?co stocks?are?m Basin?eleva LiDAR?data. lthough the sites, showi significant ( h only one s ve been obse generally le nges in elev antity of ca he carbon st positions w AT sites (6 1.67 kg C m the conver Plot?of?carbon? nverted?to?cro ean?values?of tions?are?a?me ? soil carbon ng a similar p=0.10; Tab ample per s rved. The d ss than five ation, it cou rbon in such ocks of the ith the PCC .88 ? 1.37 k -2, which eq sion to agric stocks?in?the?b pland?conditi ?three?sample an?of?three?ran stocks of the trend to tha les 4-1 & 4 ite. If the sa istance over meters, and ld occur in a small are rim position sites contai g C m-2; p= uates to a l ulture. Soil 42 asin?soils?of?D ons?as?a?functi ?points?in?each dom?points?w transition z t observed f -2). This m mple size w which the s in some cas less than a m a may not b followed th ning signifi 0.02; Tables oss of appro s on the rim elmarva?Bays? on?of?basin?ele ?basin?to?a?de ith?in?the?basi one were lo or the basin ay be a resu ere larger, a oil transitio es where the eter. There e justified. e same tren cantly less c 4-1 & 4-2) ximately 64 positions h under?both?na vation.??Carbo pth?of?a?meter n?derived?from wer in the P position the lt of the sma significant ns from bein transition w fore, the eff d as both the arbon (2.49 . This would % of the so ave deeper w tural? n? .?? ? CC sites tha se differenc ll sample si difference g hydric to as driven b ort of teasin basin and ? 0.30 kg C represent a il carbon ater tables n es ze non- y g m-2) loss 43 (Table 4-3) and support a forested vegetative community in the NAT sites. Therefore, the loss of carbon in the rim position most likely is the result of the change of the stable forested vegetative community to an agricultural condition. This could have caused a change in the carbon balance by changing litter composition as well as acceleration of microbial oxidation from tillage (Six et al., 2002). Artificial drainage would not have an effect on the soil carbon at this position in the landscape as it did in the basin because the depth to the seasonal water table is fairly deep to begin with. Our observed loss of approximately 64 % of the soil carbon in the rim soils from the Table?4?1.?Carbon?stocks?to?a?depth?of?1m,?for?the?three?sampled?landscape?positions?in?the? natural?(NAT)?Delmarva?Bays.? Site (pair) Mean Basin C Stocks (kg C m-2) Transition Zone C Stocks (kg C m-2) Rim C Stocks (kg C m-2) EN(1) 15.1 ? 2.4 4.63 3.73 ST(2) 23.3 ? 3.6 10.8 6.42 AB(3) 25.7 ? 4.6 16.0 10.4 EV(4) 29.3 ? 2.7 15.4 6.98 MEAN ? SE 23.3 ? 5.7 11.7 ? 2.6 6.88 ? 1.37 Table?4?2.?Carbon?stocks?to?a?depth?of?1m,?for?the?Delmarva?Bays?that?were?converted?to? agriculture?and?historically?cultivated?(PCC).? Site (pair) Mean Basin C Stocks (kg C m-2) Transition Zone C Stocks (kg C m-2) Rim C Stocks (kg C m-2) EA(1) 6.24 ? 0.34 3.85 3.28 CF(2) 6.17 ? 0.38 6.43 2.12 BF(3) 23.1 ? 1.7 2.84 1.96 ML(4) 13.4 ? 0.82 9.69 2.62 MEAN ? SE 12.2 ? 4.0 5.70 ? 1.53 2.49 ? 0.30 ? Table?4?3.??Occurrence?of?drainage?class,?epipedon,?and?the?presence?of?silty?basin?fill?in?soil?profiles?for?each?for?the? landscape?positions?(basin,?transition?zone?[trans]?and?rim)?in?Delmarva?Bays?under?natural?(NAT)?land?cover?and? those?prior?converted?to?cropland?(PCC).? ?Land? ?? #?of? Drainage?Class? Epipedon? Basin? Fill? Use? Position? Profiles? VPD? PD SWPD MWD WD? Histic Umbric? Ochric? Present NAT? Basin? 13? 11? 2? 0? 0? 0? 3? 7? 3? 7? PCC? Basin? 12? 9? 3? 0? 0? 0? 0? 8? 4? 8? NAT? Trans? 4? 0? 0? 3? 1? 0? 0? 1? 3? 0? PCC? Trans? 4? 0? 0? 3? 1? 0? 0? 2? 2? 0? NAT? Rim? 4? 0? 0? 0? 2? 2? 0? 1? 3? 0? PCC? Rim? 4? 0? 0? 1? 0? 3? 0? 0? 4? 0? 44 conversion to agriculture is greater than the losses of 20 to 40 percent in carbon stocks of upland soils through the conversion to agriculture that have been observed in other studies (Anderson, 1995; Davidson and Ackerman, 1993; Gleason et al., 2008; Mann, 1986). One possible explanation for the greater carbon loss in the cultivated rim soils is that they have sandy loam and loamy sand surface textures with less than 8 % clay. Theses soils would have little surface area, decreased water holding capacity and might result in greater oxidation of carbon with fewer carbon inputs than other cultivated soils. Also, erosion could have removed some portion of the soil carbon from the rim position and thereby increasing the amount of carbon lost. Effect of Topo-hydrologic Gradient on Carbon Stocks Hydrology, especially proximity of the water table, is one of the factors that can regulate the quantity of carbon that a soil can retain (Fig. 4-1). The three landscape positions studied represent a topo-hydrologic gradient with the basins containing very poorly drained soils, the transition zone having somewhat poorly drained soils and the rim being better drained (Table 4- 3). When examining the carbon stocks of the soils along this topo-hydrologic gradient in the NAT sites, the basin position was found to contain significantly more carbon than the both the transition zone (p=0.02) and rim (p=<0.01), with no significant difference between the transition zone and rim (Fig. 4-7). This trend is what was expected, since the basins were very poorly drained they should contain more carbon the other landscape positions. When examining the carbon stocks for the PCC sites along the topo-hydrologic gradient (Fig.4- 8), the basin was found to be significantly higher than the rim (p=0.05), however neither the basin nor the rim were significantly different from the transition zone. Therefore, one could conclude that the artificial drainage has caused a shift in the hydrology. The shift in hydrology Figure?4?7. m,?for?Delm topo?hydro rim,?transit stocks?of?th rim?(p=<0.0 would ha morpholo similar in may also Deep Ca W typically the soil c see how m conversio density s at 1 m we in collect ?Soil?carbon?st arva?Bays?wit logic?sequenc ion?zone?(Tran e?basin?are?si 1)?and?the?Tr ve effective gy would b carbon stoc become mo rbon Pools hen studies focus on the arbon locate uch carbon n to agricul amples were re used for ing samples ocks,?reported h?natural?land e;?sample?poin s),?and?basin.? gnificantly?high ansition?zone?( ly changed t e quite slow ks to those re similar to have been c upper mete d below one is missed b ture could b collected fo the deeper h for bulk de ?to?a?depth?of? ?cover?along?a ts?were?at?the ?The?carbon? er?than?both? p=0.02).? he drainage to change. of the transi the soils of onducted on r or less. V meter. The y sampling e observed i r the horizo orizons betw nsity and ca 45 1? ? ? the? Figure?4 m,?for?th along?a?t at?the?rim is?signific ? class (hydro Therefore, t tion zone, an the rim as w soil carbon ery few stud refore, we d only to 1 m n soil prope ns below on een 1 and 2 rbon analysi ?8.?Soil?carbon e?prior?conve opo?hydrolog ,?transition?z antly?higher?t period) in t he basin soi d through c ell. and the eff ies examine ecided to e and also to rties deeper e meter, bu m of depth s becomes e ?stocks,?report rted?to?croplan ic?sequence;?s one?(Trans),?a han?the?rim?(p he basin, alt ls have beco ontinued cu ect of land u the effect o xamine the d see if the im than 1 m. S lk density v . The effor xponentiall ed?to?a?depth? d?Delmarva?B ample?points?w nd?basin.??The? =<0.05).? hough the s me more ltivation, th se, they f land use o eeper zone pact of the ince no bul alues measu t that is invo y more diffi of?1? ays? ere? basin? oil ey n to k red lved cult 46 with increasing depth, particularly in wetlands where one must combat shallow water tables. Therefore, there must be some justification in order to sample deeper. Carbon data for the 1 to 2 m depth are presented in Figures 4-9, 4-10, and 4-11. At the 1- 2 m depth, there were no significant differences observed between land uses (NAT vs. PCC) at any of the site positions. Therefore, the data for both NAT and PCC sites were combined for each landscape position when testing for effects along the topo-hydrological gradient. The mean soil carbon content in the basin at depths of 1 to 2 m was significantly higher than both the transition zone (p=<0.01) and the rim (p=<0.001), with no difference between the transition zone and the rim (Fig. 4-9). The quantity of carbon located deeper than one meter constitutes approximately 17, 9, and 11 % of the carbon to a depth of 2 m for soils in the basin, transition zone, and rim respectively (Fig 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9). These observations are similar to results from Jobbagy and Jackson (2000) who examined the distribution of soil carbon to a depth of 3 m. They observed that in temperate deciduous forests, the proportion of soil carbon in the 1 - 2 m section is approximately 16 % of that in the upper 2 m. Jobbagy and Jackson grouped soils based upon ?biome? but did not take into account hydrology. Therefore their data likely included soils of varying soil drainage classes, favoring non-hydric soils. The quantity of carbon they reported at the 1-2 m (3.3 ? 3.7 kg C m-2) is slightly lower than that observed in this study in the basin soils (4.5 kg C m-2), but is much greater than that observed in the transition zone (0.74 kg C m-2) and rim (0.48 kg C m-2) (Fig. 4-9). The deep carbon pools in the basin soils are much greater than those in the transition zone and rim positions and most likely is a function of hydrology. Soils in the basin positions sustain a water table that is often shallower than a meter. In the upland (rim) positions, which are generally 1-2 m above the basin (Fig. 4-5), the water table may be as shallow as a meter during Fi D ag winter an has a mo table is d soils. W (Fig. 4-1 asymptot soils, this different asymptot soils that soil carbo enabling gure?4?9.??The? elmarva?Bay?la ricultural?sites d spring, bu re complex h eeper must b hen examin 0), somethin e is reached occurs at a land uses (F es still occu are non-hyd n present. one to estim estimate?of?th ndscape?posit ?were?combin t will be mu ydrology b e long enou ing the mea g like an asy at a depth o pproximatel ig. 4-11), th r at approxim ric, samplin In fact, by sa ate the soil e??deep??soil?c ions?of?basin,?t ed.? ch deeper th ut, by being gh to result n carbon co mptote for f approxima y 60 cm. If e difference ately the s g to a depth mpling to o carbon to a 47 arbon?stocks?t ransition?zone roughout th on the wetl in carbon q ntent depth carbon cont tely 100 cm the depth fu s in the upp ame depths. of one met nly 70 cm, t depth of one hat?occur?from ?(trans),?and?r e summer a and fringe, t uantities sim functions fo ent is reache while for th nctions are er meter are It appears, er is sufficie he soil carb or two met ?a?depth?of?1 im.??Both?natu nd fall. The he period w ilar to that r each lands d. In the ba e transition shown separ evident, alt therefore, th nt to reason on asympto ers based on ?to?2?m?at? ral?and? transition z hen the wate found in the cape positio sin, the zone and ri ately for the hough the at in the (rim ably quantif te is reached the soil car one r rim n m ) y the bon Figure?4?10 natural?and content a asymptot B be some sampled There wa mean of of one to 5). Our c .?The?mean?m ?agricultural?l t 70 cm. Fo e. However ecause our a error associa in the basin s, however, 1.70 ? 0.03 two meters alculations ass?of?soil?carb and?uses,?plott r some of th in the wette pproach use ted with the profiles rang a much narr g cm-3 (Tabl in the basin indicate that on?per?centim ed?with?soil?d e hydric (ba st soils, this d an estima analyses ab ed from 0.6 ower range e 4-4). The was 0.20 ? if a bulk de 48 eter?at?each?o epth.? sin) soils, sa may not be ted, rather th ove. The b 3 to 1.85 g in bulk den mean carbo 0.04 %, and nsity estima f?the?three?lan mpling to 1 deep enoug an measure ulk densitie cm-3 with a sities at 1 m n content of was 0.03 ? te was off b dscape?positio 00 cm reach h to reach t d, bulk den s for the dee mean of 1.5 in the rim p the sample 0.002 % in y one stand ns.?include?bo es the carbo he asymptot sity, there m pest horizon 5 ? 0.07 g c osition with s between d the rim (Tab ard deviatio th? n e. ay m-3. a epths le 4- n, it Figure?4?11 agricultura Table?4?4.? collected?f for?bulk?de (basin,?tran M Sta Standa M Med would re When co approxim .?The?mean?m l?sites?are?plot ?Statistics?for?b rom?the?deepe nsity?in?the?th sition?zone?[t ean (g cm-3) ndard Error rd Deviation Min (g cm-3) ax (g cm-3) ian (g cm-3) sult in an err nsidering th ately a 15 % ass?of?soil?carb ted?separately ulk?density?sa st?horizon?tha ree?landscape? rans],?and?rim) Basin T 1.55 1 0.07 0 0.34 0 0.63 1 1.85 1 1.71 1 or of approx e quantity o error in th on?per?centim .? mples? t?was?sampled positions? .? rans Rim .71 1.70 .06 0.03 .16 0.10 .34 1.57 .83 1.82 .76 1.70 imately 0.6 f soil carbon e basin and 49 eter?for?the?b ? Table horiz mete trans St ? 8 kg C m-3 i stored in th a 6 % error i asin?and?rim?la ?4?5.?Statistics ons?located?be rs?at?the?three ition?zone?[tra Mean (% Standard E andard Devia Min ( Max (% Median ( n the basin e 1-2 m zon n the rim. ndscape?posit ?for?percent?c tween?the?de ?landscape?po ns],?and?rim).? Basin C) 0.20 rror 0.04 tion 0.35 %C) 0.02 C) 1.41 %C) 0.05 and 0.03 kg e, these corr ions;?natural?a arbon?in?the? pths?of?one?an sitions?(basin, Trans 0.04 0.003 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03 C m-3 at the espond to nd? d?two? ? Rim 0.03 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.02 rim. 50 Potential Carbon Sequestration With growing concern regarding climate change, it is important to determine what methods might be useful to sequester carbon to help mitigate these changes. We have observed that carbon has been lost from the Delmarva Bays that were converted to agriculture both in the hydric soils of the basin and in the upland rim soils. Therefore these soils have potential for sequestering carbon if they were restored to their natural hydrological and vegetative conditions. The quantity of carbon that could be sequestered in these soils can be estimated by using the assumption that in a natural setting, the carbon stocks for these soils would be at a dynamic equilibrium. Therefore, if these agricultural soils were to be restored, it would be anticipated that they would eventually return to the levels occurring in the natural soil. Thus, the difference in measured carbon stocks between the PCC and NAT sites is an estimate of the amount of carbon that could potentially be sequestered. Therefore, it would be anticipated that through restoration 11.1 ? 7.0 kg C m-2 could be sequestered in the basin while the rim soils would be able to sequester 4.39 ? 1.67 kg C m-2. Estimated rates of wetland carbon sequestration are highly variable. A compilation of carbon sequestration rates reported by Chmura et al. (2003) for tidal marshes were found to range from 0.018 to 1.71 kg C m-2 yr-1 with a mean rate of 0.22 kg C m-2 yr-1. Rates of 0.18 kg C m-2 yr-1 were reported in a Maryland tidal marsh (Wills et al., 2008). Studies conducted in freshwater wetlands were found to range from 0.14 to 0.18 kg C m-2 yr-1 in Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (Anderson and Mitsch, 2006; Wieder et al., 1994). If the freshwater wetlands in this study were to accumulate carbon at a similar rate (0.16 kg C m-2 yr-1), it is anticipated that the basin soils would be able to achieve the levels of carbon in the natural soils in approximately 69 ? 44 years. The area of Delmarva Bay landforms that has been 51 impacted by the conversion of agriculture is approximately 25,000 ha (see Chapter 3). Approximately half of the area of Delmarva Bays consists of the hydric soils associated with the basin (Fig 4-12), resulting in approximately 12,500 ha of basin soils that have been impacted by agriculture. Therefore, with the potential carbon sequestration of 11.1 ? 7.0 kg C m-2, there is the potential of sequestering 1,390,000 ? 875,000 Mg of carbon, in the upper meter, if all of the basins that have been impacted by agriculture were to be restored. Various studies have examined the restoration of cropland to forest and estimate that carbon sequestration rates are approximately 0.0338 kg C m-2 yr-1 (Post and Kwon, 2000). Therefore, in the Delmarva Bay rims, it is estimated that these soils would be able to sequester 4.39 ? 1.37 kg C m-2 to return to the steady state carbon levels of the natural sites of about 6.88 ? 1.37 kg C m-2 in approximately 130 ? 49 years. Approximately half of the area of Delmarva Bays consist of the soils associated with the rim (Fig 4-12), resulting in approximately 12,500 ha of rim soils that have been impacted by agriculture. Therefore, with the potential carbon Figure?4?12.?Proportions?of?the?Delmarva?Bay?landscape?occupied?by?basin,?transition?zone? (trans)?and?rim?as?determined?from?mapping?of?the?soils?at?all?five?pairs?of?sites?(n=10).? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Basin Trans Rim Pe rc en t?o f?A re a sequestra 209,000 M agricultu Observe S In the ba Although grouping the multi mean coe 13). The were mor be the res E density s still varia mean CV samples o analysis o of 19 % ( improve duplicate tion of 4.39 g of carbo re were to b d Variance oils represen sins of the D , we observ s, there was ple profiles fficient of v NAT sites t e consistent ult of the de ven when co amples for a tion. Acros between du f 7.0 % (Fi n duplicate Fig. 4-15). accuracy, w carbon ana ? 1.67 kg C n, in the upp e restored. t a dynamic elmarva Ba ed no signif , nevertheles located in ea ariation (CV ended to ha with a mea creased car mparing du single horiz s all sites, th plicate bulk g. 4-14). Al samples ha As mention hen we obse lysis with a m-2, there w er meter, if environmen ys, we obser icant effect o s, a great de ch individu ) among ca ve more var n CV of onl bon stocks b plicate bulk on, there w ere was a density so, the carb d a mean CV ed earlier, to rved any CV greater 52 ould be the all of the rim t and can c ved pockets n carbon st al of spatial al basin. In rbon stocks iation with a y 17 %. Th ringing the as on Figure?4 for?carb each?sit 39?%)?a potential o s that have hange drasti of silt loam ocks as a fu variability cluding both of replicate mean CV o e reduced va values close ?13.?Histogram on?stocks?amo e?(n=10),?inclu nd?it?s?paired?N f sequesterin been impac cally over s textures an nction of the in the carbo PCC and N profiles wa f 26 % whi riation in th r together. ?of?the?coeffi ng?replicate?b ding?the?PCC?o AT?site?(JL)?(C g 549,000 ? ted by hort distance d loam textu se two textu n stocks bet AT sites, th s 21 % (Fig. le the PCC s e PCC sites cient?of?variat asin?profiles?a utlier?BT?(CV? V?=?23?%).? s. res. ral ween e 4- ites may ion? t? =? Figure?4 collecte mean?= Fi sa (n ?14.?Histogram d?within?the?s ?7.0?%;?median gure?4?15.?Hist mples?collecte =252?pairs;?m ?showing?the ame?soil?horiz ?=?3.3%).? ogram?of?the? d?in?the?same ean?=?19.2?%;?m ? ?coefficient?of? on.??Includes?a coefficient?of?v ?horizon.?Inclu edian?=?12.8 53 variation?for?b ll?horizons?acr ariation?for?ca des?all?horizon %).?? ulk?density?be oss?all?land?ma rbon?content s?across?both? tween?duplica nagements?(n s?between?the land?managem te?samples? =437?pairs;? ?duplicate? ents? 54 than 20 %, we also included the carbon data from the bulk soil sample for that horizon when calculating carbon stocks. It should also be noted that about 70 % of the cases of very high CV (>40%) for duplicate carbon analyses are for samples below 1% carbon. Basin Fill Evidence of silty basin fill was found at all four NAT sites (Table 4-3). However the ST site had minimal inputs of basin fill in the profiles described but when mapping the soils at the site, two low-lying areas were observed that contained the silty basin fill. The concentration of the silty basin fill in a slightly lower spot in the basin was also evident at the AB and EN sites, although each of these sites included a profile description in the material. The silty basin fill at the EV site was the dominant condition of the basin, except along the edges where some sandier material had washed in from the rim The silty basin fill was observed at three of the four PCC sites. The CF site where it was not observed, had a loamy texture, which could represent the mixing of the silty basin fill with sandy rim materials. Our observations of silty basin fill at 7 out of 8 sites was greater than was observed by Stolt and Rabenhorst (1987a; 1987b) who reported silty basin fill at 29 out of 53 sites. Recent Soil Erosion and Deposition The intended purpose of quantifying total inventories of Cs-137 was to document the amount of recent soil erosion and deposition. It was hypothesized that at each site the rim would have lower 137Cs inventories than the reference and that the basin would be greater than both the reference and the rim due to erosional processes moving the sediment and sorbed 137Cs. The reference samples. in the sam Surprisin to other d chapter 5 determin make any T are prese the meas between site. Onl inventory site had a 1 The referen e region co gly, their re ata collecte . Therefore e if either of quantitativ he total inve nted in Figu urement of 1 the rim and y one site (E of 137Cs tha Figure?4?16 positions?fo represent?t 37Cs invento ce site is les nducted by ference site d from wetla , with both o these refere e compariso ntories of 13 re 4-16. Th 37Cs activity basin overla V) was obs n the rim, w .?Total?invento r?four?NAT?De he?counting?un ry of 1029 ? s than half t Ritchie and is greater th nds across f the referen nces were r ns. 7Cs for the b e error bars of the soil p were cons erved to foll hile two sit ries?of?137Cs?in lmarva?Bays?(n certainty?asso 55 106 Bq m- he value for McCarty wh an the major the Mid-Atl ce inventor epresentativ asin and rim represent th sample. Sit idered to be ow the expe es (ST and A ?the?upper?30? atural?foreste ciated?with?th 2, which wa a reference ich had a m ity of our d antic region ies bracketi e, and thus t positions e counting u es in which similar, wh cted trend o B) showed cm?of?the?soils d?ecosystems) e?measureme s lower than site in an un ean of 2526 ata set, but w , which will ng our data hey could n of the NAT ncertainty a the counting ich was the f the basin h the opposit ?in?the?basin?a .??Error?bars? nt?of?137Cs?acti most of the published s Bq m-2. as compara be reported we are unab ot be used t Delmarva B ssociated w uncertainti case for the aving a gre e trend. It w nd?rim? vity.? tudy ble in le to o ays ith es EN ater as 56 hypothesized that the NAT sites would have had less sediment redistribution compared to the PCC sites, but, even if no sediment redistribution had occurred then the rim and basin should have similar inventories. The fact that the rim soils contain more 137Cs than the basin soils means there is some yet unaccounted for factor. A study conducted in Norwegian grasslands demonstrated great spatial variability in the distribution of 137Cs. They identified ?hot spots? where the 137Cs activity was highly elevated (Haugen, 1992), making it difficult to collect a representative sample for an area. It has been shown that in forested ecosystems 137Cs can be concentrated at the base of trees as a result of interception of rainfall by the leaves and transport of the 137Cs to the tree base via stem flow (Waller and Olson, 1967). Takenaka et al. (1998) observed great spatial variation during sampling in proximity to a red pine with a mean activity of 45.4 Bq kg-1 and a standard deviation of 25.9. It is possible that pedoturbation from uprooted trees could easily contribute to this high degree of spatial variation. Therefore, it is likely that the sampling technique utilized in our study, where a composite sample from six 2 cm diameter cores collected within a one square meter area, was inadequate to create a representative sample at the forested sites. The total 137Cs inventories for the PCC sites are presented in Figure 4-17. Two of the four sites (CF and BF) demonstrated the anticipated trend of the basin having a greater inventory than the rim. However, the other two sites had similar inventories in the rim and basin. All of the PCC sites have been in agriculture since prior to the initiation of 137Cs deposition and therefore the 137Cs deposition should have occurred more evenly across the landscape. Furthermore, cultivation of the soil should have been continually mixing the 137Cs within the plow zone, reducing spatial variability. With such a small sample size, it is difficult to draw any conclusions, however, the data appears to be less variable than at the NAT sites. With two of the sites clearly 57 Figure?4?17.?Total?inventories?of?137Cs?in?the?upper?30cm?of?soils?in?the?basin?and?rim? positions?for?four?PCC?Delmarva?Bays?(agricultural?land?use).??Error?bars?represent?the? counting?uncertainty?associated?with?the?measurement?of?137Cs?activity.? having greater inventories in the basin, and a third consistent with that trend, and the fourth one having nearly the same values in the basin as the rim, it does appear that there has been some erosion and sediment transport at the PCC sites. Further examination of the soils of the NAT and PCC sites, during identification and mapping of the hydric soil boundary, revealed evidence of over thickened A-horizons towards the fringe of the basin suggesting that much of the deposition occurred in those areas rather than in the basin interior. Our sampling of the basin, however, was often done near the center of the basin where there is little to no slope, and therefore may not have been in the best location to capture and recognize the deposited materials. For example at the ML site, the basin soils had silt loam textures while the soils of the rim had sandy loam textures. During mapping of the site, a zone of soil around the perimeter of the basin was found to have a loam surface texture underlain by silt loam, demonstrating that this outer ring of the basin had received sediment from the rim. Similar occurrences were observed at other PCC sites as well as some NAT sites, which may have been harvested for timber in the recent history. These observations do not preclude the 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 EA CF BF ML 13 7 C s? In ve nt or y? (B q? m ?2 ) Basin Rim 58 possibility that some finer materials from the rim could have been transported to the basin. Nevertheless, there remains the distinct possibility that relatively little material was transported to the center of the basin. Thus, sampling toward the outer edge of the basin may have been a better location to capture the evidence of recent soil erosion and deposition. Conclusions Following the conversion to agriculture, the soils of both the basin and rim have lost approximately 48 and 64 % of their stored carbon, respectively. In the basin this loss (11 kg C m-2) was facilitated primarily by the loss of wetland hydrology from artificial drainage, and secondarily by the change in vegetative community and cultivation. The loss of carbon in the rim (4 kg C m-2) was mainly from the change in vegetative community and cultivation. No significant difference was observed in carbon stocks between depths of 1-2 m as a function of land use (natural vs. prior converted to cropland). However, in the basin, there still is a significant quantity of soil carbon stored below the first meter with an additional 4.5 kg C m-2 from 1-2 m, approximately 17 % of the total quantity of carbon to 2 m. The rim had very little additional carbon (0.5 kg C m-2) in the zone from 1-2 m, which corresponds to approximately 11 % of the total quantity of stored carbon to a depth of 2 m. Also, we have confirmed that for non-hydric soils, as well as some hydric soils, soil OC values change very little between depths of 1 and 2 m, and thus collecting samples to a depth of 100 cm should be adequate to permit estimations of carbon stocks between 1 and 2 m. However, for some of the wetter hydric soils, sampling to 100 cm may not be sufficient, as soil OC values are still changing between the depths of 1 and 2 m. 59 It is anticipated that through the restoration of cultivated Delmarva Bays to their natural hydrological and vegetative wetland condition, there is the potential to sequester approximately 11 kg C m-2 in the basin and 4 kg C m-2 in the soils of the rim. The justification of restoring the rims solely for carbon sequestration may be limited, in part due to the loss of crop land. However, the restoration of the basin for carbon sequestration in combination with the services of nutrient removal from the surrounding fields, as well as habitat for wildlife could potentially justify the restoration. Attempts to measure the amount of recent soil erosion and deposition in Delmarva Bay landscapes using inventories of 137Cs were unsuccessful due to our sampling approach. Future sampling strategies will need to address both the high degree of spatial variability associated with 137Cs deposition and also possible variations in the locations of sediment deposition within the basin area. 60 Chapter 5 - Soil Carbon and Recent Soil Erosion in Depressional Wetlands Under Different Managements in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Introduction Wetlands are critical environments that have greatly declined in abundance over the past 200 years, decreasing by 53% nationally (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). Recent attention has been drawn to the conservation, restoration, and creation of wetlands due to their numerous environmental benefits. The sequestration and storage of carbon is one ecosystem service that is of particular interest since it has been found that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which can contribute to climate change, has been increasing rapidly over the last decades and is expected to continue to rise at increasing rates over the next several decades (Raupach et al., 2007). Attempts to mitigate the rise in CO2 have been made by promoting carbon sequestration through adjustments to agricultural practices that increase soil cover and decrease soil disturbance, and through the restoration of ecosystems, particularly forests and wetlands (Lal, 2004). Wetlands are effective carbon sinks because their primary productivity exceeds the rate of decomposition. The presence of a high water table creates an anaerobic environment which results in less efficient microbial oxidation of carbon, which inhibits decomposition and allows carbon to accumulate in the system (Collins and Kuehl, 2001). It has been found that small contributions of low carbon sediment into a wetland can stimulate carbon sequestration (McCarty and Ritchie, 2002). One method to quantify the amount of soil erosion and deposition that occurs is through the use of 137Cs, which is a radionucleotide that does not occur naturally and originated from nuclear testing. It was distributed globally from the atmosphere and began to deposit around 1952 (Robbins et al., 1978), with the peak of deposition occurring around 1963 (Longmore, 1982). In the soil, 137Cs adsorbs to soil particles, 61 similarly to potassium, which makes it immobile in the soil except when soil particles are physically moved (Davis, 1963). Therefore, it can be used to help evaluate how much soil erosion and deposition have occurred since the 1960s. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is promoting restoration of ecosystems through conservation programs such as their Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). In these programs farmers receive incentives to restore farm land that is environmentally critical, such as prior converted cropland and agricultural land in close proximity to streams that could act as a riparian buffer (NRCS, 2011). In wetland situations, the primary goals of these conservation practices is to return wetland functions and to create habitat for wildlife (NRCS, 2011). The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) is a collection of collaborative projects that aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the various conservation practices utilized through implemented conservation programs. The Mid-Atlantic Region (MIAR) Wetlands project focuses on the conservation practices that involve freshwater depressional wetlands along the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, assessing wetland ecosystems and the services they provide (NRCS, 2011). The MIAR project is several subprojects undertaken by various investigators and includes the ecosystem services of: 1) denitrification (Hunt, P.G. and J. Miller; USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center), 2) carbon sequestration and sedimentation (this study), 3) phosphorus mitigation (Church, C.D. and P.J.A. Kleinman; USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit), 4) amphibian biodiversity and abundance (Mitchel, J.C.; Mitchell Ecological Research Service), and 5) regional water quality (Denver, J.M., S.W. Ator, A.E. LaMotte, and R.J. Shedlock; USGS). 62 The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of current wetland restoration practices on the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain that are utilized in these conservation reserve programs, with regard to carbon sequestration and sedimentation. Materials and Methods As part of the CEAP MIAR project, 48 wetland sites were selected along the Mid- Atlantic Coastal Plain in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. These sites were divided between the land uses of natural (NAT), prior converted cropland (PCC), and restored wetlands (RSW) with 14, 16 and 18 sites respectively. The NAT sites included those that contained mostly woody vegetation and some with herbaceous vegetation. The PCC sites have been historically cultivated and all have been recently cultivated and planted to crops within a year of starting the study. All of the RSW sites were restored between 5 to 10 years prior to the project. At each site, a minimum of two soil profile descriptions were made from shallow excavated pits, and a bucket auger was used for deeper observations. The profile that was determined by field observations to best represent the wetland area was identified and sampled for further analysis. In the selected profile, duplicate bulk density samples were collected from each horizon to a depth of 100 cm using the core method (Blake and Hartage, 1986). Where water tables impeded the use of the core method and the soil material was soft enough, a 10 cm half core was collected using a McCauley sampler. Bulk density samples were dried at 60?C until reaching a constant weight. After obtaining the bulk density, the samples were then homogenized and subsampled. A portion of the sample was finely ground on a roller mill by placing it in a glass vial with two steel rods for 24 to 48 hours. Carbon analysis was performed 63 in duplicate using the dry combustion method (Nelson and Sommers, 1996) on a LECO TruSpec CN Analyzer. Total carbon stocks in each horizon were calculated using the bulk density, the percent carbon, and thickness of the horizon, and reported on a 1 m2 area basis. Duplicate analyses for each horizon were then averaged. All of the horizons in the profile to a depth of 1 m were then summed to obtain the total carbon stocks (kg C m-2). Total carbon stocks were analyzed using an ANOVA based on mean values for each land use class, followed by Tukey?s test to separate means. We observed that the sites in North Carolina had soils that were organic rich histosols or at a minimum had histic epipedons. These soils differed greatly from soils in other parts of the study area which were predominantly mineral soils. Therefore the North Carolina sites were analyzed independently. The North Carolina region contained three sites for each land use while the remaining (DE, MD, and VA) region included 11 NAT, 13 PCC, and 15 RSW sites. We attempted to estimate the amount of recent soil erosion and deposition at each site by measuring the inventory of 137Cs. Total inventories were measured at the lowland basin position, associated with the representative profile, as well as an upland position, usually located on a shoulder landscape position. Samples were collected for each position to a depth of 30 cm using a 1.9 cm push probe at six random points within one meter of each other. The depth of 30 cm was used to ensure sampling the full thickness of the plow layer. The samples collected at the six random points were compiled to create one composite sample for each landscape position. Each composite sample was air dried and homogenized before being analyzed by Viktor Polyakov, USDA-ARS Tucson, AZ using the radionuclide analysis method described by McCarty et al. (2009). 64 Results and Discussion Soil Properties MD, DE, and VA Sites In general, the soils at the sites in the DE, MD, and VA region had loamy surface textures that transition into coarser substrata. The NAT sites commonly contained thin Oe horizons, and occasionally an Oa horizon, over deep A horizons. One out of the eleven NAT sites had a profile that was classified as a histosol, and one other had a histic epipedon. Typical colors for the O and A horizons were values of 3 or less with chromas of 2 or less, and very frequently with chromas of 1. Of the nine NAT sites, four of the natural wetlands were poorly drained and five were very poorly drained. Mean bulk density for the upper 30 cm of the profile was 0.92 g cm-3. All of PCC sites were cultivated and therefore lacked organic horizons. At six of the thirteen sites the deepest A horizon occurred shallower than 30 cm, although some were still found to have A horizons that extended deeper than the plow zone. Of the thirteen sites, three sites had A horizons that extended down to about 40 cm and four were deeper than 60 cm, one of which had A horizons that extended to 89 cm. Colors (value/chroma) of the Ap horizons varied greatly from 3/1 to 5/3, and some subsurface A horizons were darker with colors of 2/1. Drainage classes are based upon morphological characteristics that form under natural, undrained conditions. Therefore in situations where soils have been drained for agriculture, an assigned drainage class may not accurately depict the hydrology that is currently present, but may provide clues to the hydrology that was present prior to drainage. These sites exhibited a wide range of drainage classes. Of the thirteen sites, two were very poorly drained, five were poorly drained, five were somewhat poorly drained and one was moderately well drained. Mean bulk density for the upper 30 cm was 1.53 g cm-3. 65 The RSW sites were found to have been created using two different restoration techniques. Wetlands were either restored by plugging artificial drainage structures to return the original hydrology, or alternatively through scraping to lower the soil surface closer to the water table in order to increase hydroperiod. Of the 15 sites, 10 were restored with the scraping technique which resulted in thin A horizons that were no deeper than 14 cm. Also, those sites generally had matrix colors for A horizons with values of 4 or more, and at three sites, human transported materials were found at the surface as evidenced by coarser material that had been brought into the site after the scraping had occurred. These scraped sites have a mean bulk density for the upper 30 cm of 1.66 g cm-3. Those sites that were restored by plugging of drainage structures had thicker A horizons. Four such sites had A horizon thickness in the range typical of plowing (20-30 cm) and another had even thicker A horizons extending to a depth of 45 cm. Colors of these A horizons ranged between 2/1 and 4/1 with a single Ap horizon as bright as 5/3. These plugged sites have a mean bulk density for the upper 30 cm of 1.53 g cm-3. The mean bulk density for the upper 30 cm of all of the restored wetlands across both restoration techniques is 1.59 g cm-3. Data for bulk density in comparison to organic carbon in the O and A horizons of the DE, MD, and VA sites are presented in Figure 5-1. In general, there is an inverse relationship between bulk density and percent carbon. When soil carbon levels are below 3 or 4%, bulk densities range between 1.1 and 1.8 g cm-3, while samples with carbon levels that are greater than 10% have bulk densities that are below 0.6 g cm-3. Figure?5?1. on?the?coa NC Sites A the nine s Umbric e The terra the soils horizon o 0.13 to 0 ?Carbon?conte stal?plain?of?DE s mentioned ites, the soi pipedon. T in in the No were still hi ver multiple .36 g cm-3. nt?and?bulk?de ,?MD,?and?VA? earlier, soi ls qualified herefore all rth Carolina stosols or ha Oa horizon nsity?of?O?and ? ls at the Nor as histosols of the soils i region is ve d histic epip s where bul 66 ?A?horizons?fro th Carolina and one had n the North ry subtle, so edons. Tw k densities f m?natural,?ag sites were o a histic epip Carolina re even in the o of the NA or the organ ricultural?and?r rganic-rich a edon and a gion are ver ?upland? (o T sites conta ic horizons estored?wetla nd at seven nother had a y poorly dra r higher) ar ined an Oe ranged from nds? of n ined. eas T epipedon and one t NAT site horizons T containin range fro Oap hori B RSW site Figure?5 wetland he PCC site s, another b hat was a h s, with valu that had bul he RSW site g histosols a m 0.29 to 0. zons. ulk density s for NC ar ?2.?Carbon?co ?sites?on?the?c s in the Nor eing a histo istosol. The es ranging f k densities o s in the Nor nd one site 73 g cm-3wi compared to e presented ntent?and?bulk oastal?plain?of th Carolina sol, and the bulk densit rom 0.46 to f 0.73, 0.86 th Carolina having a his th bulk dens percent car in Figure 5-2 ?density?of?O?a ?NC.? 67 region were third conta y of Oa hor 0.86 g cm-3 , and 0.86 g region also tic epipedon ities of 0.29 bon for the . Although nd?A?horizons organic-ric ining both izons at thes and more s cm-3. were organi . Bulk den , 0.37, and 0 O and A hor the relation ?from?the?natu h, with one a soil with a e sites were pecifically w c rich with t sities in the .57 g cm-3 i izons of the ship is not q ral,?agricultur site having h histic epip greater tha ith Oap an wo sites Oa horizons n the surfac NAT, PCC uite as stron al?and?restore istic edon n the d Ap e and g as d? 68 the DE, MD, and VA sites, the data show a similar relationship of decreasing bulk density as carbon levels increase. These NC soils are mostly organic soils and have fewer samples with lower carbon contents. The relationship between bulk density and carbon in the natural NC sites appears similar to the natural sites from DE, MD, and VA. Unlike the DE, MD and VA sites, many of the PCC and RSW NC sites include soil horizons that are organic soil materials. The bulk densities of these horizons appears to be considerably higher than natural counterparts with the same level of organic carbon, which probably is a result of plowing and cultivation, and partial oxidation. Soil Carbon Stocks MD, DE, and VA Sites Carbon stocks for the natural, prior converted cropland, and restored wetland sites in DE, MD, and VA are presented in Figure 5-3. As anticipated, the NAT sites were found to have significantly greater carbon stocks (21.5 ? 5.2 kg C m-2) than both the PCC (7.95 ? 1.93 kg C m- 2; p = <0.01) and RSW sites (4.82 ? 1.13 kg C m-2; p = <0.001). The loss of carbon following the conversion of the natural forested ecosystem to agricultural was expected due to the loss of wetland hydrology with drainage and also the change in vegetative community and the increased rates of oxidation associated with cultivation. The loss of approximately 63 % of carbon following the conversion of the wetlands to agriculture was slightly more than the 20 to 40 % loss in carbon stocks others had reported (Anderson, 1995; Davidson and Ackerman, 1993; Gleason et al., 2008; Mann, 1986), but is more consistent with results observed in Chapter 4 where a loss of 11 kg C m-2 (48 %) was observed. One major difference is that most of these studies were not conducted on wetlands. In non-wetland situations the primary effect is from the Fi n= M si change in agricultu change in It result of carbon un Surprisin sites and effect, m mentione bring it c gure?5?3.?Mea 13),?and?resto aryland,?and?V gnificant?differ vegetation re would be hydrology was hypoth the returned til a steady gly, the carb appeared to ostly associa d earlier, ten loser to the n?total?carbon red?(RSW,?n=1 irginia.?Design ence?between and tillage. anticipated . esized that R hydrology. sate was rea on stocks fo be slightly ted with the of the fifte water table. ?stocks?for?nat 5)?depression ations?using?t ?the?data.?? Therefore, t to have a gr SW sites w Restored we ched, with c r the RSW lower (Fig. 5 techniques en sites wer This techni 69 ural?(NAT,?n=1 al?wetlands?lo he?same?lower he drainage eater effect o ould have h tlands woul arbon level sites were n -3). Severa that were u e restored b que effectiv 1),?prior?conve cated?in?the?co case?letter?ind and convers n carbon st igher carbon d be expect s near those ot statistical l factors cou sed to restor y scraping th ely removes rted?to?cropla astal?plain?of? icate?that?the ion of a we ocks due to stocks than ed to contin of the natur ly different ld be contr e the wetlan e soil surfa the carbon nd?(PCC,? Delaware,? re?is?no? tland to the addition PCC sites ue to accum al wetlands from the PC ibuting to th ds. As ce in order t rich surface al as a ulate . C is o 70 horizons and brings the subsoil (Bg) horizons near the surface. This often results in lower carbon stocks. One could argue that the removal of the carbon rich material might accelerate carbon sequestration in the restored wetland. However, the organic rich horizons that are removed are usually used to form dykes or berms to retain water or as mounds to create micro- topography. Often these materials end up in an aerobic environment, which would enhance the oxidation of the soil carbon. Similar results were observed in a study by Bruland et al. (2003) where restored wetlands in Carolina Bays were found to have 36% less carbon in the upper 40 cm than their agricultural counterparts which they attributed to grading and scraping in order to fill ditches and create micro-topography. In the Prairie Pothole region, Gleason et al. (2008) also found that carbon stocks in restored wetlands were significantly lower than their agricultural paired sites or were no different. Plugging artificial drainage structures in order to restore hydrology was the other technique used to restore the remaining five wetlands in this study. This technique causes less disturbance to the soil and has no observable negative effects on carbon stocks. When restoration was done by the plugging technique, the carbon stocks (6.06 ? 1.50 kg C m-2) were found to be greater (using an alpha of 0.1) than when the scraping technique was used (2.70 ? 0.38 kg C m-2; p=0.09) (Fig 5-4). This comparison used a small sample size (plugged n=5; scraped n=9) and it is possible that if a larger sample size was used the statistical difference may be strengthened, and therefore this may warrant further investigation. One site (MDC-R-Bs) was removed from the analysis because the scrapped portion of the wetland was ponded during the time of sampling resulting in sampling just outside the scraped region, possibly where material was dumped. The scraping technique was the preferred method in MD and DE with five out of seven and three out of three RSW sites restored this way in each state respectively. In VA the plugging such as th plugging In impacts o bulk den growth is densities surface a water. W only a few seepage w Figu prac coa usin method was e southeast technique in addition to n the soil. sities. High one of the p can also res nd groundw hen a 2 m d inches abo as observe re?5?4.?Mean? tices?of?plugg stal?plain?regio g?an?alpha?of? preferred w ern coastal p depression removing th The use of h bulk densiti rimary met ult in perchi ater tables. eep well wa ve the pond d entering th total?carbon?st ing?drainage?(n n?of?DE,?MD,?a 0.1.? ith only on lain, the scr al wetland r e carbon, th eavy machi es can inhib hods by whi ng of water This was ob s created ju , no water t e well throu 71 ocks?for?the?w =5)?and?scrap nd?VA.?Means e out of four aping techn estorations ( e scraping t nery also ca it root grow ch carbon is and create a served at tw st beyond th able was ob gh the surfa etland?restora ing?(n=9)?utiliz ?were?statistic sites being ique is not u DeSteven, 2 echnique ca uses compac th (Shierlaw added to w hydrologic o restored s e edge of th served, altho ce (A) horiz tion? ed?in?the? ally?different? scraped. In tilized wher 011). n have othe tion resultin and Alston etland soils al disconnec ites that con e pond, at a ugh within ons. Some other region e they prefe r negative g in elevate , 1984), and . Elevated b t between th tained pond n elevation o the well, so of the surfac s r the d root ulk e ed f me e A 72 horizons were human transported materials brought in after scraping, and usually consisted of loamy sand material. Therefore, these coarse-textured materials were not ponded due to surface sealing, but rather the water table was perched over a soil layer that had been compacted from the heavy machinery used to ?restore? the wetland. This raises the question of whether these sites should be considered to be successfully restored since none of the NAT sites in the study had perched water tables but rather were fed by groundwater. Therefore these restored sites do not technically have pre-disturbance hydrologic conditions which is a requirement for ?restored? wetlands (SWS, 2000). The shallow perched water table in these systems also affects other wetland functions, such as denitrification, because it limits the depth of the anaerobic zone beneath the wetland and impedes the movements of groundwater into and out of the wetland. Therefore adjustments should be made to ensure that wetland restoration is accomplished using less destructive methods to promote wetland hydrologic conditions without removing the carbon that is present and maintaining hydrological connectivity with the groundwater. NC Sites In NC, the soil carbon stocks between the NAT (73.3 ? 27.4 kg C m-2), PCC (75.5 ? 4.5 kg C m-2), and RSW sites (114.6 ? 42.6 kg C m-2) were not to found to differ significantly (Fig. 5-5), although, the effects of land use were observable in properties of the upper horizons (bulk density and mass of carbon per centimeter). Typical bulk densities of undisturbed organic horizons are about 0.1-0.2 g cm-3 (Bruland et al., 2003; Caldwell et al., 2007; Ewing and Vepraskas, 2006). This means that even the natural sites, with bulk densities of 0.13-0.36 g cm-3 have likely experienced some degree of subsidence, probably due to drainage ditches in near proximity to the natural sites (Daniel, 1980). Nonetheless the NAT sites have not been impacted Fi n= Ca to the sam cm-3 in th surface p PC-MT) (Ap). Th dewaterin and Vepr have lost T However carbon le gure?5?5.?Mea 3),?and?restor rolina.?No?sig e degree as e surface pl low layer (O the surface h erefore, ther g, as well a askas, 2006 carbon follo he carbon st , when the s vels (percen n?total?carbon ed?(RSW,?n=3) nificant?differe those that h owed horizo ap) than in orizon appe e is evidenc s secondary ), have occu wing the co ocks of the oil propertie t) in the sur ?stocks?for?nat ?depressional? nce?was?obser ave been cu ns. All thre the immedia ars to have e that sugge subsidence rred in the P nversion to RSW were n s were exam face horizon 73 ural?(NAT,?n=3 wetlands?locat ved?between? ltivated, wh e PCC sites tely underly lost enough sts that prim caused by lo CC sites. T agriculture. ot significa ined two o s relative to ),?prior?conver ed?in?the?coas land?uses.? ich have bu have a lowe ing horizon carbon that ary subside ss of carbo hus, one co ntly differen f the three R the immedi ted?to?croplan tal?plain?of?No lk densities r percent ca (Oa), and i it now is a m nce and com n due to oxi uld infer tha t from the P SW sites ha ately subjac d?(PCC,? rth? of 0.73-0.86 rbon in the n one case ( ineral hori paction due dation (Ewin t these sites CC sites. d elevated ent horizon g NC- zon to g may s and 74 bulk densities in these surface horizons (0.29, 0.57, and 0.73 g cm-3) were lower than those of soils in the PCC sites. Recent Soil Erosion and Deposition MD, DE, and VA Sites The intended purpose of quantifying the total inventories of 137Cs was to document the occurrence of recent soil erosion and deposition. It was hypothesized that at each site, the upland position would have lower 137Cs inventories than the reference and that the lowland position would have greater 137Cs inventories than both the reference site and the upland position due to the erosion of sediment which carries the sorbed 137Cs. Surprisingly, nearly every sample analyzed was greater than the reference site which had an inventory of 1029 ? 106 Bq m-2. The inventories of our reference site are less than half the value (2526 Bq m-2) for a reference site in an unpublished study that was conducted in the same region by Ritchie and McCarty, which is more comparable to the rest of the data set. Therefore, we conclude that there must have been some kind of soil disturbance at the cemetery in the recent history causing this abnormally low level of 137Cs. Total 137Cs inventories for the upland and lowland positions for the eleven NAT sites from DE, MD, and VA are shown in Figure 5-6. Six of the eleven sites had inventories that were similar in both the upland and the lowland positions (MDC-N-AB, MDC-N-BC, MDD-N-CF, MDQA-N-AF, VASH-N-CD, and VASX-N-TNC1) (Fig. 5-6). Similar inventories are defined by overlapping error bars for the upland and lowland sample at a site. The error bars represent the counting uncertainty associated with the measurement of 137Cs activity. Two NAT sites had higher inventories in the lowland than the upland (DENC-N-BB and MDC-N-BeW), while three 75 Figure?5?6.?Total?inventories?for?137Cs?at?the?natural?sites?in?DE,?MD,?and?VA.??Samples?were?collected?at?each? site?from?an?upland?position?(source?of?sediment)?and?a?lowland?position?(area?of?deposition).??Error?bars? indicate?the?counting?uncertainty?associated?with?the?measurment?of?137Cs?activity.? sites had lower inventories in the basin (MDC-N-JL, MDT-N-SD, and VASX-N-TNC2) than the upland. In the NAT sites, it was anticipated that there would be little movement of sediment due to the continuous presence of a stable vegetative community. However, it was not anticipated that there would be any sites with greater inventories in the upland position than the lowland, because even if no erosion had occurred they should at least be comparable. These NAT ecosystems have been forested since before the deposition of 137Cs occurred. Therefore, this forces the question of how such data could be obtained from a stable forested ecosystem. A study conducted in Norway on grasslands demonstrated great spatial variation in 137Cs distribution, including ?hot spots? (Haugen, 1992), which led to the conclusion that it would be difficult to get a representative sample in a small area. The spatial variability could be even greater in a forested ecosystem, such as is in this study. Pedoturbation from uprooted trees and also the concentration of 137Cs at the base of trees from stem flow during deposition (Waller and 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 D EN C? N ?B B M D C? N ?A B M D C? N ?B C M D C? N ?B eW M D C? N ?J L M D D ?N ?C F M D Q A ?N ?A F M D T? N ?S D VA SH ?N ?C D VA Sx ?N ?T N C1 VA SX ?N ?T N C2 13 7 C s? In ve nt or y? (B q? /? m 2 to ?3 0? cm ) Lowland Upland 76 Olson, 1967) could increase spatial variation. In a study conducted by Takenaka et al. (1998) samples collected in spatial proximity to a red pine had a mean activity of 45.4 Bq kg-1 had a standard deviation of 25.9. Therefore, it is our conclusion that the sampling design we used in the NAT sites, a composite of six cores taken in a square meter area, was too small an area and too few samples, from which to capture a representative sample. Total 137Cs inventories for the PCC sites in DE, MD, and VA are presented in Figure 5-7. It was hypothesized that in the PCC sites where erosional processes would be more active causing redistribution, that greater quantities of 137Cs would be observed in the lowland position than in the upland position. At six of the 13 sites, the 137Cs inventories were similar in the upland and lowland positions. In one site, 137Cs levels were lower in the lowland. Only in 6 of the 13 PCC sites did 137Cs inventories follow the expected trend with greater values in the lowland than the upland. It was anticipated that the 137Cs inventory of the upland samples would Figure?5?7.?Total?inventories?for?137Cs?at?the?prior?converted?to?cropland?sites?in?DE,?MD,?and?VA.??Samples? were?collected?at?each?site?from?an?upland?position?(source?of?sediment)?and?a?lowland?position?(area?of? deposition).??Error?bars?indicate?the?counting?uncertainty?associated?with?the?measurment?of?137Cs?activity.? 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 D EK ?P C? M e D EK ?P C? Rs M D C? PC ??H s M D C? PC ?B eF M D C? PC ?C r M D D ?P C? Br M D D ?P C? Kp M D Q A ?P C? Ss VA SH ?P C? Bn VA SH ?P C? Bs VA SK ?P C? Cd VA SX ?P C? Bn D EK ?P C? St n 13 7? Cs ?In ve nt or y? (B q? /? m 2 to ?3 0? cm ) Lowland Upland 77 be lower than the reference site, and the lowland samples would be greater (Ritchie et al., 2007). However only two sites fit that trend. All of the PCC sites have been in agriculture for longer than 60 years, most likely for a century or more. Therefore the deposition of 137Cs should have occurred in the absence of trees and therefore should have occurred more evenly across the landscape. However, according to Haugen (1992), a square meter area may have been too small of an area to provide a representative sample in a grassland ecosystem. Therefore there is still a lot of spatial variability even in the absence of trees. Another confounding factor is that at some of the sites, A-horizons extended deeper than 30 cm. Therefore by having a fixed sampling depth of 30 cm, some of the 137Cs may have been missed and therefore may have resulted in some of the lowland values being lower than they should have been. Figure?5?8.?Total?inventories?for?137Cs?at?the?restored?wetland?sites?in?DE,?MD,?and?VA.??Samples?were? collected?at?each?site?at?an?upland?position?(source?of?sediment),?and?at?a?lowland?position(?area?of? deposition).??Error?bars?indicate?the?counting?uncertainty?associated?with?the?measurment?of?137Cs? activity.??The?absence?of?data?for?a?lowland?measurement?iindicate?that?the?inventory?was?zero.? 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 D EK ?R ?J r M D C? R? Bs M D C? R? JL M D D ?R ?W n M D Q A ?R ?E n M D Q A ?R ?S s VA SH ?R ?B n VA SH ?R ?B s VA SK ?R ?C d 13 7? Cs ?In ve nt or y? (B q? /? m 2 to ?3 0? cm ) Lowland Upland 78 Total 137Cs inventories for the RSW in DE, MD, and VA are presented in Figure 5-8. Before analysis, 6 of the 15 RSW sites were removed because it was known that the soil at the sites had been disturbed in the restoration process. Thus, only 9 of the 15 total RSW sites were analyzed. At 4 of the 9 sites similar 137Cs inventories were observed at in both upland and lowland positions (DEK-R-Jr, MDC-R-Bs, MDQA-R-En, and VASH-R-Bs). In the remaining five sites, the 137Cs inventories were greater at the upland than lowland position, contrary to expectation. At two of these five RSW sites that were analyzed (MDC-R-JL and MDQA-R-Ss), no measurable 137Cs was observed in the lowland. At both of these sites there was evidence of disturbance from the restoration process. The other three sites which had less 137Cs in the lowland, may have been disturbed, although the disturbance is not nearly as great as the other two sites, where essentially the A-horizons were entirely stripped from the sites. With no RSW sites following the anticipated trend of greater inventories in the lowland position, including those restored by plugging rather than scraping, one is forced to consider the adequacy of the sampling technique and strategy in light of the issue of spatial variability. NC Sites Total 137Cs inventories for the NC Region for the NAT, PCC, and RSW sites are presented in Figure 5-9. One of the RSW sites was removed prior to analysis due to known disturbance that occurred during the restoration. Therefore, the analysis consisted of three NAT, three PCC, and two RSW sites. As stated before, the expected trend is that there would be lower inventories in the upland areas and elevated inventories in the lowland. Only a single site among all of the NC sites followed that trend, and in fact, the values for the two positions at that site were similar. The other 7 sites had 137Cs inventories that were greater in the upland. The Figure?5 wetland sedime associa proportio DE, MD, phenome areas of s as at thes inventori Haugen ( Carolina further em of 137Cs i ?9.?Total?inve ?sites?(RSW)?i nt)?and?a?lowla ted?with?the?m n of sites w and VA wh non occurrin lightly high e sites, has n es were obs 1992) had o Region rais phasizes th n organic so ntories?for?137C n?North?Caroli nd?position?(a easurment?of ith inventori ere the soils g in these o er topograph ot been tho erved at som bserved. Th ed more que e necessity ils, in order s?at?prior?conv na.??Samples?w rea?of?deposit ?137Cs?activity. es that are g were mostl rganic soils y. The appl roughly stud e of these s e analysis o stions than i for further s to improve 79 erted?to?cropl ere?collected? ion).??Error?ba reater in the y mineral. T where 137Cs ication of 13 ied. Also, s ites. These f recent soil t answered. tudy of both the applicat and?(PCC),?nat at?each?site?at rs?indicate?the upland wer hus, one m is mobilize 7Cs method ome unusua may be ?hot erosion and Neverthele spatial vari ion. ural?(NAT),?an ?an?upland?pos ?counting?unce e not nearly ust wonder d and transp ologies in or lly elevated spots? simi deposition ss, this conf ability and a d?restored? ition?(source?o rtainty? so lop sided if there is a orted to the ganic soils, activities a lar to what in the North ounding dat lso the beh f? in such nd a avior 80 Conclusions The drainage and conversion of wetlands to agriculture has great impacts on soil carbon stocks, as seen in the Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia sites with an observed loss of 13.5 kg C m-2, or a loss of approximately 63% of the stored soil carbon. However, the popular practice in these areas of restoring wetlands by scraping the soil to bring the surface closer to the groundwater appears to be ineffective in sequestering carbon and may have negative impacts on other wetland ecosystem services. Therefore alternative methods to restore wetlands, such as plugging of drainage structures which causes less site disturbance, should be used to promote the effective restoration of wetlands for soil related ecosystem services. The goal of quantifying recent soil erosion and deposition using 137Cs proved to be problematic. The irregular data suggests that the sampling strategy used was unsuitable given the amount spatial variability of 137Cs in soils of the region. This study has emphasized the need for more research in order to improve our understanding of the spatial distribution of 137Cs, in the soil, especially in forested ecosystems. 81 Chapter 6 - Conclusions The identification and quantification of Delmarva Bay landforms, which commonly contain wetlands, can enhance our environmental and conservation efforts. Using available LiDAR data, Delmarva Bays on the Delmarva Peninsula were identified and counted. The approximately 17,000 Delmarva Bays estimated to occur on the Delmarva Peninsula is about an order of magnitude greater than previous estimates. A representative subset of Delmarva Bays (about 6.5 % of the population) was selected for morphometric analysis. Eighty percent of these depressions were found to have an area ranging between 0.41 to 4.94 ha, vertical relief ranging between 0.54 to 2.10 m, and a major to minor axis ratio between 1.09 to 2.19. Also within this sampled subset, it was observed, based on aerial photography, that approximately 65 % of the Delmarva Bays have been impacted by agriculture by currently having some portion of the land form under agricultural production. Using the morphometric data as a guide, pairs of Delmarva Bay wetlands were selected to compare the impact of agriculture and drainage on soil carbon storage. Each pair included one natural wetland and one drained wetland that was previously converted to agriculture that were similar in area and in relief, and were in geographic proximity to each other. The drainage and conversion of Delmarva Bay wetlands to agriculture appeared to lower the soil carbon stocks in both the wetland basin soils and in the upland rim soils. In the basin, approximately 48% of the soil carbon was lost following the conversion to agriculture. Also as part of this thesis project, the carbon stocks in 48 depressional wetlands in the mid-Atlantic coastal plain between DE and NC (14 natural, 16 prior converted to cropland, 18 restored) were documented and compared (Mid-Atlantic Conservation Effects Assessment Program ? CEAP). A loss of approximately 63 % of the soil carbon was also observed in the 82 CEAP wetlands following their conversion to agriculture. The loss of soil carbon following conversion of wetlands to agriculture can primarily be attributed to the loss of wetland hydrology. Nevertheless, the change from a forested vegetative community to cultivated agriculture with stimulated rates of microbial oxidation from cultivation could have also occurred in the wetlands. There was no significant hydrologic change on the rims during the conversion to agriculture, but a loss of approximately 64 % of the soil carbon was observed as a result in a change of the vegetative community and cultivation. With recent concern over climate change, interest has grown in finding ways to reduce atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2. One possible way to accomplish this is through the restoration of soils that have lost carbon following the conversion to agriculture, particularly wetlands where the carbon lost following artificial drainage is especially high. In these soils, were the natural hydrology and vegetation returned through restoration processes, one could expect soil carbon to be sequestered. Following the assumption that these soils would eventually return to the levels of soil carbon they had prior to disturbance (conversion to agriculture) one could predict the potential for carbon sequestration for these soils. Based on this study, we estimate that restoration of wetland hydrology and natural vegetation in Delmarva Bay landscapes, could result in sequestration of approximately 11 kg C m-2 in the basin soils and 4 kg C m-2 in the soils of the rim. Based on our observations in the CEAP study, similar levels of potential carbon sequestration (14 kg C m-2) through wetland restoration are predicted. Surprisingly, in the CEAP study, which also examined carbon stocks of wetlands restored 5 to 10 years ago, there was no significant increase in the C stocks relative to those converted to agriculture. The primary reason for this seems related to the restoration technique (used in 2/3 of the sites) where the soil surface was removed during excavations to bring the water table closer 83 to the soil surface, but which also removes the carbon-rich surface soil, and creates a deficit in the soil C stocks. This technique also compacts the soil which impedes root growth, limiting C contributions to the soil. We propose that this technique should be discontinued for restoration of wetlands in favor of the technique of plugging existing drainage ditches which has no detrimental impact on the soil C stocks. A second possible reason for the lack of significant difference in C stocks between restored and prior converted cropland in the CEAP project is that these restoration projects were only five to ten years old, which simply may not be long enough for the effects of restoration to be observed on C sequestration. Both of the Delmarva Bay and CEAP field studies included a component that attempted to examine the quantity of recent soil erosion and deposition using inventories of 137Cs. In both studies, we were unable to draw any conclusions on the quantity of sediment that had been redistributed in the landscape. However, the results did illustrate the need for better understanding of the spatial variability of 137Cs, particularly in forested ecosystems. The results in the NC region also posed other questions about the behavior of 137Cs in organic soils where seven of eight sites had greater inventories in the upland areas as well as some unusually high inventories. 84 Appendix A: Site Locations and Labels ? Sites?associated?with?the?CEAP?project?are?under?a?confidentiality?agreement?with?the?landowner?which?inhibits?the? publication?of?site?locations?and?landowner?information.? ? ? Four?sites?are?shared?between?the?Delmarva?Bay?carbon?study?and?the?CEAP?depressional?wetland?study.??The? following?table?shows?the?designation?used?for?each?site,?and?the?profiles?that?overlapped?for?carbon?analysis.? ? CEAP?Site?Label? CEAP?Profile?Label? Delmarva?Bay?Label? Delmarva?Bay?Profile? Label? MDC?PC?Cr? A? CF? DB1? MDC?PC?BeF? A? BF? DB1? MDC?N?AB? A? AB? DB1? MDC?N?JL? A? JL? DB1? Delmarva Bay Study Sites ? The?sites?for?the?Delmarva?Bay?carbon?study?has?two?letters?followed?by?a?DB?and?a?number.??The?first?two?letters? corresponds?to?the?site.??The?DB?corresponds?the?Delmarva?Bay?study,?and?the?number?(ex.?EN?DB1)?that?follows?indicates?the? landscape?position,?with?1?3?(and?6)?corresponds?to?the?basin,?4?corresponds?to?the?transition?zone,?and?5?corresponds?to?the? rim.??A?general?key?to?the?sites?is?presented?in?the?following?table.? ? Site? Pair? Land?Use? County,?State? EN? 1? NAT? Queen?Anne?s?Co.,?MD? EA? 1? PCC? Queen?Anne?s?Co.,?MD? ST? 2? NAT? Caroline?Co.,?MD? CF? 2? PCC? Caroline?Co.,?MD? AB? 3? NAT? Caroline?Co.,?MD? BF? 3? PCC? Caroline?Co.,?MD? EV? 4? NAT? Queen?Anne?s?Co.,?MD? ML? 4? PCC? Caroline?Co.,?MD? JL? 5? NAT? Caroline?Co.,?MD? BT? 5? PCC? Caroline?Co.,?MD? ? CEAP Study Sites ? The?names?for?the?sites?associated?with?the?CEAP?depressional?wetland?study?were?labeled?by?the?USDA?ARS.??They? are?designed?to?provide?information?about?the?site?location?and?land?use?at?a?glance.??The?label?is?divided?into?three?parts?(?1?2? 3).??The?first?part?is?used?to?indicate?site?location?with?the?first?two?letters?indicating?the?state?and?the?remaining?letters?for?the? county.??For?example?MDC?would?be?located?in?Caroline?County,?Maryland.??The?second?part?indicates?the?land?use?as?being? natural?(N),?prior?converted?to?cropland?(PC),?or?restored?(R).??The?third?part?is?a?two?or?three?letter?designation?to?the?individual? site.??Therefore,?the?code?for?VASH?PC?BN?would?be?for?a?prior?converted?site?in?Southampton?Co.,?Virginia.? ? ? 85 Appendix B: Profile Descriptions, Delmarva Bay Study Textural?Class?and?%?clay?are?reported?as?field?textures.??Textures?in?parentheses?and?marked?with?an?asterisk?indicate?texture? provide?from?lab?analysis.??Textures?in?only?parentheses?indicate?an?adjusted?texture?based?upon?lab?data?for?other?horizons.? ? Natural Sites EN DB1 Basin 11/8/2010 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 4 -- -- 5YR 2.5/1 A1 18 SiL 10 10YR 2/1 (SiCL)* (37)* A2 49 SiL 24 7.5YR 2.5/1 (SiCL)* (36)* med, distinct, 15% 10YR 5/1 AB 73 SiCL 32 10YR 3/1 (SiCL)* (34)* med, prom, 25% 2.5Y 7/1 m-fine, prom, 18% 10YR 5/6 Bg 113 L 25 5Y 6/1 (SiL)* (27)* med-co, prom, 34% 10YR 5/8 BCg 155 SiCL 29 5Y 6/1 (SiL) (22)* m-f, prom, RP, 28% 7.5YR 5/8 Cg 190+ SiL 25 5Y 6/1 2mm sand lens @ (SiL)* (23)* f, prom, RP, 18% 10YR 4/6 186 cm Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Taxonomy: Cummulic Humaquept Water Table Depth 41 cm 86 EN DB2 Basin 11/8/2010 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 3 -- -- 5YR 2.5/2 A 18 L 10 7.5YR 3/2 Ag 32 L 16 10YR 4/2 co, distinct, 38% 10YR 3/2 Bg 87 SiL 22 5Y 7/1 med, prom, 35% 7.5YR 5/8 2BCg 107 S 1 2.5Y 6/2 3CBg 130 CL 34 5Y 7/1 med, prom, 22% 7.5YR 5/8 3Cg 143 CL 34 5Y 7/1 sandier f, prom, RP, 10% 7.5YR 5/8 4C1 158 SL 6 10YR 5/8 co, prominent, 15% N 8/0 4C2 193 LS 4 10YR 6/6 5Y 7/2 4C3 200+ SL 6 10YR 5/8 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none lack of redox in Ag misses F3 Misses A12 and F13 from Ag color Taxonomy: Humic Endoaquept Water Table Depth 173 cm 87 EN DB3 Basin 11/8/2010 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 3 -- -- 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 14 SiL 10 10YR 2/1 (SiCL) (28) Ag 32 SiL 16 10YR 5/1 (SiCL) (30) coarse, prom, 22% 10YR 3/2 BAg 63 SiCL 34 2.5Y 5/1 Med, prom, 35% 10YR 5/6 med, dist, RP, 10% 10YR 3/1 Bg1 82 SiL 24 5Y 6/1 med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/6 med, distinct, 8% 10YR 4/1 Bg2 100 SiL 27 5Y 6/1 (23) med, prom, 35% 10YR 5/6 Bg3 150 SiL 27 5Y 7/1 (23) med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/6 2Cg 175 LS 4 10YR 6/1 2Cg2 195+ SL 6 2.5Y 7/1 med, prom, 12% 10YR 5/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 and F3 Auger refusal through 240 cm, no sands reached Note Taker = Phil Clements Taxonomy: Humic Endoaquept Water Table Depth Not reached 88 EN DB4 Transition Zone 11/10/2010 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, Phil Clements, and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 2 -- -- 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 8 SiL (L)* 10 (11)* 7.5YR 3/2 BE 19 L 13 2.5Y 6/2.5 (10) fine, prom, RP, 5% 10YR 6/6 Bw 29 L 14 2.5Y 6/3 (L)* (10)* med, prom, 38% 10YR 6/6 2Bg 58 LS 5 2.5Y 7/2 med, prom, 12% 10YR 5/8 med, prom, 23% 10YR 6/6 2Bw'2 78 SL 8 10YR 6/4 (SL)* (6)* med, prom, 8% 7.5YR 5/8 fine, prominent, 3% 2.5Y 7/2 3Bw'3 82 SL 16 7.5YR 5/8 fine, prominent, 5% 2.5Y 7/2 3Bw'4 103 L 18 2.5Y 6/3 (SL)* (13)* med-co, prom, 25% 2.5Y 7/1 med, prom, 12% 10YR 5/8 3Bw'5 131 SL 17 10YR 5/4 med, prom, 18% 10YR 5/6 med, prom, 15% 5Y 7/1 3BC 146 LS 4 10YR 6/6 fine-m, faint, 25% 10YR 5/6 4Bgb 156 SiL 22 5Y 7/1 fine, prominent 5% 10YR 6/6 4Bwb 165 SiL 20 7.5YR 5/8 med, distinct, 35% 10YR 5/8 5Cg 172 fSL 14 5Y 7/1 6CB 195+ SL 10 2.5Y 6/4 ilmenite med, prom, 5% 7.5YR 5/8 med, distinct, 5% 2/5Y 7/2 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Aeric Endoaquept Water Table Depth not reached 89 EN DB5 Rim 11/10/2010 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Ingleside Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, Phil Clements, and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes AE 5 SL (SL)* 8 (5)* 10YR 4/2 0.5 cm of duff EB 37 SL 7 10YR 6/4 Bw1 58 LS (SL)* 5 (4)* 10YR 5/4 Bw2 99 LS 4 10YR 5/6 (SL) med, prom, 10% 10YR 6/3 Bw3 143 SL 14 10YR 5/4.5 (SL)* (6)* med, prom, 10% 10YR 6/2 med, prom, 15% 7.5YR 5/8 Bw4 165 SL 8 10YR 6/4 med, prom, 8% 7.5YR 5/8 Bw5 195+ L 14 10YR 5/8 med, prom, 15% 10YR 7/2 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Typic Dystrudept Water Table Depth Not reached ST DB1 Basin 10/13/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 16 -- -- 7.5YR 2.5/3 A 43 L (SCL)* 12 (20)* 7.5YR 2.5/1 Bg 83 LS 4 2.5Y 6/2 (SL)* (8)* med, prom, 10% 10YR 6/3 fine, prom, 5% 10YR 4/4 BC 119 LS 3 2.5Y 7/3 Ilmenite bands (S)* (5)* med, distinct, 5% 2.5Y 7/1 Cg1 147 LS (S)* 3 (6)* 2.5Y 6/2 0.25% ilmenite Cg2 200+ LS (S)* 3 (6)* 2.5Y 5/2 1% ilmenite Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11, F13 Taxonomy: Typic Humaquept Water Table Depth 90 cm 90 ST DB2 Basin 10/13/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 10 -- -- 2.5YR 2.5/3 A 34 L 10 (20) 7.5YR 2.5/1 Bg 56 LS (SL) 5 (8) 10YR 6/2 Bg2 85 LS 3 coarse, 60% 2.5Y 7/2 (S) med-co, prom, 35% 10YR 6/8 med, prom, 5% 10YR 7/8 Bg3 125 SL 9 10YR 6/1 (S) (6) distinct, 30% 10YR 7/2 BCg 175 LS 4 2.5Y 7/1 0.25% ilmenite (S) Med, prom, 3% 10YR 6/8 Cg 200+ LS (S) 3 10YR 7/1 0.25% ilmenite Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11, F13 Taxonomy: Humic Endoaquept Water Table Depth 130 cm 91 ST DB3 Basin 10/13/2011 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 18 -- -- 5YR 2.5/2 A1 37 L/SiL 10 (20) 7.5YR 2.5/1 A2 67 L 10 (20) 10YR 2/1 BAg 103 L 17 7.5YR 4/1 ? 10YR 6/2 ? 7.5YR 5/8 Bg 127 L 13 10YR 5/1 ? 10YR 5/6 CBg 166 SiL 10 2.5Y 41 ? 10YR 5/6 2Cg 166+ ? ? ? did not retreive-auger refusal Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Auger refusal through 240 cm, no sands reached Note Taker = Phil Clements Taxonomy: Cumulic Humaquept Water Table Depth 130 cm 92 ST DB4 Transition Zone 12/15/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Chris Palardy Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 9 -- -- 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 23 L (SL)* 12 (10)* 10YR 2/2 Bw 36 L (SL) 12 2.5Y 5/4 Bg 59 L 17 2.5Y 7/2 (SL)* (10)* med, prom, 33% 10YR 6/6 2BC 111 LS 4 10YR 6/6 med, prom, 28% 7.5YR 5/8 co, prom, 25% 2.5Y 7/2 co, prom, 10% 10YR 6/2 3CBg 137 SCL 29 5Y 7/1 (SL)* (14)* med, prom, 4% 7.5YR 5/8 3Cg 160 coSC 36 2.5Y 6/1 (SL) (16) med, prom, 25% 7.5YR 5/8 4Ab1 180 coSC 36 7.5YR 5/1 4Ab2 190 LcoS 10 7.5YR 6/1 fine, prom, 3% 10YR 6/6 4Bwb 200+ coSL 15 10YR 6/4 med, prom, 14% 7.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 8% 7.5YR 6/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Humic Endoaquept Water Table Depth 162 cm 93 ST DB5 Rim 12/15/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hambrook Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Chris Palardy Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 7 -- -- 7.5YR 2.5/2 AE 17 SL (SL)* 5 (5)* 10YR 5/2 70% uncoated sand grains Bt1 45 SL 8 10YR 5/4 Bt2 66 SL (SL)* 14 (7)* 10YR 5/6 Bt3 95 SCL (SL)* 25 (11)* 7.5YR 5/6 BC 132 LS 4 10YR 5/6 med, distinct, 4% 10YR 7/6 <--Lamellae? CB 164 LS 6 10YR 5/6 (LS) (8)* med, prom, 25% 2.5Y 7/2 <--Lamellae? medium, faint, 7% 10YR 5/6 Cg 190+ LS 3 2.5Y 7/2 cemented iron, 7% 10YR 5/6 15% 10YR 6/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: well drained, wet substratum Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Typic Hapludult Water Table Depth Not reached 94 AB DB1 Basin 10/1/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 9 -- -- 5YR 2.5/2 Oa 22 -- -- 10YR 2/1 A1 53 SiL 10YR 2/1 (SiL)* (16)* A2 72 SiL 12 (17) 2.5Y 2.5/1 BCg 150 SiL 10 5Y 5/1 Upper (SiL)* (19) fine, prom, RP 15% 10YR 5/8 Gradual change to: 5Y 4/1 Lower pockets: 10% 5YR 4/6 L 10 10YR 5/2 sand lenses Additional Notes CEAP-MIAR project MDC-N-AB site, uses same profile ~10m in from forest line Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Histic Epipedon Hydric soils indicators: A2, A12 Taxonomy: Histic Humaquept Water Table Depth 47 cm above ground AB DB2 Basin 10/4/2010 Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, Phil Clements, and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 8 -- -- 7.5YR 2.5/2 A1 32 L (SL) 8 (17) 7.5YR 2.5-/1 A2 56 L (SL) 15 10YR 3/1 Ag 90 L (SL) 15 10YR 4/1 med, RP, 10% 10YR 2/1 Bg 138 LS 4 10YR 5/2 med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/6 CBg 175 LS 5 10Y 6/1 Cg 200+ LS 4 5GY 6/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Taxonomy: Cumulic Humaquept Water Table Depth 80 cm 95 AB DB3 Basin 10/4/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, Phil Clements, and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 7 -- -- 7.5YR 3/3 A 27 L (SL) 8 (17) 7.5YR 2.5/1 A2 47 L (SL) 12 10YR 2/1 Ag 84 SL 13 10YR 4/1 med, distinct, 22% 10YR 4/4 co, distinct,10% 10YR 3/1 Bg 120 LS 4 10YR 5/2 med, prom, 15% 10YR 4/6 2Ab 139 SCL 24 10YR 3/2 3Bg 151 LS 5 10YR 5/2 3CBg1 165 LS 3 5Y 6/2 Ilmenite bands 15% 3CBg2 179 LS 3 5Y 5/2 3Cg 200+ fSL 7 5GY 6/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Taxonomy: Fluvaquentic Humaquept Water Table Depth 51 cm AB DB6 Basin 10/4/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, Phil Clements, and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 11 -- -- 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 40 L (SL)* 8 (17)* 10YR 2/1 Bg1 78 SL 7 2.5Y 6/2 (LS)* (5)* fine, distinct, 2% 10YR 7/3 Bg2 95 SL (SL)* 8 (11)* 10Y 6/1 BCg 157 LS 4 2.5Y 6/2 ilmenite 0.5% (S)* (5) coarse, 15% 10YR 6/4 Cg 190+ SL (LS) 9 (5) 5GY 6/1 ilmenite 1% Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Taxonomy: Typic Humaquept Water Table Depth 68 cm 96 AB DB4 Transition Zone 11/22/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 6 -- -- 5YR 2.5/2 A1 22 LS (LS)* 6 (6)* 10YR 2/1 A2 51 LS 5 10YR 2/2 Bw 68 S (S)* 2 (2)* 10YR 5/4 Bg 105 S 2 2.5Y 6/2 (S)* (4)* med, prom, 5% 10YR 5/8 co, distinct, 15% 10YR 6/6 Cg1 130 S 1 7.5YR 5/2 ilmenite 35% Cg2 190+ S 2 10YR 6/2 ilmenite 15% Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Oxyaquic Humudepts Water Table Depth 60 cm AB DB5 Rim 11/22/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 6 -- -- 2.5Y 2.5/2 AE 21 LS (SL)* 3 (5)* 10YR 2/1 AB 29 LS 4 10YR 3/3 Bw 55 LS 3 2.5Y 5/4 (S)* (2)* fine, prom, 3% 7.5YR 5/8 BC 94 S 2 2.5Y 6/4 med, prom, 42% 10YR 5/6 C 131 S 1 2.5Y 6/4 (S)* (4)* med, distinct, 8% 10YR 6/6 Conc. surrounds med, prom, 15% 5Y 7/2 depletions Cg 195+ S 1 5Y 7/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Psammentic humudept Water Table Depth 110 cm 97 EV DB1 Basin 11/17/2010 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, Phil Clements, and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oi 6 -- -- 10YR 2/2 Oa 16 -- -- 10YR 2/2 Oa2 34 -- -- 10YR 2/1 SBK A2 50 SiL (SiCL) 10 (29) 10YR 3/1 0.7 mixed matrix Gr 2.5Y 6/2 10% N 7/0 10% 2.5Y 6/4 8% 10YR 4/1 2Cg2 166 FSL 15 N 7/0 occasional Decomposing Root Channels OM mixed 2Cg3 190+ LCoS 3 5Y 7/1 Very Soupy Few, fine, p, RP 7.5YR 5/8 (structure less) 2.5Y 4/1 maybe contamination Additional Notes CEAP-MIAR project MDC-N-JL site, uses same profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 and F3 Taxonomy: Humic Endoaquept Water Table Depth 8/7/2009 ponded 102 JL DB2 Basin 9/29/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 14 7.5YR 2.5/2 A1 42 L 9 10YR 2/1 A2 72 L 15 10YR 3/1 10YR 3/2 10YR 5/2 AB 85 CL 30 2.5Y 3/1 (L) (15) f, p, RP, 10% 7.5YR 5/8 fine, prom, 5% 10YR 5/6 m-c, prom, 22% 2.5Y 5/2 Bg1 116 SCL/L 25 2.5Y5/2 (SL) (13) f-m, p., RP, 20% 10YR 5/6 f, dist, RP, 8% 2.5Y 5/6 2Bg2 139 SL 8 10YR 5/2 (10) f, dist, RP, 5% 10YR 5/4 2BCg 165 LS 3 2.5Y 6/2 (10) med, dist, 8% 10YR 7/4 2CBg 200+ LS 3 5GY 7/1 slightly coarser texture (10) m-co, dist, 10% 2.5Y 8/3 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Taxonomy: Cumulic Humaquept Water Table Depth 137 cm 103 JL DB3 Basin 9/29/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 10 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 35 SiL (SL)* 10 (15)* 10YR 2/1 Bg1 88 CL 30 10YR 5/1 (L)* (14)* m-c, p, RP, 23% 10YR 6/8 Bg2 111 coSCL 34 7.5YR 5/1 (SL)* (13)* fine, distinct, 1% 7.5YR 5/8 m-fine, dist, 5% 10YR 7/6 BC 137 LcoS 7 10YR 6/8 (LS)* (10)* med, prom, 35% 2.5Y 7/2 Cg1 170 fSL (LfS)* 6 (11)* 10Y 7/1 Cg2 200+ LS (LS)* 3 (12)* 10Y 8/1 5% Ilmenite Bands Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Taxonomy: Typic Humaquept Water Table Depth 130 cm 104 JL DB4 Transition Zone 11/19/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 8 - - 5YR 2.5/2 A 10 LS (LS)* 8 (2) 10YR 2/2 AE 31 SL 10 10YR 3/2 (LS) (5) m, dist, RP, 8% 5YR 3/4 BE 60 SL 11 2.5Y 6/4 (LS)* (6)* med, dist, 15% 10YR 5/6 Bt 85 SL 17 2.5Y 6/3 (SL)* (7) med, prom, 35% 10YR 5/8 CBg 103 LS 4 2.5Y 5/4 med, dist, 40% 2.5Y 6/2 Ab 120 LS 4 10YR 3/3 slightly coarser texture med, dist, 35% 10YR 4/4 Bwb 140 S 2 10YR 4/6 C 183+ S 1 10YR 4/4 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Inceptic Hapludult Water Table Depth 76 cm 105 JL DB5 Rim 11/19/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 5 - - 7.5YR 3/4 A 11 LS (SL)* 5 (5)* 7.5YR 2.5/2 Wavy AE 31 SL 8 2.5Y 4/3 Bt1 55 SL 12 2.5Y 5.5/4 weakly expressed clay (SL)* (8)* med, dist, 5% 10YR 5/6 Films Bt2 77 SL 16 2.5Y 5/4 slightly stronger clay med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/6 bridges BC 110 LS 5 7.5YR 5/8 (LS)* (6)* med, prom, 35% 2.5Y 6/2 CB 129 LS 4 10YR 5/6 slightly med, prom, 10% 2.5Y 7/1 Coarser med, prom, 5% 7.5YR 5/8 C 171 S (S)* 2 (2)* 2.5Y 6/4 Cg 200+ LfS 3 5Y 6/2 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Typic Hapludult Water Table Depth 93 cm 106 Prior Converted Cropland Sites EA DB1 Basin 11/10/2010 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Whitemarsh Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, Phil Clements, and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 12 SiL (SiL)* 11 (15)* 10YR 4/2 Ap2 27 SiL 16 10YR 5/2 (SiL) (17)* med, dist, 38% 7.5YR 4/4 Bg1 64 SiL 25 10YR 5/1 (SiCL)* (31)* med, prom, 8% 10YR 4/6 med, prom, 2% 7.5YR 5/8 Bg2 99 SiL 27 2.5Y 5/1 (SiCL)* (37)* co, prom, 20% 7.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 10% 10YR 4/6 dist, 5% 7.5YR 4/2 Ped faces Bw 167 SiL 24 10YR 5/6 few coarse frags (SiCL)* (29)* med, prom, 35% N 7/0 @ 130 cm BCg 200 SiL 18 5Y 7/1 (SiL)* (24)* m-co, prom, 35% 7.5YR 5/8 CBg 250 SiL 18 5Y 7/1 (SiL)* (23)* med, prom, 18% 7.5YR 5/8 2Cg 263 LS (SL)* 2 (12)* 5Y 8/2 2C 280 S 1 7.5YR 5/8 (S)* (6)* 10YR 6/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Taxonomy: Typic Endoaquept Water Table Depth 210 cm 107 EA DB2 Basin 11/10/2010 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Whitemarsh Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, Phil Clements, and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 7 SiL 12 (15) 10YR 4/2 Ap2 28 SiL 15 2.5Y 5/2 f, dist, RP, 28% 10YR 4/6 Bg1 63 SiCL 34 2.5Y 5/2 med, prom, 23% 10YR 5/8 prominent, 8% 7.5YR 4/2 Ped faces Bg2 95 SiCL 33 2.5Y 7/1 co, prom, 35% 10YR 5/8 prom, 4% 7.5YR 4/2 Ped faces Bg3 133 SiL 22 2.5Y 6.5/1 med, prom, 21% 10YR 6/6 Bg4 156 SiL 25 2.5Y 6/1 med, prom, 15% 10YR 6/6 med, prom, 8% 7.5YR 5/8 CBg 170 L 18 2.5Y 7/1 fine, prom, 3% 10YR 5/6 2Cg1 185 fSL 10 2.5Y 7/2 med, prom, 28% 10YR 5/6 2Cg2 195+ S 2 10YR 5/6 (6) fine, prom, 4% 2.5Y 7/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Taxonomy: Typic Endoaquept Water Table Depth 117 cm 108 EA DB3 Basin 11/10/2010 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Whitemarsh Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, Phil Clements, and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 11 SiL 10 10YR 4/2 Ap2 35 SiL 13 2.5Y 4/2 fine, prom, 28% 10YR 4/4 Bg1 76 SiCL 35 2.5Y 6/1 Med, prom, 26% 10YR 5/8 prom, 4% 7.5YR 4/2 Ped faces Bg2 120 SiL 25 2.5Y 7/1 f-m, prom, 8% 10YR 6/8 m-co, prom, 15% 10YR 6/6 BCg 133 SiL 18 2.5Y 6/1 med, promt, 15% 10YR 6/8 med, prom, 10% 10YR 6/6 2CBg 146 SL 10 10YR 5/8 med, dist, 15% 10YR 6/6 2Ab 155 SL 8 7.5YR 4/2 2Bwb 168 LS 5 10YR 6.5/6 3BC 178 SCL 30 7.5YR 5/8 4CBg 189 SL 14 10YR 6/2 5C 195+ SCL 25 7.5YR 5/8 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Taxonomy: Typic Endoaquept Water Table Depth 93 cm 109 EA DB4 Transition Zone 1/10/2011 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Whitemarsh Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 26 L (SL)* 10 (7)* 10YR 4/3 Bw1 48 L 12 2.5Y 5/2.5 (SL) med, distinct, 5% 10YR 6/8 Bw2 68 L 15 2.5Y 6/3 (SL)* (15)* med, prom, 38% 10YR 5/6 med, distinct, 5% 2.5Y 6/2 2Bw3 99 SiL 18 med, prom, 37% 2.5Y 6/1 med, prom, 20% 2.5Y 6/3 med, prom, 40% 10YR 5/6 med, prom, 3% 5YR 3/6 2BCg 124 SiL 25 2.5Y 6/1 2% ilmenite bands med, prom, 10% 10YR 5/8 med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/6 2Cg 158 SiL 15 2.5Y 6/1 (L)* (19)* med, prom, 8% 10YR 5/8 3C 170 LS 6 2.5Y 6/1 med, prom, 25% 5YR 4/6 3Csm 171 LS 6 iron cemented 5YR 3/4 placic horizon not enough to sample 3C` 190+ SL 8 co, prom, 45% 2.5Y 7/1 co, prom, 55% 10YR 5/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Aquic Dystrudept Water Table Depth not reached 110 EA DB5 Rim 1/10/2011 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Ingleside Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 26 SL (SL)* 8 (7)* 10YR 4/4 Bw 67 LS 6 10YR 5/5 CB 102 LS (S)* 3 (4)* 10YR 5.5/5 C1 115 S 1 (4) 2.5Y 7/4 C2 124 S (S)* 1 (4)* 10YR 5/5 2Bwb1 158 SCL 34 10YR 5/2.5 med, prom, 35% 10YR 5/6 fine N 2/0 Mn concentrations 2Bwb2 190+ SCL 29 2.5Y 6/2 med, prom, 18% 10YR 5/4 fine, prom, 2% 5YR 4/6 med, prom, 3% 7.5YR 5/8 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: well drained, wet substratum Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Typic Udipsamment Water Table Depth 132 cm 111 CF DB1 Basin 11/3/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hurlock Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Rosyland Orr Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 40 L 12 10YR 3/2 (SL)* (12)* fine 2% 7.5YR 4/4 med faint 1% 10YR 4/2 ABg 66 SL 19 10YR 5/2 (SL)* (18)* med 8% 7.5YR 4/6 med 5% 2.5Y 6/4 Bg1 102 SCL 24 2.5Y 6/1 (SCL)* (21)* 4% 7.5YR 5/6 15% 2.5Y 7/4 Bg2 136 fSL 15 2.5Y 6/1 (L)* (13)* fine 2% 10YR 5/6 medium 5% 2.5Y 6/4 CBg 176+ LCoS (S)* 2 (4)* 2.5Y 6/2 Additional Notes CEAP-MIAR project MDC-PC-Cr site, uses same profile Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: None Too deep for F3 Not dark enough for A12 or F13 Taxonomy: Typic Humaquept Water Table Depth 11/3/2009 18 cm 112 CF DB2 Basin 10/18/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hurlock Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 31 L 10 10YR 3/3 Bg 73 L 8 10YR 5/2 fine, prom, 15% 7.5YR 4/6 2Bg2 94 CL 29 10YR 7/1 med, prom, 35% 7.5YR 5/8 3Bg3 111 Gr SC 37 coarse, 60% 10YR 6/2 20% gravels 30% 7.5YR 5/1 med, prom, 20% 7.5YR 5/8 3BC 141 Gr SCL 28 48% 10YR 7/2 20% gravels co, prom, 35% 10YR 7/6 co-m, prom, 17% 7.5YR 6/8 4Cg1 179 SL 6 7.5YR 7/2 some ilmenite med, dist, 25% 7.5YR 6/8 4Cg2 200+ LS 3 10YR 8/1 0.25% ilmenite med, dist, 25% 10YR 7/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none misses A11 by 1cm and color misses A12 by color misses F13 by color Taxonomy: Typic Humaquept Water Table Depth 117 cm 113 CF DB3 Basin 10/18/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hurlock Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 25 L 10 10YR 3/2 A 54 L 10 10YR 3/2 10% gravels f-m, d, RP, 15% 5YR 4/6 Bg 78 CL 29 10YR 7/1 14% gravels f-m, p, RP, 15% 7.5YR 5/8 Bw 100 Gr fSL 13 30% 7.5YR 7/3 21% gravels 35% 10YR 4/2 35% 10YR 4/6 BCg 122 LfS 3 10YR 6/1 ilmenite bands co, prom, 21% 10YR 6/6 CBg 143 LS 3 10YR 6/2 ilmenite med, prom, 15% 10YR 6/6 Cg1 166 SL 10 10YR 6/2 ilmenite co, prom, 15% 2.5Y 7/4 co, prom, 10% 10YR 6/8 Cg2 190+ LS 2 2.5Y 7/2 ilmenite 5% 10YR 7/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none misses A12 and F13 by color too deep for A11 Taxonomy: Typic Humaquept Water Table Depth 93 cm 114 CF DB4 Transition Zone 1/14/2011 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Ingleside Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Chris Palardy Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 20 L (SL)* 10 (10)* 10YR 3/2 Ap2 42 L 12 10YR 2.5/2 (SL)* (13)* f, dist, RP, 28% 5YR 4/4 Bg 70 L (SL) 14 10YR 5/2 BCg 108 SL 8 10YR 7/2 (SL)* (13)* fine, faint, 5% 10YR 6/6 C 190+ S 1 2.5Y 7/3 2% ilmenite bands Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Typic Humaquept Water Table Depth not recorded CF DB5 Rim 1/14/2011 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Ingleside Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Chris Palardy Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 25 SL (SL)* 8 (7)* 10YR 4/3 Bt 46 SL (SL)* 12 (15)* 7.5YR 5/8 BC 72 LS (LS)* 4 (6)* 10YR 6/5 C1 104 S 2 2.5Y 7/4 (5) medium, dist, 2% 10YR 5/6 C2 132 S (S)* 1 (5)* 10YR 6/6 C3 147 LS 4 10YR 5/8 med, prom, 5% 10YR 6/4 C4 180+ S 1 2.5Y 7/3 med, prom, 24% 10YR 6/8 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: well drained, no wet substratum Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Inceptic Hapludult Water Table Depth Not reached 115 BF DB1 Basin 7/23/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Dr. Martin C Rabenhorst Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 36 SiL/L 11 10YR 2/1 (L)* (27)* No Redox A1 58 SiL 17 N 2.5/0 (SiCL)* (36)* 10YR 2/1 15% distinct 10YR 3/3 A2 89 SiL 23 2.5Y 2/1 (C)* (44)* 25% Distinct 10YR 3/3 Bg1 108 SiCL 28 60% 2.5Y 6/2 (C) (41) 30% N 2.5/0 10% prominent 7.5YR 4/6 Bg2 130 SiL 22 2.5Y 5/2 N<0.7 (SiCL)* (33)* 20% 5YR 4/6 loosing structure 7.5YR 4/6 BC 165 SiL 18 50% 2.5Y 4/3 (25) 35% 2.5Y 5/1 15% 5YR 4/6 7.5YR 4/6 Cg1 185 SiL 18 50% 5GY 4/1 Striations start, sedimentation layers (25) 50% 5Y 4/1 upper part some 7.5YR 4/1 Cg2 245 SiL 18 2.5Y 4/1 0.71 (L)* (14)* fine, prom, 1% 10YR 5/6 4Cg 191+ sandy No sample Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11, F13 Taxonomy: Fluvaquentic Humaquept Water Table Depth 48 cm 122 ML DB3 Basin 11/15/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 18 SiL 18 10YR 2/1 A 28 SiL 25 10YR 3.5/1 Bg1 44 SiCL 37 2.5Y 5/2 (28) fine-m, prom, 17% 10YR 5/6 2Bg2 70 LS 5 2.5Y 6/2 med, prom, 35% 10YR 5/6 2BC 85 LS 4 10YR 5/6 med, prom, 23% 2.5Y 6/2 3CBg 109 L 12 10YR 5/2 sandy pockets med, prom, 15% 7.5YR 5/8 4CBg 123 LS 3 2.5Y 6/2 ? 10YR 6/6 4Cg 170+ S 1 2.5Y 6/2 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none misses A11 and F13 by 0.5 value misses F3 by 3 cm Taxonomy: Typic Humaquept Water Table Depth 66 cm ML DB4 Transition Zone 1/7/2011 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Woodstown Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 21 SL (SL)* 8 (10)* 10YR 2/1 mod SBK, Friable Ap2 33 L (SL) 10 10YR 2/1 strong SBK, firm AB 53 LS (S)* 4 (6)* 10YR 3/3 Bw 86 LS 3 10YR 5/3 finer material pockets (S) med, faint, 15% 10YR 7/1 1% ilmenite Ab 102 LS (S) 4 10YR 3/2 Bwb 168 S 2 2.5Y 5/3 0.5% ilmenite C 185+ S 1 10YR 5.5/2 0.25% ilmenite Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Aquic Humudept Water Table Depth 61 cm 123 ML DB5 Rim 1/7/2011 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Woodstown Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 23 SL (SL)* 8 (5)* 10YR 4/3 Bw 50 L 12 2.5Y 6/5 fine, distinct, 8% 2.5Y 7/2 med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/8 BC 91 LS 4 10YR 6/5 1% ilmenite (S)* (3)* med, prom, 15% 2.5Y 7/2 med, prom, 5% 10YR 5/8 CBg 110 S 3 2.5Y 7/2 1% ilmenite med, prom, 24% 10YR 6/6 C1 140 S 2 2.5Y 6/4 1% ilmenite (S)* (3)* med, prom, 5% 2.5Y 7/2 Med, prom, 3% 10YR 5/8 C2 180+ S 2 10YR 5/6 1% ilmenite Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Aquic Dystrudept Water Table Depth 115 cm 124 BT DB1 Basin 11/12/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 22 SiL 12 10YR 2/1 SBK (L)* (27)* Ap2 33 SiL 12 10YR 2/1 SBK (CL)* (29)* m, prom, 1.5% 7.5YR 2.5/3 ped faces A (Oa)* 58 -- -- 10YR 2/1 granular Bg 105 SiL 18 10YR 5/1 (SiL)* (26)* f, prom, RP, 11% 10YR 5/6 BCg 161 SiL 14 10YR 5/1 (SiL)* (16)* f, prom, RP, 15% 10YR 5/6 CBg 195 SiL 10 5Y 5/1 0.71 Auger refusal no sands reached Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Taxonomy: Fluventic Humaquept Water Table Depth 18 cm 125 BT DB2 Basin 11/12/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 8 SiL 10 10YR 2/1 SBK, Friable (L) (27) Ap2 27 SiL 10 10YR 2/1 SBK, Firm (CL) (29) A (Oa)* 44 -- -- 10YR 2/1 granular medium, faint, 1% 7.5YR 2/2 A 66 SiL 13 10YR 2/1 Bg1 105 SiL 16 10YR 5/1 f, prom, RP, 15% 7.5YR 5/8 Bg2 165 SiL 14 10YR 5/1 m, prom, RP, 15% 7.5YR 5/6 BCg 190 SiL 12 2.5Y 5/1.5 0.71, Auger refusal 2Cg? 330+ sandy Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Taxonomy: Cumulic Humaquept Water Table Depth 22 cm 126 BT DB3 Basin 11/12/2010 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher, and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 22 SiL 12 10YR 2/1 (L) (27) Ap2 38 SiL (CL) 27 (29) 10YR 2/1 few gravels @ 66 cm Bg1 100 SiL 18 10YR 6/1 sand lense @100 cm (26) co, distinct, 23% 10YR 7/4 fine, prom, 8% 10YR 5/6 BCg 145 SiL 12 10YR 6/1 (16) co, distinct, 15% 10YR 6/6 fine, prom, 3% 7.5YR 5/8 CBg 190 SiL 14 10YR 4.5/1 fine, prom, 5% 10YR 5/6 Cg 200 SiL (11) N>1, Auger Refusal 2Cg 200+ sandy Auger refusal Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Taxonomy: Typic Humaquept Water Table Depth 55 cm BT DB4 Transition Zone 1/7/2011 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 23 L 11 10YR 2/1 friable, weak SBK/gran (SL)* (7)* light and fluffy Ap2 40 L/SL (SL)* 10 (13)* 10YR 2/1 friable/firm, mod SBK Bw 62 LS 4 2.5Y 6/3.5 (S)* (4)* Med, distinct, 10% 2.5Y 7/2 med, prom, 8% 10YR 6/6 BCg 83 LS 3 10Y 7/1 0.5% ilmenite (S) med, prom, 5% 2.5Y 6/6 CB 120 LS 2 2.5Y 6/5 1% ilmenite (S)* (6)* med, prom, 15% 2.5Y 7/2 C 180+ S 1 5Y 7/1 1.5% ilmenite, Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Aquic Humudept Water Table Depth 88 cm 127 BT DB5 Rim 1/7/2011 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Ingleside Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Mark Matovich Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 21 SL (SL)* 10 (5)* 10YR 4/3 Bt1 40 SL 14 10YR 4/4.5 clay films observed (SL)* (7)* f, RP/faces, 3% 10YR 4/3 Bt2 74 LS (SL)* 6 (12)* 7.5YR 4/6 weak clay films present C1 120 S 1 2.5Y 7/4 1% ilmenite C2 163 S 1 2.5Y 7/3 1% ilmenite C3 195+ S 1.5 10YR-2.5Y 6/4 2% ilmenite Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: well drained, no wet substratum Hydric soils indicators: none Taxonomy: Typic Hapludult Water Table Depth not reached 128 Appendix C: Bulk Density and Carbon Data, Delmarva Bay Study Natural Sites Horizons?used?in?both?the?Delmarva?Bay?and?CEAP?study?are?indicated?by?+?in?the?Site?ID? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. EN?DB1? Oe? 4? 0.18? 0.01? 44.92? 4.22? EN?DB1? A1? 18? 0.62? 0.03? 9.38? 1.21? EN?DB1? A2? 49? 1.16? 0.00? 1.52? 0.05? EN?DB1? AB? 73? 1.35? 0.09? 0.51? 0.01? EN?DB1? Bg? 113? 1.46? 0.14? 0.35? 0.20? EN?DB1? BCg? 155? ??? ??? 0.10? 0.02? EN?DB1? Cg? 190? ??? ??? 0.09? 0.00? EN?DB2? Oe? 3? 0.12? 0.01? 52.60? 1.93? EN?DB2? A1? 18? 1.18? 0.13? 3.93? 0.86? EN?DB2? Ag? 32? 1.41? 0.03? 1.08? 0.22? EN?DB2? Bg? 87? 1.75? 0.00? 0.08? 0.01? EN?DB2? 2BCg? 107? 1.73? 0.05? 0.03? 0.00? EN?DB2? 3BCg? 130? ??? ??? 0.06? 0.01? EN?DB2? 3CBg? 143? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? EN?DB2? 4C1? 158? ??? ??? 0.10? 0.07? EN?DB2? 4C2? 193? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? EN?DB2? 4C3? 200? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? EN?DB3? Oe? 3? 0.27? 0.02? 32.22? 3.29? EN?DB3? A? 14? 0.67? 0.02? 9.68? 0.22? EN?DB3? Ag? 32? 1.34? 0.08? 0.69? 0.09? EN?DB3? BAg? 63? 1.23? 0.01? 0.42? 0.01? EN?DB3? Bg1? 82? 1.63? 0.08? 0.14? 0.06? EN?DB3? Bg2? 100? 1.60? 0.08? 0.07? 0.02? EN?DB3? bg3? 150? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? EN?DB3? 2Cg? 175? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.01? EN?DB3? 2Cg2? 195? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EN?DB4? Oe? 2? 0.25? 0.00? 27.64? 6.49? EN?DB4? A? 8? 0.92? 0.17? 3.95? 0.34? EN?DB4? BE? 19? 1.63? 0.05? 0.24? 0.12? EN?DB4? Bw1? 29? 1.69? ??? 0.10? 0.01? EN?DB4? 2Bg2? 58? 1.76? 0.03? 0.04? 0.01? EN?DB4? 2Bw2`? 78? 1.86? 0.06? 0.03? 0.01? EN?DB4? 2Bw3`? 82? 1.83? 0.05? 0.03? 0.01? EN?DB4? 3Bwb1 103? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.01? EN?DB4? 3Bwb2 131? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? 129 Appendix?C:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?NAT?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. EN?DB4? 3BCg 146? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? EN?DB4? 4Bgb 156? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? EN?DB4? 4Bgb3` 165? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EN?DB4? 5Cg 172? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? EN?DB4? 5CB 179? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? EN?DB5? AE? 5? 0.95? 0.09? 3.24? 0.20? EN?DB5? EB? 37? 1.33? 0.07? 0.38? 0.05? EN?DB5? Bw1? 58? 1.64? 0.02? 0.08? 0.01? EN?DB5? Bw2? 99? 1.76? 0.04? 0.04? 0.01? EN?DB5? Bw3 143? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EN?DB5? B24 165? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EN?DB5? Bw5 195? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? ST?DB1? Oe? 16? 0.10? 0.00? 60.12? 0.34? ST?DB1? A? 43? 0.89? 0.02? 6.37? 0.44? ST?DB1? Bg? 83? 1.71? 0.06? 0.25? 0.17? ST?DB1? BC? 119? 1.68? 0.08? 0.08? 0.05? ST?DB1? Cg1? 147? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.01? ST?DB1? Cg2? 200? ??? ??? 0.06? 0.01? ST?DB2? Oe? 10? 0.04? 0.05? 56.95? 2.11? ST?DB2? A? 34? 1.25? 0.00? 4.40? 1.32? ST?DB2? Bg1? 56? 1.84? 0.05? 0.07? 0.01? ST?DB2? Bg2? 85? 1.80? 0.15? 0.03? 0.01? ST?DB2? Bg3? 125? 1.76? 0.06? 0.04? 0.00? ST?DB2? BCg? 175? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? ST?DB2? Cg? 200? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.01? ST?DB3? Oe? 18? 0.11? 0.00? 57.47? 0.13? ST?DB3? A1? 37? 0.92? 0.08? 4.52? 0.51? ST?DB3? A2? 67? 1.47? 0.03? 1.06? 0.23? ST?DB3? Bag? 103? 1.84? 0.16? 0.37? 0.20? ST?DB3? Bg? 127? ??? ??? 0.36? 0.03? ST?DB3? CBg? 166? ??? ??? 0.75? 0.01? ST?DB4? Oe? 9? 0.07? 0.01? 52.05? 3.24? ST?DB4? A? 23? 0.94? 0.02? 3.49? 0.11? ST?DB4? Bw? 36? 0.93? 0.08? 1.84? 0.61? ST?DB4? Bg? 59? 1.67? 0.00? 0.10? 0.00? ST?DB4? 2BC? 111? 1.73? 0.08? 0.03? 0.00? ST?DB4? 3CB 137? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? ST?DB4? 3CB 160? ??? ??? 0.06? 0.00? ST?DB4? 4Ab 180? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? 130 Appendix?C:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?NAT?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. ST?DB4? 4Ab2 190? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? ST?DB4? 4Bw 200? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? ST?DB5? Oe? 7? 0.08? 0.01? 46.65? 0.83? ST?DB5? AE? 17? 1.01? 0.05? 1.66? 0.20? ST?DB5? Bt1? 45? 1.35? 0.02? 0.31? 0.06? ST?DB5? Bt2? 66? 1.71? 0.12? 0.08? 0.01? ST?DB5? Bt3? 95? 1.57? 0.01? 0.10? 0.02? ST?DB5? BC 132? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? ST?DB5? CB 164? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? ST?DB5? CB2 190? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? AB?DB1+? Oe? 9? 0.21? 0.02? 56.05? 0.39? AB?DB1+? Oa? 22? 0.31? 0.09? 15.70? 1.13? AB?DB1+? A1? 53? 0.34? 0.03? 9.13? 0.44? AB?DB1+? A2? 72? 1.10? 0.19? 3.43? 0.57? AB?DB1+? BCg? 150? 1.21? 0.04? 1.71? 0.16? AB?DB2? Oe? 8? 0.12? 0.06? 48.90? 4.32? AB?DB2? A1? 32? 1.04? 0.06? 4.33? 0.19? AB?DB2? A2? 56? 1.41? 0.13? 0.84? 0.34? AB?DB2? Ag? 90? 1.80? 0.04? 0.09? 0.02? AB?DB2? Bg? 138? 1.80? 0.04? 0.06? 0.01? AB?DB2? CBg? 175? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? AB?DB2? Cg? 200? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? AB?DB3? Oe? 7? 0.13? 0.04? 53.40? 1.10? AB?DB3? A1? 27? 0.80? 0.03? 6.23? 0.77? AB?DB3? A2? 47? 1.16? 0.01? 2.10? 0.41? AB?DB3? Ag? 84? 1.69? 0.01? 0.36? 0.05? AB?DB3? Bg? 120? 1.77? 0.07? 0.29? 0.06? AB?DB3? 2Ab? 139? ??? ??? 1.15? 0.03? AB?DB3? 3Bg? 151? ??? ??? 0.14? 0.01? AB?DB3? 3CBg? 165? ??? ??? 0.07? 0.00? AB?DB3? 3CBg? 179? ??? ??? 0.06? 0.00? AB?DB3? 3Cg? 200? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? AB?DB4? Oe? 11? 0.18? 0.01? 32.00? 3.16? AB?DB4? A? 40? 1.00? 0.02? 4.99? 0.32? AB?DB4? Bg? 78? 1.84? 0.12? 0.08? 0.00? AB?DB4? Bg2? 95? 1.73? 0.09? 0.04? 0.01? AB?DB4? BCg? 157? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? AB?DB4? Cg? 190? ??? ??? 0.08? 0.01? AB?DB6? Oe? 6? 0.18? 0.01? 46.06? 8.16? 131 Appendix?C:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?NAT?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. AB?DB6? A1? 22? 1.15? 0.01? 3.59? 0.16? AB?DB6? A2? 51? 1.41? 0.02? 0.94? 0.12? AB?DB6? Bw? 68? 1.69? 0.01? 0.05? 0.01? AB?DB6? Bg? 105? 1.75? 0.23? 0.06? 0.00? AB?DB6? Cg1 130? ??? ??? 0.07? 0.01? AB?DB6? Cg2 190? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? AB?DB5? Oe? 6? 0.12? 0.00? 50.05? 6.97? AB?DB5? AE? 21? 1.01? 0.15? 3.03? 0.95? AB?DB5? Bh? 29? 1.13? 0.04? 1.62? 0.25? AB?DB5? Bw? 55? 1.47? 0.03? 0.14? 0.03? AB?DB5? BC? 94? 1.82? 0.10? 0.03? 0.01? AB?DB5? CB 131? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? AB?DB5? Cg 195? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? EV?DB1? Oi? 6? 0.08? 0.00? 45.60? 0.81? EV?DB1? Oa? 16? 0.25? 0.06? 17.87? 2.19? EV?DB1? A1? 34? 0.28? 0.12? 17.55? 2.74? EV?DB1? A2? 50? 0.54? 0.02? 7.16? 2.04? EV?DB1? Bg1? 70? 1.00? 0.20? 3.29? 2.51? EV?DB1? Bg2? 120+? 1.29? 0.03? 1.54? 0.44? EV?DB2? Oe? 4? 0.10? 0.06? 49.57? 0.69? EV?DB2? A1? 16? 0.37? 0.08? 12.26? 2.01? EV?DB2? A2? 36? 0.44? 0.05? 11.92? 0.77? EV?DB2? A3? 61? 0.96? 0.03? 1.75? 0.05? EV?DB2? Bg? 86? 1.50? 0.04? 0.34? 0.04? EV?DB2? Cg 147? 1.73? 0.17? 0.35? 0.02? EV?DB2? 2Ab 155? ??? ??? 0.33? 0.08? EV?DB2? 3Ab2 162? ??? ??? 0.55? 0.01? EV?DB3? Oe? 9? 0.17? 0.02? 41.75? 4.08? EV?DB3? Oa? 36? 0.35? 0.03? 14.77? 0.24? EV?DB3? A/B? 50? 0.78? 0.04? 3.28? 0.63? EV?DB3? Bg1? 57? 1.03? 0.12? 0.93? 0.09? EV?DB3? Bg2? 81? 1.18? 0.21? 1.05? 0.12? EV?DB3? 2CBg 113? ??? ??? 0.12? 0.00? EV?DB3? Cg1 123? ??? ??? 0.08? 0.01? EV?DB3? Cg2 145? ??? ??? 0.07? 0.01? EV?DB?4? Oe? 8? 0.17? 0.06? 44.92? 11.59? EV?DB?4? A? 20? 0.79? 0.08? 6.35? 1.12? EV?DB?4? Bw? 32? 1.45? 0.12? 0.62? 0.24? EV?DB?4? Bg? 67? 1.46? 0.02? 0.20? 0.01? 132 Appendix?C:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?NAT?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. EV?DB?4? BCg? 114? 1.34? 0.06? 0.33? 0.07? EV?DB?4? C1 153? ??? ??? 0.06? 0.00? EV?DB?4? C2 170? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? EV?DB?5? Oe? 3? 0.35? 0.31? 27.47? 1.93? EV?DB?5? A? 15? 1.09? 0.02? 2.05? 0.30? EV?DB?5? Bw1? 28? 1.30? 0.17? 0.45? 0.15? EV?DB?5? Bw2? 70? 1.52? 0.05? 0.09? 0.01? EV?DB?5? Bw3? 100? 1.67? 0.00? 0.03? 0.01? EV?DB?5? BC 130? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EV?DB?5? BC2 157? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EV?DB?5? 2CBg 193? ??? ??? 0.06? 0.00? JL?DB1+? Oe? 4? 0.51? 0.09? 11.51? 1.99? JL?DB1+? A? 22? 0.86? 0.09? 4.30? 0.25? JL?DB1+? Bg1? 29? 1.41? 0.07? 0.69? 0.39? JL?DB1+? Bg3? 84? 1.49? 0.17? 0.26? 0.02? JL?DB1? Bg4? 99? ??? ??? 3.80? 0.11? JL?DB1? 2Bg5? 115? ??? ??? 0.13? 0.02? JL?DB2? Oe? 14? 0.10? 0.00? 54.52? 0.22? JL?DB2? A1? 42? 1.19? 0.03? 2.50? 0.13? JL?DB2? A2? 72? 1.48? 0.00? 0.57? 0.01? JL?DB2? AB? 85? 1.40? 0.16? 0.43? 0.09? JL?DB2? Bg1? 116? 1.61? 0.17? 0.20? 0.02? JL?DB2? 2Bg2? 139? ??? ??? 0.08? 0.00? JL?DB2? 2BCg? 165? ??? ??? 0.08? 0.00? JL?DB2? 2CBg? 200? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? JL?DB3? Oe? 10? 0.07? 0.01? 32.51? 6.43? JL?DB3? A? 35? 0.80? 0.07? 5.06? 0.01? JL?DB3? Bg1? 88? 1.78? 0.00? 0.18? 0.02? JL?DB3? Bg2? 111? 1.91? 0.03? 0.11? 0.01? JL?DB3? BC? 137? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? JL?DB3? Cg1? 170? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? JL?DB3? Cg2? 200? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? JL?DB4? Oe? 8? 0.11? 0.01? 44.35? 2.25? JL?DB4? A? 10? 0.74? 0.22? 8.39? 0.72? JL?DB4? AE? 31? 1.29? 0.00? 1.42? 0.08? JL?DB4? BE? 60? 1.72? 0.00? 0.10? 0.02? JL?DB4? Bt? 85? 1.88? 0.06? 0.03? 0.02? JL?DB4? CBg? 103? 1.77? 0.05? 0.05? 0.01? JL?DB4? Ab 120? ??? ??? 0.35? 0.03? 133 Appendix?C:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?NAT?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. JL?DB4? Bwb 140? ??? ??? 0.33? 0.02? JL?DB4? C? 183? ??? ??? 0.14? 0.01? JL?DB5? Oe? 5? 0.16? 0.04? 43.84? 14.60? JL?DB5? A? 11? 0.39? 0.06? 8.89? 3.50? JL?DB5? AE? 31? 1.24? 0.03? 1.00? 0.39? JL?DB5? Bt1? 55? 1.50? 0.00? 0.34? 0.05? JL?DB5? Bt2? 77? 1.75? 0.04? 0.09? 0.01? JL?DB5? BC? 110? 1.80? 0.04? 0.04? 0.00? JL?DB5? CBg 129? ??? ??? 0.06? 0.01? JL?DB5? C 171? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? JL?DB5? C2 200? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? 134 Prior Converted Cropland Sites Appendix?C:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?PCC?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C? % C St. Dev. EA?DB1? Ap1? 12? 1.35? 0.03? 1.55? 0.10? EA?DB1? Ap2? 27? 1.31? 0.03? 1.20? 0.08? EA?DB1? Bg1? 64? 1.44? 0.06? 0.27? 0.05? EA?DB1? Bg2? 99? 1.54? 0.02? 0.11? 0.03? EA?DB1? Bw? 167? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? EA?DB1? BCg? 200? ??? ??? 0.07? 0.00? EA?DB2? Ap1? 7? 1.34? 0.17? 1.54? 0.24? EA?DB2? Ap2? 28? 1.48? 0.11? 0.91? 0.10? EA?DB2? Bg1? 63? 1.37? 0.05? 0.27? 0.02? EA?DB2? Bg2? 95? 1.64? 0.03? 0.09? 0.01? EA?DB2? Bg3? 133? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? EA?DB2? Bg4? 156? ??? ??? 0.09? 0.01? EA?DB2? CBg? 170? ??? ??? 0.06? 0.00? EA?DB2? 2Cg1? 185? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EA?DB2? 2Cg2? 195? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EA?DB3? Ap1? 11? 1.35? 0.02? 1.23? 0.10? EA?DB3? Ap2? 35? 1.39? 0.10? 0.86? 0.34? EA?DB3? Bg1? 76? 1.66? 0.03? 0.12? 0.01? EA?DB3? Bg2? 120? 1.63? 0.00? 0.07? 0.00? EA?DB3? BCg? 133? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? EA?DB3? 2CBg? 146? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? EA?DB3? 2Ab? 155? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EA?DB3? 2Bwb? 168? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? EA?DB3? 3BCg? 178? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? EA?DB3? 4CB? 189? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? EA?DB3? 5CB? 195? ??? ??? 0.07? 0.02? EA?DB4? Ap? 26? 1.59? 0.08? 0.62? 0.12? EA?DB4? Bw? 48? 1.70? 0.02? 0.18? 0.02? EA?DB4? Bw2? 68? 1.74? 0.07? 0.09? 0.01? EA?DB4? Bw3? 99? 1.68? 0.06? 0.07? 0.01? EA?DB4? BCg 124? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EA?DB4? Cg 158? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EA?DB4? 2C 170? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? EA?DB4? 2C2 190? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.03? EA?DB5? Ap? 26? 1.65? 0.01? 0.59? 0.02? EA?DB5? Bw? 67? 1.73? 0.03? 0.09? 0.05? EA?DB5? CB? 102? 1.63? 0.10? 0.02? 0.01? 135 Appendix?C:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?PCC?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. EA?DB5? C1 115? ??? ??? 0.01? 0.00? EA?DB5? C2 124? ??? ??? 0.01? 0.00? EA?DB5? 2Bwb1 158? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? EA?DB5? 2Bwb2 190? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? CF?DB1+? Ap? 40? 1.59? 0.01? 0.81? 0.10? CF?DB1+? AB? 66? 1.66? 0.03? 0.19? 0.02? CF?DB1+? Bg1? 102? 1.83? 0.02? 0.09? 0.01? CF?DB1? Bg2? ??? ??? 0.13? 0.01? CF?DB1? CBg? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? CF?DB2? Ap? 31? 1.59? 0.05? 0.97? 0.17? CF?DB2? Bg? 73? 1.77? 0.02? 0.16? 0.03? CF?DB2? 2Bg2? 94? 1.58? 0.05? 0.18? 0.02? CF?DB2? 3Bg3? 111? 1.76? 0.05? 0.06? 0.01? CF?DB2? 3Bw? 141? ??? ??? 0.05? 0.00? CF?DB2? 4BCg? 179? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? CF?DB2? 4CBg? 200? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? CF?DB3? Ap? 25? 1.59? 0.04? 0.76? 0.03? CF?DB3? A? 54? 1.58? 0.02? 0.36? 0.02? CF?DB3? Bg? 78? 1.78? 0.03? 0.13? 0.01? CF?DB3? Bw? 100? 1.74? 0.06? 0.04? 0.00? CF?DB3? BCg1? 122? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? CF?DB3? BCg2? 143? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? CF?DB3? BCg3? 166? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? CF?DB3? CBg? 190? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? CF?DB4? Ap1? 20? 1.48? 0.08? 0.98? 0.04? CF?DB4? Ap2? 42? 1.55? 0.04? 0.62? 0.13? CF?DB4? Ag? 70? 1.67? 0.01? 0.20? 0.07? CF?DB4? BCg? 108? 1.82? 0.04? 0.09? 0.01? CF?DB4? C 190? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? CF?DB5? Ap? 25? 1.62? 0.11? 0.33? 0.08? CF?DB5? Bt? 46? 1.66? 0.01? 0.16? 0.01? CF?DB5? BC? 72? 1.58? 0.08? 0.03? 0.00? CF?DB5? C1? 104? 1.58? 0.06? 0.03? 0.01? CF?DB5? C2 132? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? CF?DB5? C3 147? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? CF?DB5? C4 180? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? BF?DB1+? Ap? 36? 1.26? 0.06? 2.60? 0.05? BF?DB1+? A1? 58? 0.92? 0.00? 3.38? 0.14? BF?DB1+? A2? 89? 0.93? 0.08? 2.73? 0.49? 136 Appendix?B:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?PCC?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. BF?DB1? Bg1? 108? ??? ??? 0.39? 0.05? BF?DB1? Bg2? 130? ??? ??? 1.37? 0.01? BF?DB1? BC? 165? ??? ??? 1.48? 0.01? BF?DB1? Cg1? 185? ??? ??? 1.97? 0.01? BF?DB1? Cg2? 215? ??? ??? 2.07? 0.06? BF?DB2? Ap? 22? 1.21? 0.00? 3.05? 0.11? BF?DB2? A1? 45? 0.97? 0.03? 2.66? 0.52? BF?DB2? A2? 70? 1.02? 0.05? 1.78? 0.07? BF?DB2? Bw? 114? 0.88? 0.08? 0.74? 0.03? BF?DB2? Bg? 124? ??? ??? 0.87? 0.02? BF?DB2? Bc? 130? ??? ??? 0.22? 0.02? BF?DB2? BCg? 143? ??? ??? 0.95? 0.01? BF?DB2? CBg? 190? ??? ??? 1.30? 0.01? BF?DB3? Ap? 18? 1.17? 0.08? 3.30? 0.13? BF?DB3? A1? 37? 1.16? 0.07? 3.47? 0.33? BF?DB3? A2? 78? 0.74? 0.33? 2.02? 0.08? BF?DB3? Bg? 112? 0.63? 0.00? 1.17? 0.75? BF?DB3? BCg? 142? ??? ??? 1.41? 0.01? BF?DB3? BCg2? 178? ??? ??? 0.81? 0.06? BF?DB4? Ap1? 12? 1.50? 0.02? 0.38? 0.03? BF?DB4? Ap2? 22? 1.57? 0.02? 0.07? 0.01? BF?DB4? E? 47? 1.94? 0.01? 0.05? 0.00? BF?DB4? Bg? 90? 1.77? 0.01? 0.03? 0.00? BF?DB4? Bw? 109? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? BF?DB4? BCg? 159? ??? ??? 0.01? 0.00? BF?DB4? C? 192? ??? ??? 0.42? 0.08? BF?DB5? Ap1? 15? 1.56? 0.04? 0.11? 0.02? BF?DB5? Ap2? 29? 1.79? 0.01? 0.10? 0.01? BF?DB5? Bw1? 56? 1.78? 0.01? 0.03? 0.00? BF?DB5? Bw2? 92? 1.81? 0.05? 0.02? 0.00? BF?DB5? Bw3? 113? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? BF?DB5? Bw4? 146? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? BF?DB5? Cg? 168? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? BF?DB5? Cg? 186? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? BF?DB5? Cg`? 195? ??? ??? 1.20? 0.01? ML?DB1? Ap1? 18? 1.43? 0.05? 2.49? 0.16? ML?DB1? Ap2? 31? 1.46? 0.03? 1.37? 0.22? ML?DB1? Abg? 55? 1.29? 0.03? 0.78? 0.10? ML?DB1? BAg? 92? 1.85? 0.02? 0.10? 0.03? 137 Appendix?B:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?PCC?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. ML?DB1? BC? 114? 1.82? 0.10? 0.04? 0.00? ML?DB1? Cg 155? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? ML?DB2? Ap? 27? 1.26? 0.06? 3.60? 0.31? ML?DB2? Bg? 52? 1.45? 0.11? 0.67? 0.13? ML?DB2? 2Bg2? 84? 1.75? 0.01? 0.03? 0.00? ML?DB2? 2BCg? 113? 1.71? 0.10? 0.07? 0.03? ML?DB2? 3Cg 190? ??? ??? 0.55? 0.02? ML?DB3? Ap? 18? 1.19? 0.03? 4.25? 0.19? ML?DB3? A? 28? 1.41? 0.01? 1.28? 0.14? ML?DB3? Bg? 44? 1.54? 0.14? 0.48? 0.10? ML?DB3? 2Bg2? 70? 1.79? 0.00? 0.09? 0.01? ML?DB3? 2BC? 85? 1.75? 0.05? 0.11? 0.08? ML?DB3? 3CB? 109? 1.85? 0.02? 0.07? 0.02? ML?DB3? 4CB 123? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? ML?DB3? 4Cg 170? ??? ??? 0.03? 0.00? ML?DB4? Ap1? 21? 1.55? 0.02? 1.75? 0.10? ML?DB4? Ap2? 33? 1.59? 0.06? 1.29? 0.13? ML?DB4? AB? 53? 1.65? 0.01? 0.34? 0.08? ML?DB4? Bw? 86? 1.78? 0.02? 0.05? 0.02? ML?DB4? Ab 102? ??? ??? 0.08? 0.01? ML?DB4? Bwb 168? ??? ??? 0.08? 0.01? ML?DB4? C 185? ??? ??? 0.04? 0.00? ML?DB5? Ap? 23? 1.52? 0.07? 0.57? 0.05? ML?DB5? Bw? 50? 1.77? 0.04? 0.09? 0.00? ML?DB5? BC? 91? 1.74? 0.02? 0.02? 0.00? ML?DB5? CBg 110? ??? ??? 0.01? 0.00? ML?DB5? C1 140? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? ML?DB5? C2 180? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? BT?DB1? Ap1? 22? 0.99? 0.01? 8.56? 0.46? BT?DB1? Ap2? 33? 0.76? 0.00? 13.28? 0.71? BT?DB1? A? 58? 0.82? 0.11? 16.35? 6.21? BT?DB1? Bg? 105? 1.32? 0.01? 0.94? 0.12? BT?DB1? BCg 161? ??? ??? 1.39? 0.01? BT?DB1? CBg 195? ??? ??? 1.36? 0.00? BT?DB2? Ap1? 8? 1.02? 0.07? 7.39? 0.95? BT?DB2? Ap2? 27? 0.94? 0.02? 9.73? 0.56? BT?DB2? A1? 44? 0.51? 0.06? 22.75? 3.50? BT?DB2? A2? 66? 1.03? 0.06? 6.04? 0.59? BT?DB2? Bg1? 105? 1.40? 0.01? 0.91? 0.14? 138 Appendix?B:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?Delmarva?Bay?Study?PCC?sites,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. BT?DB2? Bg2 165? ??? ??? 1.31? 0.01? BT?DB2? BCg 190? ??? ??? 1.62? 0.02? BT?DB3? Ap1? 22? 0.85? 0.01? 10.33? 0.97? BT?DB3? Ap2? 38? 1.08? 0.21? 4.41? 1.51? BT?DB3? Bg1? 100? 1.50? 0.08? 0.29? 0.10? BT?DB3? BCg 145? ??? ??? 0.18? 0.00? BT?DB3? CBg 190? ??? ??? 0.32? 0.01? BT?DB4? Ap1? 23? 1.43? 0.04? 1.90? 0.06? BT?DB4? Ap2? 40? 1.47? 0.01? 2.22? 0.42? BT?DB4? Bw? 62? 1.71? 0.00? 0.09? 0.01? BT?DB4? BCg? 83? 1.74? 0.03? 0.05? 0.00? BT?DB4? CB? 120? 1.77? 0.08? 0.03? 0.00? BT?DB4? C 180? ??? ??? 0.02? 0.00? BT?DB5? Ap? 21? 1.54? 0.09? 0.57? 0.04? BT?DB5? Bt1? 40? 1.79? 0.05? 0.08? 0.01? BT?DB5? Bt2? 74? 1.61? 0.04? 0.05? 0.01? BT?DB5? C1? 120? 1.55? 0.02? 0.02? 0.01? BT?DB5? C2 163? ??? ??? 0.01? 0.00? BT?DB5? C3 195? ??? ??? 0.01? 0.00? 139 Appendix D: Profile Descriptions, CEAP DEK-PC-Me 8/26/2010 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Othello Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 28 SiL (SiL)* 12 (14)* 10YR 3/2 Bg 45 CL 31 10YR 6/2 (L)* (26)* medium, prom, 28% 7.5YR 5/6 2Bg2 66 SCL 30 2.5Y 6/2 (SL)* (19)* medium, prom, 10% 7.5YR 5/6 2Bg3 108 SC 38 2.5Y 6/2 (SCL) (30) medium, prom, 5% 7.5YR 5/8 medium, prom, 1% 5YR 4/6 3Bg4 115 C 46 2.5Y 7/2 (CL) (38) medium, prom, 18% 10YR 6/6 4BCg 135 SCL 25 10YR 7/2 (SCL) (21) med-co, prom, 20% 7.5YR 4/6 favors bottom 5CBg 162 C 46 2.5Y 7/1 (CL) (38) coarse, prom, 10% 10YR 6/8 favors top 6Cg 190+ SL 8 5Y 6/2 2% ilmenite Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 8/12/2010 180 cm 140 DEK-PC-Me 8/26/2010 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Othello Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 28 SiL 12 2.5Y 3/2 Bg 52 CL 31 2.5Y 8/1 (L) (26) med-co., prom, 30% 10YR 5/6 coarse, prom, 25% 2.5Y 5/2 2Bg2 76 SCL 24 2.5Y 6/2 (SL) (19) 7.5YR 5/8 2Bg3 112 CoSL 10 2.5Y 7/2 medium, prom, 15% 7.5YR 5/8 medium, prom, 2% 5YR 4/6 2C 185+ S 2 2.5Y 7/3 Ilmenite Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 8/26/2010 not reached DEK-PC-RS 11/3/2009 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Carmichael Profile A (Basin) Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Rosyland Orr Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 24 L (SL)* 10 (6)* 10YR 3/2 Bg1 60 SL 11 2.5Y 7/2 medium, 12% 7.5YR 5/8 Bg2 91 SL 12 7.5YR 7/2 (SL)* (9)* medium, 2% 7.5YR 5/8 BCg 152 LS 2 2.5Y 7/21 10YR 6/8 Cg 190+ LS 2 2.5Y 7/1 Ilmenite Additional Notes next to center of puddle, outside of puddle Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth 11/3/2009 18 cm 141 DEK-PC-RS 11/3/2009 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Ingleside Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Rosyland Orr Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 24 L 10 10YR 3/2 Bg1 61 fSL 14 2.5Y 6/2 medium, 15% 7.5YR 5/8 Bg2 110 fSL 3 2.5Y 6/1 Firm medium, 25% 7.5YR 5/8 CBg 150 LfS 3 2.5Y 7/2 Ilmenite C 167+ LfS 3 2.5Y 7/3 ilmenite Additional Notes 10m farther from profile A, away from road Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth 11/3/2009 29 cm DEK-PC-RS 11/3/2009 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Ingleside Profile C Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Rosyland Orr Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 28 LS 5 10YR 4/4 BE 60 LS 5 2.5Y 6/3 Bw1 94 LS 5 10YR 6/4 medium, 5% 7.5YR 5/8 medium, 5% 10YR 6/2 Bw2 110 LS 2 10YR 6/6 medium, 5% 7.5YR 5/8 medium, 5% 10YR 7/3 BCg 135+ LS 2 2.5Y 7/2 medium 3% 10YR 5/8 Additional Notes 12m farther from profile B Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 11/3/2009 82 cm 142 DEK-PC-RS 11/3/2009 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Unicorn Profile D Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Rosyland Orr Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 24 LS 4 10YR 4/4 BE 48 SL 8 10YR 6/4 Bw1 74 SL 11 10YR 5/6 fine, 1% 7.5YR 5/6 Bw2 100 SL 12 10YR 5/6 medium, 7% 7.5YR 5/8 Bw3 145 SL 8 10YR 6/6 11% 7.5YR 5/8 8% 10YR 6/2 BC 177 LS 5 2.5Y 7/4 medium, 5% 7.5YR 6/8 medium, 3% 2.5Y 7/3 CB 195+ LS 2 2.5Y 7/4 medium, 7% 10YR 6/8 medium, 9% 2.5Y 7/2 Additional Notes 10m farther from profile C Soil Drainage Class: well drained, wet substratum Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 11/3/2009 144 cm 143 DEK-PC-Stn 6/17/2011 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Hurlock Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 15 SiL (SiL) 15 (26)* 7.5YR 3/1 Ap2 27 SiL 18 10YR 2/2 (25) fine, distinct, RP, 3% 7.5YR 4/6 A 45 SiL 18 10YR 2/1 (25) fine, distinct, RP, 3% 7.5YR 4/6 Ag 60 SiL 21 10YR 4/2 (L)* (23)* medium, distinct, 2+% 10YR 5/6 medium, distinct, 14% 7.5YR 3/1 Bg 85 SiL 14 2.5Y 6/2 (25) med-fine, prom, 30% 2.5Y 6/4 m, prom, root ch, 10% 10YR 5/6 5% 7.5YR 3/1 BCg 101 SiL 13 5Y 7/1 (SiCL)* (29)* f, prom, root ch, 12% 2.5Y 7/6 CBg 118 SiL 10 5Y 5/1 (25) medium, distinct, 6% 2.5Y 6/6 2C1 14 LS 4 10YR 4/2 2C2 163 LS 2 coarse, 60% 2.5Y 5/3 coarse, 40% 2.5Y 4/1 2C3 170+ LS 2 2.5Y 7/6 co, prominent, 20% 10YR 6/8 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: None, almost A12 (Ap1 0.5 value too high) and almost F6 (needs 5% concentrations in Ap2) 10 m on Deer Antler Rd side of ditch Water Table Depth 6/17/2011 38 cm 144 DEK-PC-Stn 6/17/2011 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Hurlock Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 18 SiL 15 10YR 3/1 (25) f, distinct, root ch, 4% 10YR 5/6 A 29 SiL 18 10YR 2/1 (25) f, prom, root ch, 1% 5YR 4/6 AB 43 SiCL 35 7.5YR 3/1 fine, prominent, 7% 7.5YR 4/6 med, prominent, 24% 2.5Y 6/4 Bw 68 SiCL 37 50% 7.5YR 5/8 med, prominent, 27% 2.5Y 6/6 coarse, prominent, 5% 2.5Y 7/1 med, prominent, 18% 7.5YR 3/1 Bw2 107 SiL 24 co, prominent, 65% 7.5YR 5/8 medium, distinct, 14% 2.5Y 6/6 med, prominent, 18% 2.5Y 7/1 fine, prominent, 3% 7.5YR 2/1 BCg 129 SiL 12 5Y 6/1 f, prom, root ch, 12% 10YR 5/6 f, prom, root ch, 3% 10YR 2/1 CBg 145 SiL 10 5Y 5/1 f, prom, root ch, 9% 10YR 5/6 f, prom, root ch, 3% 10YR 2/1 Cg1 175 SiL 8 2.5Y 4/2 f, prom, root ch, 7% 10YR 5/6 f, prom, root ch, 3% 10YR 2/1 Cg2 190+ SiL 8 5Y 4/1 med, prominent, 4% 10YR 2/1 oozing black stuff Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F6 10m on house side of ditch Water Table Depth 6/17/2011 185 cm 145 DEK-R-Jr 8/5/2010 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 6 L 7 2.5Y 3/1 Bg 40 LS 4 2.5Y 5/2 Co-med, prom, 35% 10YR 6/6 Bg2 71 SL 10 2.5Y 7/1 med, prominent, 5% 10YR 6/8 Bg3 104 SL 10 10YR 6/2 med-f, prominent, 25% 10YR 5/6 2BCg 155 SC 38 2.5Y 7/2 Firm fine, prominent, 10% 10YR 6/8 2CBg 185+ C 43 5Y 6/2 Very Firm Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 8/5/2010 4 cm above surface 146 DEK-R-Jr 8/5/2010 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes A 6 L (L)* 10 (13)* 2.5Y 3/2 Ap 24 L 11 2.5Y 4/1 (L)* (16)* medium, distinct, 8% 10YR 5/6 Bg1 54 LS 6 2.5Y 7/1 med, prominent, 10% 10YR 5/6 Bg2 77 SL 10 2.5Y 7/1 (SL)* (14)* med, prominent, 10% 10YR 5/6 Bg3 125 LS 4 2.5Y 6/2 med, prominent 15% 10YR 7/6 coarse, 15% 10YR 5/6 2BCg 159 C 42 5Y 7/2 fine, prominent, 30% 10YR 6/8 10YR 6/6 2CBg 190+ CL 36 10Y 7/1 fine, prom, root ch, 1% 10YR 6/8 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Water near surface, but actual water table deeper. Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth 8/5/2010 45 cm 147 DEK-R-Sg 6/30/2010 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Fallsington Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes A 10 L 12 (6) 2.5Y 4/1 Bg1 74 SL 11 2.5Y 5/1 (6) medium, 18% 7.5YR 5/6 Bg2 116 fSL 8 2.5Y 8/1 fine, 3% 7.5YR 5/6 2Bg3 126 VGrSL 6 10B 4/1 38% gravels 3BCg 137 LS 4 5Y 8/2 3CB 151 SiL 10 2.5Y 7/4 7.5YR 5/8 3Cg1 168 SL 16 2.5Y 8/2 3Cg2 185+ LfS 3 2.5Y 8/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 10 m into water from Profile B Water Table Depth 6/30/2010 30cm above surface 148 DEK-R-Sg 6/30/2010 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Fallsington Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes ^AC 4 S (S)* 1 (0)* 2.5Y 5.5/2 A 41 L (SL)* 12 (6)* 2.5Y 4/1 Bg 65 SL 16 2.5Y 7/1 (SL)* (7)* med-co, prom, 15% 2.5Y 7/6 med, prominent, 10% 10YR 5/6 BCg 116 LS 6 2.5Y 7/1 med, prominent, 1% 10YR 6/6 Cg1 140 LfS 5 10YR 8/1 Cg2 169 LS 4 2.5Y 8.5/1 C 174 SiL 10 5Y 8/3 co, prominent, 45% 10YR 6/8 Cg3` 185 SL 6 N 5/0 8% gravels Cg4` 190+ GrLS 3 5Y 8/2 20% gravels med, prominent, 3% 10YR 6/8 coarse, 5% 2.5Y 7/4 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile located on an island Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained ? Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 6/30/2010 not reached 149 DEK-R-Sg 6/30/2010 Kent County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Fallsington Profile C Upland Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 37 SL 10 10YR 4/2 Btg1 61 SCL 19 2.5Y 4/1 med, prominent, 9% 10YR 6/6 Btg2 109 L 23 10YR 6/1 Med, prominent, 23% 10YR 5/6 BCg 172 SL 14 5Y 6/2 fine, prominent, 1% 10YR 6/8 CBg 185+ fSCL 19 2.5Y 8/1 fine, prominent, 4% 10YR 7/8 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 6/30/2010 not reached DENC-N-BB 9/29/2009 New Castle County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Mullica Complex Hole A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Rosalynd Orr Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 2 5YR 2.5/1 Oa 10 10YR 2.5/1.5 A1 39 (SL)* (12)* 5YR 2.5/1 A2 68 (L) (15) 10YR 2/1 AB 105 (L)* (17)* 10YR 2.5/1 Firm Bg 155 (L) (17) 5Y 5/2 High N value 5Y 5/1 BCg 187 (SiL) (17) 2.5Y 4/2 CBg 210+ (SiL) (17) 2.5Y 4/1 Additional Notes ~10m in from forest line While poking around, random pockets of sandy material at varying depths Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil drainage class: very poorly drained Hydric Soils indicators: A12, F13 Water Table Depth At surface 150 DENC-N-BB 9/29/2009 New Castle County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Mullica Complex Hole B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Rosalynd Orr Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oi 3 5YR 2.5/2 A1 42 SL 10 7.5YR 2.5/1 Uncoated sand grains A2 72 Sl 12 7.5YR 2.5/1 75% less uncoated sand grains compared to above Bh 105 LS 5 7.5YR 3/3 Bh/BC 133 LS 4 Bh 7.5YR 4/3 BC 10YR 4/3 BC 193+ LS 2 10YR 5/4 Additional Notes ~10m into woods Soil drainage class: very poorly drained Hydric Soils indicators: None Water Table Depth 9/29/2009 85cm DENC-N-BB 9/29/2009 New Castle County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Ingleside Hole C Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Rosalynd Orr Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 5 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 10 SL 10 10YR 4/3 AE 21 SL 12 10YR 5/4 BE 44 SL 10 10YR 6/6 Bt1 68 SL 12 10YR 5/6 Bt2 117 fSCL 23 7.5YR 5/6 Bt3 158 fSCL 23 7.5YR 6/6 Lamellae present 10% 10YR 7/3 3% 7.5YR 5/6 CB 178 LfS 3 7.5YR 5/8 CB 195+ LfS 3 10YR 6/8 Additional Notes ~ 30m up from hole B, near road. Soil drainage class: well drained, no wet substratum Hydric Soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 9/29/2009 did not reach 151 DENC-R-As 7/27/2010 New Castle County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Mullica Complex Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oa 1 - - 2.5Y 4/2 Ap 13 SiL 15 10YR 6/2 platy med prominent 24% 7.5YR 5/6 EBg 25 L 16 2.5Y 8/1 med-co, prom, 30% 10YR 6/6 Bw 47 L 14 7.5YR 5/8 med, prominent, 15% 2.5Y 7/2 Bg 68 L 18 10YR 6/2 Hard pieces medium, faint, 15% 10YR 6/3 of soil BCg 101 SL 10 2.5Y 7/2 fine, distinct, 18% 10YR 6/6 CBg 130 SL 8 2.5Y 7/4 med, prominent, 12% 10YR 5/6 medium, distinct, 20% 2.5Y 7/2 Cg 185+ LS 3 2.5Y 7/3 10% ilmenite Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth 7/27/2010 156 cm 152 DENC-R-As 7/27/2010 New Castle County, DE Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Mullica Complex Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes A1 8 LS (L)* 8 (14)* 5Y 4/2 A2 19 L (L)* 12 (15)* 5Y 5/3 Bg1 33 SiC 42 5Y 5/1 sandy on (SiCL)* (31)* med, prominent 30% 7.5YR 5/6 ped faces Bg2 90 SiL 12 5Y 6/2 (SiL) (26)* med, prominent 40% 7.5YR 5/6 Bw 120 SiL 15 2.5Y 6/3 (27) nodules, 3% 5YR 4/6 med, prominent, 45% 7.5R 5/6 medium, faint, 10% 2.5Y 6/2 BCg 190+ SiL 10 2.5Y 7/1 (20) 30% 7.5YR 5/6 nodules, 2% 5YR 4/6 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth 7/27/2010 166 cm 153 MDC-N-AB 10/1/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Hole A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Z Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 9 - - 5YR 2.5/2 Oa 22 - - 10YR 2/1 A1 53 SiL* (16)* 10YR 2/1 Very organic A2 72 SiL 12 (17) 2.5Y 2.5/1 BCg 150 SiL* 10 5Y 5/1 Gradual change (19)* f, prom, root ch 15% 10YR 5/8 from 5/1 to 4/1 5Y 4/1 with depth pockets: 10% 5YR 4/6 L 10 10YR 5/2 sand lenses Additional Notes ~10m in from forest line Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Histic Epipedon Hydric soils indicators: A2 Water Table Depth 10/1/2009 47cm above ground 154 MDC-N-AB 10/1/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Hole B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 7 - - 7.5YR 2.5/3 A 30 Mucky 10 10YR 2/1 L/SL AEg 56 SL 8 10YR 4/1 Bg 104 SCL 20 2.5Y 6/2 10% 10YR 6/6 2% 10YR 6/8 BC 126 SL 9 10YR 6/8 10% 5Y 6/2 CBg 142+ SL 8 5Y 7/1 med, prom, 8% 10YR 6/6 fine, prominent, 2% 7.5YR 6/8 Additional Notes Located ~30m into woods ~ 5m into woods, loamy surface going to sandy textures at 40cm dark to 50cm Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A7, A11 Water Table Depth 10/1/2009 20cm 155 MDC-N-AB 10/1/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Hole C Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 5 - - 5YR 3/2 A 23 SL/L 10 2.5Y 2.5/1 Uncoated Sand Grains AE 47 SL 8 10YR 4/2 10YR 3/2 Bh 61 SL 8 5YR 3/3 Bhs 71 LS 7 2.5YR 2.5/2 Bhsm 79 LS 7 2.5YR 2.5/1 Bs` 93 LS 6 7.5YR 3/2 BC 114 LS 6 2.5Y 6/3 CB 143 SL 17 10YR 5/8 2.5Y 7.5/1 Cg 156+ SL 8 2.5Y 5/1 fine, few, prominent 7.5YR 5/8 Additional Notes 7m up hill from hole B, highest point around just before ditch Soil Drainage Class: well drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 10/1/2009 62cm 156 MDC-N-BC 9/10/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Pond Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Dr. Rabenhorst Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 5 - - 5YR 2.5/1 Oa 50 - - 10YR 2/1 A 70 SL (LS)* 15 (6)* 10YR 2/2 Bg 97 SL* 15 (14)* 2.5Y 3/2 Cg1 116 LS 3 2.5Y 4/1.5 2Cg2 125 SL 12 2.5Y 4/1 3Cg3 157 SiL 20 2.5Y 5/1 Few sand lenses N>1 4Cg4 157+ LS 10Y5/1 No sample Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Used peat sampler for Oe and Oa 4m from 3 wells and 10m from depth measure, under maple branch in water Drainage class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Water Table Depth 9/10/2009 40 cm above surface 157 MDC-N-BC 9/10/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Mid Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Dr. Rabenhorst 14m at 272 deg from pond hole Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 7 - - 5YR 2.5/1 A 20 LS 10 10YR 2/1 Bh 35 LS 9 10YR 2/2 Texture questionable due [SL?] to organics Bhs 45 LS 8 10YR 3/2 Texture questionable due [SL?] to organics Bhs2 58 LS 4 10YR 3/3 BC 82 LS 4 10YR 5/3 Cg 96 LS 4 2.5Y 5/2 Cg2 106+ LS 4 5Y 6/2 Additional Notes Drainage class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: None Water Table Depth 9/10/2009 20 cm MDC-N-BC 9/10/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Ingleside Upper Profile Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Dr. Rabenhorst 14m at 328 deg from mid hole Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 5 - - 5YR 2.5/1 A 18 LFS/FSL NR 10YR 3/2 Bw 44 LS/SL NR 10YR 4/3 Bw2 75 LS NR 2.5Y 5/6 Distinct, 10% 10YR 5/8 BC 98 LS NR 2.5Y 6/4 Common, faint 2.5Y 6/3 Cg 132+ LS NR 2.5Y 6/2 Distinct 15% 2.5Y 5/4 Additional Notes Drainage class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: none NR = Not Recorded for % clay Water Table Depth 9/10/2009 20 cm 158 MDC-N-BeW 10/8/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Woodstown Hole A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 8 - - 5YR 3/2 A1 30 L (SL)* 10 (19)* 10YR 3/2 A2 54 L 10 10YR 3/2 (L)* (23)* medium 5% 7.5YR 4/6 7.5YR 3/4 medium 2% 10YR 5/1 Bg1 86 SiL 18 2.5Y 4/1 (C)* (44)* med dist 30% 7.5YR 3/4 med prom 15% 7.5YR 5/6 2Bg2 116 SCL 22 10YR 4/1 (SL)* (17)* med prom 20% 7.5YR 6/8 med dist 7% 7.5YR 3/4 2CBg 128 SL 14 5Y 6/1 (L)* (21)* med prom 7% 10YR 6/8 10YR 4/6 3Cg1 141 SiL (17) 5Y 6/2 N>1 Fine, 10YR 4/6 10YR 7/8 fine centers 5YR 3/4 4Cg2 154 SL 10 5Y 6/2 med prom 13% 5YR 4/6 13% 7.5YR 5/6 2.5Y 4/4 Loamy sand lens 5Cg3 200+ SiL 18 5Y 5/2 favor bottom, 5% 5Y 3/4 ped faces favor top, 8% 7.5YR 5/8 ped faces Additional Notes Center of wetland Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Misses F13 by 1 chroma, and A12 by 0.5 value Water Table Depth 10/8/2009 8 cm 159 MDC-N-BeW 10/8/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Woodstown Hole B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 5 - - 7.5YR 3/2 A 17 L 10 7.5YR 4/1 AE 36 L 8 10YR 4/1 Bg 81 SCL 33 2.5Y 4/1 med prom 15% 7.5YR 4/6 med prom 2% 7.5YR 7/8 med faint 2% 2.5Y 5/1 BC 95 SCL 33 2.5Y 3/1 med prom 8% 7.5YR 4/4 few fine prom 7.5YR 5/8 2CBg 175+ SiL 18 5Y 5/1 med prom 12% 10YR 7/6 core of above 8% 5YR 5/6 Additional Notes 9m towards Road, located in wetland right before rising up and out Infilling of old root channels with sandier darker material (3cm x 10cm root channel) Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 10/8/2009 73 cm 160 MDC-N-BeW 10/8/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Hole C Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 3 - - 2.5YR 2.5/2 A 19 SL 10 10YR 3/1 some unmasked sand grains E 30 SL 8 2.5Y 5.5/2 Bg1 54 SL 10 2.5Y 6/2 med, prominent 17% 10YR 7/8 med, prominent 10% 7.5YR 5/8 2Bg2 71 SC 38 2.5Y 5/2 7% 5YR 4/6 2% 10YR 6/8 few 2.5Y 6/1 3Bg3 78 LS 7 2.5Y 6/1 3Bg4 107 SL 10 2.5Y 5/1 4% 2.5Y 6/1 few med prom 7.5YR 6/8 3BCg 115 LS 7 2.5Y 6/1 med distinct 8% 7.5YR 5/8 3Cg 123 LCoS 7 5Y 8/1 3C1 135 LCoS 7 7.5YR 5/6 3C2 157+ LS 7 2.5Y 6/3 Additional Notes ~ 20m up from hole B toward road Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 9/29/2009 63 cm 161 MDC-N-JL 8/7/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Profile A (Basin) Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 4 - - A 22 L 10 10YR 2/1 Friable Bg1 39 L 14 2.5Y 5/1.5 15% 2.5Y 4/1 f, prominent, 35% 10YR 4/6 Firm Bg2 58 SiL 16 2.5Y 5/1 Firm many, f, promt, 40% 7.5YR 5/8 Bg3 84 SCL 24 50% 10YR 4/1 Very Firm 40% 2.5Y 7/1 prominent, 10% 10YR 5/6 Bg4 99 CL 28 45% 2.5Y 7/1 Very Firm 10YR 5/1 few, prom, root ch 7.5YR 5/8 2Bg5 115 CoSL 18 10YR 5/1 few 5PB 4/1 5% 7.5YR 4/6 2Cg1 148 SL, 10% 8 10% 7/N Gr 2.5Y 7/1 > mixed matrix 2.5Y 6/2 10% 2.5Y 6/4 8% 10YR 4/1 2Cg2 166 FSL 15 N 7/0 occasional Decomposing Root Channels 2Cg3 190+ LCoS 3 5Y 7/1 Very Soupy (structureless) Few, f, prom, root ch 7.5YR 5/8 2.5Y 4/1 Contamination? Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11, F13 Water Table Depth 8/7/2009 ponded 162 MDC-N-JL 8/7/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Corsica Profile B (mid) Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oi 5 - - A 37 L 10 10YR 2/1 mucky modified? friable AE 49 SL 8 2.5Y4/2 30% 5Y 6/2 Friable 10% 10YR 3/1 EA 63 SL 6 80% 5Y 6/2 Friable 20% om mixing 10YR 3/1 E 82 LS 4 Very Friable 5Y 6/1 some thin stratified OM Bg1 107 CL 31 5Y 6/1 firm prom, root ch.35% 10YR 5/6 Bg2 142 FSL 16 5Y 7/1 Center, fine prominent 10% 7.5YR 5/8 Outer, medium 10YR 5/8 firm Cg1 158 FSL 12 5Y 7/2 f, prom, root ch. 2% 10YR 5/8 Firm few faint medium 5Y 6/4 Cg2 172 LS 4 80% 2.5Y 5/2 Friable 20% from above 5Y 7/2 Cg3 185+ SL 8 5Y 7/2 faint 10% 5Y 7/1 Additional Notes Located 20 m from hole A through woods Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A12, F13 Water Table Depth 8/7/2009 Not recorded 163 MDC-N-JL 8/7/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica complex Profile C (Rim) Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oi 8 - - A 25 SL/L 10 2.5Y 3/3 Friable medium 6% 10YR 3/6 Bw1 48 SL 8 2.5Y 5/6 Very Friable common medium 10YR 5/6 Bw2 70 SL 7 2.5Y 5/4 distinct 15% 10YR 5/6 Prominent 5% 10YR 5/8 BC 112 LS 4 5Y 5/3 common coarse 2.5Y 5/4 2.5Y 5/3 matrix changes to BC 143 LS 4 20% 2.5Y 5/3 10YR 3/6 CB 160+ LS 3 20% 10YR 4/6 5Y 5/3 Additional Notes Located 50 m from profile 1, along transect with 3, on top of rim Soil Drainage Class: well drained, no wet substratum Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 8/7/2009 Not recorded 164 MDC-PC-BeF 7/23/2009 Caroline County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Hammonton-Fallsington-Corsica Complex Profile A (Basin) Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Dr. Martin C Rabenhorst Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 36 SiL/L (L)* 11 (27)* 10YR 2/1 A1 58 SiL 17 darker than N 2.5/0 (SiCL) (36) 10YR 2/1 15% distinct 10YR 3/3 A2 89 SiL 23 2.5Y 2/1 (C)* (44)* 25% Distinct 10YR 3/3 Bg1 108 SiCL 28 60% 2.5Y 6/2 (C) (41) 30% N2.5 10% prominent 7.5YR 4/6 Bg2 130 SiL 22 2.5Y 5/2 N<0.7 (SiCL)* (33)* 20% 5YR 4/6 loosing structure 7.5YR 4/6 BC 165 SiL 18 50% 2.5Y 4/3 (25) 35% 2.5Y 5/1 15% 5YR 4/6 7.5YR 4/6 Cg1 185 SiL 18 50% 5GY 4/1 Striations (25) 50% 5Y 4/1 upper part some 7.5YR 4/1 Cg2 245 SiL 18 (25) 2.5Y 4/1 0.7Co) Additional Notes ~20m farther down from profile A too wet to texture Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth 10/6/2009 28 cm above ground 199 MDQA-R-Ws 10/8/2009 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Othello Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes A 9 SiL/L 12 2.5Y 5/3 f, root ch, 5% 7.5YR 5/8 Bw 28 SiL/L 12 2.5Y 6/4 platy structure med-coarse, 10% 7.5YR 5/6 10% 5Y 7/2 Bg1 60 SiL 8 5Y 8/1 fluffy med, prom, 10% 2.5Y 5/6 Bg2 80 SiL 12 5Y 8/1 fluffy med-coarse, 45% 10YR 4/6 2BC 86 SC 42 30% 5Y 7/1 top (SCL) (25) transition to 70% 2.5Y 4/1 3CBg 160 SiC 44 2.5Y 7/2 (CL) (33) fine-med, 35% 7.5YR 6/8 go along plates 3Cg 200+ SiL [Si?] 8 2.5Y 7/2 no sand fine-med, 15% 7.5YR 6/8 Additional Notes site very ditched and diked Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 10/8/2009 129 cm 200 MDQA-R-Ws 10/8/2009 Queen Anne?s County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Othello Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Zurheide Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes A 14 SiL 10 2.5Y 5/2 (SiL)* (7)* fine root ch 4% 10YR 5/8 Btg1 38 SiL 25 5Y 5/1 (15) 8% 10YR 4/6 & 6/8 5% 5Y 7/1 Btg2 63 CL 30 2.5Y 5/1 prismatic structure (SiL)* (20)* few fine 10YR 6/8 2.5Y 7/2 N 4/0 clay film 2BCg 98 GrSiL 14 2.5Y 4/1 fine-med 10YR 4/6 3CBg 115 SiL 11 5Y 6/2 2% 10YR 6/8 4C 140 SC 37 2.5Y 3/1 (SCL)* (24)* few 2.5Y 2.5/4 7.5YR 3/3 5Cg1 152 CoS 2.5Y 7/1 5Cg2 173+ LS 2.5Y 6/2 Additional Notes Across ditch and away from road, ~ 15m away from profile A Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth Not recorded 201 MDT-N-SD 6/22/2010 Talbot County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Elkton Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 5 - - 2.5YR 2.5/1 A 22 SiCL 36 10YR 4/1 (SiC)* (46)* medium, 18% 10YR 5/6 Bg1 70 SiCL 31 2.5Y 7/1 (SiCL)* (36) med, pores, 25% 10YR 5/6 fine, pores, 8% 7.5YR 4/6 Bg2 126 SiCL 31 10Y 5.5/1 medium, 10% 10YR 5/8 2Ab 141 CL 32 7.5YR 4.5/1 2ABb 168 CL 32 7.5YR 4.5/1 medium, 10% 7.5YR 5/6 medium, 5% 2.5Y 6/2 2Bgb 185+ SCL 22 7.5YR 6/1 8% 10YR 5/6 Additional Notes BD collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soil indicators: F3 Water Table Depth 6/22/2010 not reached 202 MDT-N-SD 6/22/2010 Talbot County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Crosiadore Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 4 - - 5YR 2.5/1 A 23 SiL 13 10YR 3/1 Bg1 59 SiL 23 10YR 5/1 medium, 21% 10YR 4/6 Bg2 141 SiL 18 5Y 6/1 medium, 4% 10YR 5/8 medium, 8% 10YR 5/6 surrounds 10YR 5/8 2Ab 176 CL 39 7.5YR 4/1 fine, root pores, 5% 7.5YR 4/6 medium, 3% 2.5Y 6/1 2Bgb 200+ L 24 10YR 5/1 medium, 3% 7.5YR 4/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soil indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 6/22/2010 not reached 203 MDT-N-SD 6/22/2010 Talbot County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Crosiadore Profile C Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 3.5 - - 7.5YR 3/2 A 8 SiL 11 10YR 3/2 EB 45 SiL 13 2.5Y 6/4 10% 2.5Y 7/2 root pores, 1.5% 10YR 5/6 Bw 77 SiL 14 10YR 6/6 medium, 8% 7.5YR 5/6 medium, 15% 10YR 7/2 Bg 120 SiL 16 2.5Y 6/2 med, root ch, 12% 7.5YR 5/6 2ABb 162 CL 33 7.5YR 5/1 medium, 3% 7.5YR 5/8 medium, 10% 10YR 6/6 2Bgb 185+ CL 31 10YR 6/1 medium, 5% 10YR 6/6 Additional Notes Soil drainage class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 6/22/2010 not reached 204 MDT-N-SD 6/22/2010 Talbot County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Mattapex Profile D Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 2 - - 7.5YR 3/2 A 10 SiL 10 10YR 3/3 AE 22 SiL 12 10YR 4.5/4 EB 47 SiL 13 10YR 6/6 Bw1 74 SiL 17 10YR 5/6 Bw2 109 SiL 16 10YR 5/6 medium, 15% 2.5Y 6/2 2Bw3 145 SL 10 10YR 5/6 fine-med, 1% 2.5Y 6/2 2BC 169 S 2 2.5Y 7/3 20% 2.5Y 7/4 2CB 185+ SL 8 7.5YR 5/6 10YR 6/4 lamellae? 2.5Y 7/2 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soil indicators: none Water Table Depth 6/22/2010 not reached 205 MDT-R-DF 6/22/2010 Talbot County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Fallsington Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oa 3 - - 5Y 2.5/2 Ag 13 L (SL) 12 (7) 5Y 4/2 ABg 28 SL 12 5Y 5/1 (L) (10) medium, 25% 10YR 5/6 Bg 61 LS 7 2.5Y 6/2 medium, 28% 7.5YR 5/6 BCg 109 S 3 10YR 7/1 medium, 10% 10YR 5/8 2CB 142 SiL 10 10GY 5/1 fine, pore ch, 3% 10YR 5/6 3Ab 165+ Mucky SiL 14 10YR 2/1 Additional Notes Soil drainage class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth 6/22/2010 not reached MDT-R-DF 6/22/2010 Talbot County, MD Mapped Soil Series: Fallsington Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oa 2 - - 2.5Y 3/3 Ag 29 L 12 2.5Y 4/2 (SL)* (7)* fine, root pores, 3% 10YR 4/6 Bg 66 SL 10 5Y 6/2 (L)* (9) medium, 25% 10YR 5/6 BCg 127 LS 7 2.5Y 6/2 medium, 25% 10YR 5/8 2CB 156 SiL 8 N 5/0 fine, root pores, 3% 10YR 5/6 3Ab 162+ mucky SiL 14 2.5Y 2.5/1 Additional Notes BD collected in association with this profile Soil drainage class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth not documented 206 NC-N-EC 7/15/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Ponzer Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 2 - - 7.5YR 2.5/2 Oa1 13 - - 10YR 2-/1 Oa2 18 - - 5YR 2.5/1 Oa3 37 - - 10YR 2-/1 Ag 63 SiL 16 10YR 4/2 Bg 86 SiL 24 2.5Y 4/1 2Bg 144 L/vfSL 8 2.5Y 5/2 BCg 165 LS 3 2.5Y 5/2 Ilmenite 5% Cg 180+ LvfS 3 5GY 4/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A2 Histic epipedon Water Table Depth 7/15/2010 59 cm NC-N-EC 7/15/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Ponzer Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 3 - - 2.5YR 2.5/1 Oa1 28 - - 10YR 2/1 charcoal chunks present Oa2 69 - - 7.5YR 2.5/1 soft fluffy granules BA 95 SiL 10 2.5Y 5/3 (SiL)* (14)* 10% 2.5Y 4/2 Bg 117 SiL (SiCL)* 18 (27)* 2.5Y 4/1 2Bg2 168 fSL 6 10YR 4/2 2BCg 185+ fSL 6 2.5Y 3/1 Coarse, 40% 2.5Y 4/2 Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Soil taxonomy: Terric Haplosaprist Water Table Depth 7/15/2010 not recorded 207 NC-N-PLR1 7/13/2010 Hyde County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Scuppernong Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 6 - - 7.5YR 2.5/2 BC 13 LvfS 2 2.5Y 8/4 eolian? Medium, 2% 10YR 6/8 Oe` 17 7.5YR 2.5/1 A 46 SiL 14 10YR 3/1 Mucky (L) (21) Bg 74 fSL 8 10YR 4/2 med, root ch, 3% 7.5YR 5/6 BCg 112 LfS 6 5Y 6/1.5 m, d, root ch, 1.5% 7.5YR 5/6 Ab 137 vfSL 8 5Y 4/1.5 mucky Bgb 161 LS 2 2.5Y 6/2 Ab` 185+ LS 3 2.5Y 3/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A2 Water Table Depth 7/13/2010 171 cm 208 NC-N-PLR1 7/13/2010 Hyde County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Scuppernong Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 8 - - 7.5YR 2.5/2 BC 16 LvfS 3 10YR 7/6 eolian? (SL)* (3)* medium 8% 10YR 5/6 A 51 SiL (L)* 14 (21)* 10YR 3/1 Bg 80 fSL 7 10YR 4/2 (SL)* (12)* 10% 2.5Y 7/1 pocket Bg2 106 L 8 10YR 4/1 w/ vf (10) m, p, root ch, 10% 7.5YR 4/6 sands m, p, root ch, 5% 10YR 6/6 BCg 130 fSL 8 2.5Y 6.5/1 Ab 142 vfSL 8 2.5Y 3/1 mucky Bgb 176 LS 4 10YR 6/2 Ab` 185+ LS 4 2.5Y 3/1 Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 7/13/2010 178 cm 209 NC-N-PLR2 7/13/2010 Hyde County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Belhaven Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oa/e 18 - - 5YR 2.5/1 intermittent charcoal 17-20 cm Oa 41 - - 5YR 3/1 Oa 63 - - 10YR 3/2 N > 1 Oa 115 - - 10YR 3/1 N > 1 A 124 LfS 1 10YR 3/2 mucky AC 140 LfS (S) 1 10YR 4/2 Cg 190+ LvfS (S) 3 5GY 4/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Soil Taxonomy: Terric haplosaprist Water Table Depth 7/13/2010 At surface 210 NC-N-PLR2 7/13/2010 Hyde County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Belhaven Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oa1 13 - - N 2/5/0 charcoal chunks Oa2 29 - - 7.5YR 2.5/1 Oa3 58 - - 10YR 2/2 N >1 Oa4 118 - - 10YR 3/2 N>1 AC 142 LfS 2 10YR 3/1 Mucky (LS)* (7)* C/A 190+ C=LS 2 2.5Y 5/2 A=LfS 2 coarse 25% 10YR 2/1 Mucky (S)* (3)* Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Soil Taxonomy: Terric Haplosaprist Water Table Depth 7/13/2010 49 cm NC-PC-EC 7/14/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Ponzer Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap 13 - - 10YR 2-/1 Oa 35 - - 5YR 2.5/1 Ag 57 SiL (CL)* 12 (30)* 10YR 4/2 Bg 125 SiC 43 10YR 5/2 (SiCL)* (38)* co-m, p, root ch, 22% 7.5YR 4/6 CBg 161 vfSL 8 5G 6/1 distinct, 30% 5G 5/1 pockets f, prom, root ch, 1% 10YR 4/6 Cg 190+ LfS 4 5G 4/1 coarse, 40% 10GY 5/1 Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A2 Water Table Depth 7/14/2010 179 cm 211 NC-PC-EC 7/14/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Ponzer Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap 14 - - N 2.5/0 Oa 37 - - 7.5YR 2.5/1 Ag 61 CL 34 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/6 Bg 109 C 44 10YR 5/2 med, prom, 18% 5YR 4/6 BC 134 SiCL 29 5Y 6/3 med-co, prom, 15% 7.5YR 4/6 med, p, root ch, 5% 5YR 3/2 med distinct, 23% 5Y 7/1 CBg 163 vfSL 8 10GY 5/1 5G 5/1 f, prom, root ch, 1% 7.5YR 4/6 Cg 190+ LfS 4 5G 5/1 med, distinct, 10% 5G 4/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A2 Histic epipedon Water Table Depth 7/14/2010 167 cm 212 NC-PC-KY 8/11/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Belhaven Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap1 14 - - 10YR 2/1 all visible sand grains are uncoated Oap2 33 - - 5YR 2.5-/2 A 53 SL (LS)* 8 (4)* 7.5YR 3/3 BA 80 L 18 Coarse, 65% 10YR 3/2 (SL)* (10)* 35% 10YR 4/3 BC 100 SL 7 10YR 3/1.5 10YR 5/3 sandier pockets Cg1 146 LS 5 10Y 4/1 pockets of finer material 5% Cg2 165+ LS 5 5GY 4/1 Additional Notes low spot within 20m of both roads Bulk density collected in association with this profile Sand in surface could be from roads Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A2 Histic epipedon Water Table Depth 8/11/2010 102 cm 213 NC-PC-KY 8/11/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Belhaven Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap1 20 - - 10YR 2/1 all sand grains are uncoated Oap2 30 - - 10YR 2/2 Oa 44 - - 5YR 2.5-/2 AB 57 SL (LS) 6 7.5YR 3/2 Bw 71 SL 15 10YR 4/3 Bw2 104 L 12 10YR 3/1 BC 120 SL 5 10YR 3/1.5 Cg1 152 L 13 5GY 4/1 Cg2 166+ LS 3 10GY 5/1 Additional Notes located 35 m from road, tried to avoid surface sand slightly higher elevation than profile A Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Water Table Depth 8/11/2010 103 cm 214 NC-PC-MT 8/12/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Roper Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap 22 - - 10YR 2/1 really black! or N 2.5/0 Oa1 47 - - 7.5YR 2.5-/2 Oa2 87 - - 10YR 3/2 Ag 110 L 8 2.5Y 5/2 (SL)* (4)* coarse, 15% 10YR 4/2 BCg 134 L 26 2.5Y 7/1 (L)* (17)* 10GY 6/1 prominent, 15% 10YR 5/6 assoc with 2.5Y 7/1 prominent, 8% 7.5YR 5/6 assoc with 10GY 6/1 Cg 185+ CL (L) 36 (26) 5GY 5/1 Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Soil Taxonomy: Terric Haplosaprist Water Table Depth 8/12/2010 81 cm NC-PC-MT 8/12/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Roper Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap 14 - - 10YR 2/1 Really Black! or N 2.5/1 Oa1 30 - - 7.5YR 2.5-/1 firm chunks Oa2 52 - - 7.5YR 2.5-/1 Ag 86 SiL 8 10YR 4/2 mucky Bg 130+ L 8 2.5Y 5/2 35% 10YR 4/2 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Soil Taxonomy: Terric Haplosaprist Water Table Depth 8/12/2010 113 cm 215 NC-R-EC 7/14/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Belhaven Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap 12 - - 10YR 2/1 Oa 40 - - 10YR 2/1 mineral pocket 5% 10YR 3/3 Ag 59 SiL 10 10YR 4/2 Mucky (SiCL)* (30)* Bg 75 CL 37 10YR 4/1 (SiCL)* (35)* med, root ch, 28% 10YR 4/6 Cg1 125 LvfS 3 10GY 5/1 Cg2 190+ fSL 5 10GY 5/1 med, distinct, 10% 5G 5/1 Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Soil taxonomy: Terric Haplosaprist Water Table Depth 7/14/2010 118 cm NC-R-EC 7/14/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Belhaven Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap 2 - - 10YR 2/1 Cg? 9 SiL 7 2.5Y 7/2 fine, prom, 35% 7.5YR 6/6 ? 14 - - N 2/0 entire horizon is Charcoal Oa 56 - - 7.5YR 2.5/1 Ag 104 SiL (SiCL) 10 (30) 10YR 4/2 Bg 129 CL 33 5Y 5/2 (SiCL) (35) m, p, root ch, 23% 7.5YR 4/6 Cg 175 fSL 4 5G 6/1 Cg2 190+ fSL 6 10GY 5/1 Additional Notes Located ~30 m from pond at a higher elevation, between drainage ditches Two feet next to auger boring, 20cm higher with no charcoal and 20cm more Oa on top. Soil drainage class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Water Table Depth 7/14/2010 158 cm 216 NC-R-KY 8/11/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Belhaven Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap 12 - - 10YR 2/1 Oa 33 - - 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 46 L (SL)* 11 (12)* 10YR 3/3 Bg 59 L (SL)* 8 (14)* 10YR 4/2 Ab 100 SL 16 2.5Y 3/1 10YR 3/1 2.5Y 5/2 BCg 115 S 2 2.5Y 4/1 Cg1 147 LfS 4 10GY 4/1 Cg2 160+ LS 4 5GY 4/1 Additional Notes At end of big ditch, right next to it Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A2 Histic epipedon Water Table Depth 8/11/2010 <54 cm NC-R-KY 8/11/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Belhaven Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oap 18 - - 10YR 2/2 firm Oa1 46 - - 10YR 2/2 soft Oa2 70 - - 7.5YR 2.5/2 Oa3 95 - - 5YR 2.5/2 Cg 100 SL 6 2.5Y 5/3 Ab 116 L 14 2.5Y 2.5/2 Ab2 174 fSL 2 2/5Y 3/1 2.5Y 4/2 Cg 190+ fSL 2 10Y 4/1 Additional Notes Up on original surface, about 50 cm higher than profile A Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Soil Taxonomy: Terric Haplosaprist Water Table Depth 8/11/2010 113 cm 217 NC-R-MT 7/16/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Scuppernong Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 10 - - 10YR 2-/1 had small hard OM pellets Oa1 44 - - 10YR 2-/1 Oa2 86 - - 7.5YR 2.5/1 Oa3 137 - - 10YR 2/2 AC 163 mucky 10YR 3/2 fSL (vfSL)* 8 (14)* 20% 2.5Y 6/3 Cg 189 LfS (LvfS)* 5 (5)* 2.5Y 4/2 Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Soil Taxonomy: Terric Haplosaprist Water Table Depth 7/16/2010 70 cm NC-R-MT 7/16/2010 Tyrrell County, NC Mapped Soil Series: Scuppernong Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 10 - - 10YR 2-/1 small hard OM pellets Oa1 36 - - 7.5YR 2.5-/1 Oa2 92 - - 7.5YR 2.5/2 Oa4 129 - - 10YR 2.5/2 ACg 176 fSL 9 10YR 4/2 Cg 190+ LfS 4 2.5Y 4/2 8% 10Y 5/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: very poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A1 Soil Taxonomy: Terric Haplosaprist Water Table Depth 7/16/2010 68 cm 218 VASH-PC-Bks 7/8/2010 Southampton County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Bojac Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 24 LfS 6 10YR 4/2 (fS)* (2)* bottom of Ap, 3% 10YR 6/6 BE 42 LfS 5 2.5Y 7/3 (LfS)* (5)* fine-med, dist, 3% 10YR 6/6 Bw1 95 fSL 6 2.5Y 7/6 (LfS)* (7)* medi, prom, 15% 7.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 8% 2.5Y 7/3 Bw2 121 LfS 4 10YR 6/6 Ilmenite (fS)* (2)* prom, 10% 10YR 5/8+ BC 143 LfS 3 2.5Y 7/3 ilmenite (fS) (2) med, distinct, 4% 10YR 6/6 CB 186 S 1 2.5Y 7/5 ilmenite med, dist, 1.5% 10YR 6/6 CBg 190+ fS 1 2.5Y 7/2 very little ilmenite med-coarse, 5% 10YR 7/6 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: None Water Table Depth 7/8/2010 181 cm 219 VASH-PC-Bks 7/8/2010 Southampton County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Bojac Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 22 LfS (fS) 6 (2) 10YR 4/3 BE 48 LfS 3 2.5Y 6/4 (7) fine, distinct, 1% 10YR 6/8 Bw1 90 LfS 5 2.5Y 6/6 (S) (2) med, distinct, 2% 10YR 6/8 Bw2 118 LfS 4 2.5Y 6/6 (S) (2) med, distinct, 4% 10YR 6/8 Bw3 142 LfS 4 10YR 7/6 15% ilmenite (S) (2) med, distinct, 8% 10YR 6/8 BC 169 LfS 3 2.5Y 7/3 10% ilmenite (S) (2) coarse, 20% 10YR 6/6 CB 178 LS 4 7.5YR 5/8 (S) (3) medium, 1% 7.5YR 2.5/2 Mn Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: None Water Table Depth 7/8/2010 180 cm 220 VASH-PC-BN 7/6/2010 Southampton County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Slagle Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 20 L (SiL)* 13 (14)* 2.5Y 5/2 A 45 L 16 2.5Y 5/2 (SiL)* (14)* med-f, dist, 10% 10YR 4/6 Bt 91 CL 29 2.5Y 5/4 (L)* (22)* med, dist, 15% 2.5Y 5/2 BCg 143 fSL 17 2.5Y 6/1 med, prom, 40% 10YR 7/6 Cg1 162 LfS 3 2.5Y 7/1 m-co, prom, 5% 2.5Y 7/6 Cg2 188+ LfS 3 2.5Y 7/1 med, dist, 35% 2.5Y 6/4 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth Did not reach water table 221 VASH-PC-BN 7/6/2010 Southampton County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Slagle Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 22 L (SiL) 12 2.5Y 5/2 A 48 L 13 2.5Y 5/2 (SiL) fine, distinct, 8% 7.5YR 5/6 Bt 90 L 27 2.5Y 6/4 (22) fine-m, dist, 15% 10YR 5/6 Btg1 118 L 25 10YR 6/2 m-f, prom, 4% 10YR 5/8 m-co, dist, 23% 10YR 6/6 Btg2 142 SCL 24 2.5Y 6.5/1 med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/8 m-co., prom, 10% 2.5Y 6/6 Btg3 169 L 18 2.5Y 7/1 med, prom, 10% 10YR 6/6 BCg 178 LfS 3 2.5Y 8/1 CBg2 190+ LfS 3 10YR 7/2 med, prom, 5% 7.5YR 6/8 co, prom, 20% 10YR 6/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth Did not reach 222 VASH-R-Bks 7/8/2010 Southampton County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Roanoke Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 23 L (SCL) 12 (20) 10YR 2/1 Ag 56 L 18 10YR 4/1 (SCL) (25) f, dist, root ch, 5% 10YR 5/6 Bg 81 fSL 12 10YR 5/1 fine, prom, 1% 10YR 6/6 Bg2 109 fSL 12 10YR 5.5/2 med, prom, 5% 10YR 5/8 medium, 5% 10YR 4/1 Ilmenite BCg 190+ L 10 2.5Y 7/1 w/ vfs med, prom, 10% 10YR 5/8 nodules, 10% 10YR 5/8 dominant at bottom Additional Notes Location for lowland sample for Cs-137 analysis Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 7/8/2010 not reached 223 VASH-R-Bks 7/8/2010 Southampton County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Roanoke Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 22 L (SCL)* 14 (21)* 10YR 2/1 Ag 45 L 18 10YR 4/1 (SCL) (25)* fine, distinct, 5% 10YR 5/6 Bg 78 fSL 16 10YR 5/2 faint, medium, 8% 10YR 5/1 Bg2 107 SCL 28 10YR 6/2 (SCL)* (25)* fine, root ch, 3% 5YR 4/6 med-fine, dist, 6% 10YR 5/6 BCg 190+ L/fSL 10 2.5Y 7/2 25% 10YR 5/8 nodules, 10% 10YR 5/8 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 7/8/2010 not reached 224 VASH-R-BN 7/6/2010 Southampton County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Slagle Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes A 6 LfS 6 2.5Y 4/3 Ap1 15 LS 6 2.5Y 5/3 fine, faint, 5% 10YR 6/6 Ap2 30 LfS 6 2.5Y 4/3 EB 57 SL 16 2.5Y 6/6 BE 79 SL 18 10YR-2.5Y 5/6 10% gravels Bt1 110 L 24 10YR 6/6 med-co, dist, 45% 7.5YR 5/8 Bt2 144 L 25 7.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 8% 2.5Y 7/2 Bt3 185+ L 25 7.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 27% 2.5Y 7/2 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: well drained, wet substratum Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth Did not reach water table VASH-R-BN 7/6/2010 Southampton County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Slagle Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 25 fSL (SL)* 9 (4)* 2.5Y 4.5/3 10% gravels BE 64 fSL (SL)* 12 (11)* 2.5Y 6/4 Bt1 116 L 22 7.5YR 5/8 medium, dist, 5% 2.5Y 7/4 Bt2 165 CL 32 10YR 5/8 med, prom, 30% 10YR 7/1 Btg 185+ CL 28 10YR 7/1 Med, prom, 40% 10YR 5/8 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: well drained, wet substratum Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth Did not reach 225 VASK-N-Cd 7/7/2010 Suffolk County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Lynchburg Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oi 10 - - 7.5YR 3/4 A 30 L (SL)* 10 (13)* 10YR 3/2 Btg1 68 SCL 22 7.5YR 5/1 (SL)* (13)* med, prom, 5% 10YR 5/6 Btg2 120 SCL 32 10YR 6/2 (22) co, prom, 40% 10YR 5/6 Btg3 150 SCL 28 10YR 6/2 (22) med, prom, 10% 10YR 5/6 med, prom, 3% 5YR 4/6 2Ab 167 C 44 10YR 4/2 Charcoal fragments med, prom, 10% 7.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 10% 7.5YR 4/6 2Bgb 195+ C 44 10YR 4/1 Charcoal fragments med, prom, 15% 7.5YR 6/8 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Water Table Depth Did not reach 226 VASK-N-Cd 7/7/2010 Suffolk County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Lynchburg Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oi 3 - - 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 24 L 11 10YR 3/1 Btg1 62 CL 32 2.5Y 5/2 (SCL) (22) med, prom, 5% 7.5YR 5/6 Btg2 108 CL 34 7.5YR 5/6 (SCL) (22) med, prom, 25% 2.5Y 6/1 medium, dist, 5% 5YR 5/6 Btg3 144 SC 38 7.5YR 4.5/1 (SCL) (30) med, prom, 25% 10YR 5/6 2Ab 172 C 42 7.5YR 4/1 med, dist, 18% 7.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 8% 2.5YR 5/2 2Bgb 195+ CL 38 10YR 5/1 med, dist, 15% 10YR 6/8 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 7/7/2010 155 cm 227 VASK-PC-Cd 7/7/2010 Suffolk County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Eunola Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 26 SL (SL)* 7 (8)* 10YR 5/3 BE 45 L (L)* 18 (20)* 10YR5/6 Bt1 97 SC 38 7.5YR 5/8 (SCL)* (27)* med, prom, 10% 2.5YR 4/6 med, prom, 10% 2.5Y 7/2 Bt2 132 SCL 27 10YR 6/8 (22) m-co, prom, 35% 2.5YR 4/8 med, prom, 15% 10YR 7/2 Bt3 163 SCL 24 10YR 6/8 (SL) (19) med, prom, 5% 10YR 7/1 med, prom, 20% 2.5YR 4/8 BC 186+ SL 10 10YR 6/6 med, prom, 4% 2.5Y 7/2 med, prom, 10% 2.5YR 4/6 Additional Notes Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 7/7/2010 not reached 228 VASK-PC-Cd 7/7/2010 Suffolk County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Eunola Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap1 18 SL 8 10YR 5/4 Ap2 30 SL (L) 16 10YR 5/5 Bt1 61 CL 28 10YR 5/6 Bt2 102 CL 34 10YR 6/6 med, distinct, 5% 2.5Y 7/3 med, prom, 10% 2.5YR 4/6 fine, prom, 2% 10R 4/6 Btg 140 CL 38 2.5Y 7/1 med, prom, 10% 10YR 6/6 med, prom, 15% 10YR 4/6 med, prom, 15% 7.5YR 5/8 BC 173 SL 16 2.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 15% 2.5Y 7/2 med, prom, 25% 10YR 5/8 CB 195+ SL 8 34% 10YR 8/1 m-co., prom, 32% 10YR 6/8 m-co., prom, 34% 2.5YR 4/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: well drained, wet substratum Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth No water table reached 229 VASK-R-Cd 7/7/2010 Suffolk County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Rains Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 21 LS 7 10YR 4/1 2Bg1 67 SC 37 2.5Y7/1 med, prom, 5% 7.5YR 4/6 med, prom, 25% 10YR 5/6 3Bg2 101 fSL 16 2.5Y 7/1 med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/6 3Bg3 142 fSL 10 5Y 7/1 med, prom, 3% 10YR 5/6 med, prom, 2% 10YR 5/8 3BC 148 fSL 8 10YR 6/8 4CBg 159 SiL 12 2.5Y 7/1 m-co., prom, 25% 10YR 5/6 5Cg 190+ S 1 2.5Y 7/1 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 Wet example of site Water Table Depth Did not reach 230 VASK-R-Cd 7/7/2010 Suffolk County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Rains Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 24 LfS (fSL)* 7 (6)* 10YR 3/1 BA 43 fSL 8 2.5Y 6/3 (fSL)* (12)* medium, faint, 5% 2.5Y6/2 m-co., prom, 10% 10YR 5/6 med, prom, 2% 7.5YR 4/6 Btg1 78 fSL (fSL) 10 (12)* 2.5Y 6/2 weak clay films Btg2 105 SCL 25 2.5Y 7/1 Clear clay films med, prom, 10% 7.5YR 5/6 2BCg 151 C 42 2.5Y 7/1 fine, prom, 2% 5YR 5/8 fine, prom, 10% 7.5YR 5/8 3CBg 192+ LfS 4 2.5Y 7/1 Additional Notes Representative of site Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 7/7/2010 155 cm 231 VASX-N-TNC1 7/9/2010 Sussex County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Myatt Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 5 - - 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 33 SiL 10 (18) 10YR 3/1 Bg1 57 C (CL) 41 (30) 10YR 5/1 Bg2 110 C 42 10YR 5/1 (CL) (35) med, prom, 21% 10YR 5/6 Bg3 150 C 46 10YR 4/2 (CL) (36) med, prom, 2% 7.5YR 5/8 BCg 185+ SC 40 2.5Y 7/1 (38) med, prom, 18% 10YR 6/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 7/9/2010 Not Reached VASX-N-TNC1 7/9/2010 Sussex County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Myatt Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 4 - - 7.5YR 2.5/2 A 32 SiL (SiL)* 10 (18)* 10YR 3/1 Bg1 87 CL 35 10YR 5/2 (L)* (26)* fine prominent 1% 7.5YR 6/8 Bg2 145 C 42 10YR 5/1 (CL) (35) fine prominent 5% 10YR 5/6 Bg3 175 C 43 10YR 5/2 (CL) (35) med, prom, 10% 10YR 5/6 BCg 185+ C 50 10YR 7/1 (41) fine prominent 1% 10YR 5/8 Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 7/9/2010 178 cm 232 VASX-N-TNC1 7/9/2010 Sussex County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Myatt Profile C Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oe 4 - - 7.5YR 3/3 A 6 L 10 10YR 3/1 AE 18 L 11 2.5Y 4/3 E 36 L 13 2.5Y 6/4 Bt1 79 CL 31 2.5Y 5/4 med prominent 20% 10YR 5/6 Bt2 120+ CL 37 10YR 5/6 med prominent 20% 2.5Y 6/1 Additional Notes Upland Location, about 20 m up from profile B? Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Hydric soils indicators: None Water Table Depth 7/9/2010 not reached 233 VASX-N-TNC2 8/12/2010 Sussex County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Yemasee Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes A 16 SiL (SiL)* 10 (22)* 2.5Y 3/1 Bg1 46 SiL 14 2.5Y 5/1 m-f, prominent, 12% 10YR 5/6 10% 10YR 4/1 Bg2 70 SiC 42 2.5Y 5/1 (SiC)* (43)* medium, prom, 22% 10YR 5/8 10% 10YR 4/1 Bg3 88 SiCL 33 2.5Y 5/1 (CL) medium, prom, 3% 10YR 5/6 Bg4 108 SiCL 35 10YR 4/1 (CL)* (35)* fine, prominent, 3% 10YR 5/8 Bg5 154 C 42 10YR 6/2 med-co, prom, 25% 10YR 5/6 Bg6 190+ CL 39 10YR 5/2 med-co, prom, 25% 10YR 5/6 Additional Notes Bulk density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: A11 Water Table Depth 8/12/2010 Not Reached 234 VASX-N-TNC2 8/12/2011 Sussex County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Yemasee Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Phil Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ag 8 SiL 24 10YR 4/1 f, p, root ch, 10% 7.5YR 5/8 Bg1 48 SiCL 33 2.5Y 5/1 f, p, root ch, 10% 7.5YR 5/8 medium, prom, 25% 10YR 6/6 Bg2 110 CL 38 2.5Y 6/1 fine prominent 5% 7.5YR 5/8 medium, prom, 30% 10YR 6/6 Bg3 151 CL 34 2.5Y 6/1 medium, faint, 15% 2.5Y 7/1 medium prom 18% 10YR 5/6 Bg4 190+ CL 38 2.5Y 7/1 co, distinct, 10% 2.5Y 4/1 medium, prom, 8% 2.5Y 6/1 medium, prom, 22% 10YR 6/8 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained Hydric soils indicators: F3 and F8 Water Table Depth 8/12/2010 not reached 235 VASX-PC-Bn 8/10/2010 Sussex County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Eulonia Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 19 L 16 2.5Y 4/2 (SL) (10) fine, distinct, 3% 10YR 5/6 Bw1 57 CL 36 2.5Y 5/4 (SCL) (28) med, distinct, 8% 7.5YR 5/8 Bw2 116 CL 32 2.5Y 5/4 (SCL) med, distinct, 15% 2.5Y 6/2 med, distinct, 12% 5YR 4/6 med, distinct, 15% 7.5YR 5/6 Bg 153 CL 36 2.5Y6/2 (SCL) med, prom, 22% 7.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 13% 5YR 4/6 BC 177 SCL 23 7.5YR 5/6 med, prom, 18% 2.5Y 6/1 CBg 195+ C 50 10Y 7/1 co, prominent, 23% 10YR 6/8 co, prominent, 8% 10R 5/4 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained possibly somewhat poorly drained due to concentrations to the surface Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth Did not reach 236 VASX-PC-Bn 8/10/2010 Sussex County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Eulonia Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Ap 28 SL (SL)* 12 (10)* 2.5Y 4/2 Bw1 55 CL 28 2.5Y 5/3 (SCL)* (28)* med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/6 Bw2 90 CL 38 2.5Y 6/3 (SCL)* (29)* med, prom, 30% 10YR 6/8 medium, faint, <2% 2.5Y 6/2 favors bottom med, distinct, 5% 5YR 5/6 Bw3 108 CL 30 7.5YR 5/8 (SCL) med, prom, 25% 2.5Y 6/2 med, distinct, 3% 5YR 4/4 Bw4 134 CL 33 40% 7.5YR 5/8 (SCL) med, prom, 40% 2.5Y 7/1 med, prom, 20% 2.5YR 4/8 Bg 170 CL 34 2.5Y 7/1 (SCL) med, prom, 30% 7.5YR 5/8 med, prom, 15% 5YR 5/6 BCg 195+ CL 39 2.5Y 8/1 (SCL) med, prom, 8% 10YR 5/6 med, prom, 4% 5YR 5/6 Additional Notes Soil Drainage Class: moderately well drained Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth no water table reached 237 VASX-R-Bn 8/10/2010 Sussex County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Eulonia Profile A Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes A 2 SL 3 2.5Y 4/2 1^BC 12 SL 4 2.5Y 6/4 8% gravels (LS) med-fine, prom, 8% 7.5YR 5/8 ->root pores 2^C1 32 LS 5 2.5Y 6/3 (SL) med, distinct, 30% 2.5Y 5/2 ->favors bottom 3^C2 50 CoS 2 2.5Y6/4 4Apb 57 SL 9 2.5Y 5/2 4Bwb 70 SL 14 2.5Y6/4 med, prom, 25% 2.5Y 6/6 med, prom, 21% 2.5Y 6/1 5Bgb 130 CL 36 2.5Y 6/1 co, prominent, 10% 5YR 4/6 co, prominent, 20% 10YR 5/6 5BCg 163+ CL 31 2.5Y 6/1 co, prominent, 20% 10YR 5/6 Additional Notes ^ indicates human transported material Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained although not clear due to human disturbance Hydric soils indicators: none Water Table Depth 8/10/2010 2cm above surface 238 VASX-R-Bn 8/10/2010 Sussex County, VA Mapped Soil Series: Eulonia Profile B Description conducted by Daniel Fenstermacher and Philip Clements Horizonation Depth (cm) Texture % Clay Color Notes Oa 0.5 - - 2.5Y 4/2 1^BC 11 S 2 2.5Y 5/4 (LS)* (5)* f-m, distinct, 15% 7.5YR 5/8 2^CBg 32 LS 4 2.5Y 5/2 (SL)* (6)* fine, distinct, 6% 10YR 6/6 3Bgb 52 CL 34 2.5Y 6/2 (SL) (15) med, prom, 15% 10YR 5/6 med-co, dist, 20% 2.5Y 6/6 3Bgb2 79 SC 37 10YR 7/1 (SL)* (16)* coarse, prom, 20% 10YR 5/8 medium, prom, 5% 5YR 4/6 4Bwb 125 SL 15 10YR 5/6 medium, prom, 10% 10YR 7/1 medium, dist, 5% 5YR 4/6 ->favors top 5BCg 162 SC 38 2.5Y 6/1 medium, prom, 10% 7.5YR 5/6 med-co., prom, 20% 2.5Y 6/6 5CBg 195+ CL 34 10YR 7/1 coarse, prom, 23% 2.5Y 6/6 Additional Notes ^ indicates human transported material Bulk Density collected in association with this profile Soil Drainage Class: poorly drained, although not clear due to human disturbance Hydric soils indicators: S5 Water Table Depth no water table reached although water ponded near surface effect of wetland construction 239 Appendix E: Bulk Density and Carbon Data, CEAP Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. DEK?PC?Me? Ap? 28? 1.54? 0.02? 1.29? 0.09? DEK?PC?Me? Bg? 45? 1.74? 0.01? 0.21? 0.03? DEK?PC?Me? 2Bg2? 66? 1.68? 0.02? 0.07? 0.01? DEK?PC?Me? 2Bg3? 108? 1.81? 0.04? 0.03? 0.01? DEK?PC?Rs? Ap? 24? 1.46? 0.06? 1.43? 0.08? DEK?PC?Rs? Bg1? 60? 1.84? 0.11? 0.06? 0.01? DEK?PC?Rs? Bg2? 91? 1.85? 0.02? 0.03? 0.01? DEK?PC?Stn? Ap?? 15? 1.05? 0.05? 3.86? 0.31? DEK?PC?Stn? Ap2?? 27? 1.08? 0.03? 3.56? 0.04? DEK?PC?Stn? A?? 45? 1.12? 0.12? 2.12? 0.39? DEK?PC?Stn? Ag?? 60? 1.60? 0.04? 0.45? 0.06? DEK?PC?Stn? Bg? 85? 1.43? 0.08? 0.37? 0.08? DEK?PC?Stn? BCg? 101? 1.42? 0.05? 0.27? 0.01? DEK?R?Jr? A? 6? 1.36? 0.12? 1.71? 0.17? DEK?R?Jr? Ap? 24? 1.78? 0.06? 0.17? 0.01? DEK?R?Jr? Bg1? 54? 1.78? 0.05? 0.06? 0.04? DEK?R?Jr? Bg2? 77? 1.87? 0.04? 0.03? 0.00? DEK?R?Sg? ^AC? 4? 1.78? 0.00? 0.21? 0.12? DEK?R?Sg? A? 41? 1.81? 0.09? 0.46? 0.01? DEK?R?Sg? Bg? 65? 1.86? 0.06? 0.04? 0.01? DEK?R?Sg? BCg? 116? 1.67? 0.02? 0.03? 0.01? DENC?N?BB? Oe? 2? 0.10? 0.01? 36.78? 16.01? DENC?N?BB? Oa? 10? 0.31? 0.22? 35.88? 11.45? DENC?N?BB? A1? 39? 0.56? 0.01? 8.99? 0.69? DENC?N?BB? A2? 68? 1.23? 0.13? 3.64? 0.06? DENC?N?BB? AB? 105? 1.55? 0.10? 3.04? 0.41? DENC?R?As? Oa? 8? 1.51? 0.08? 0.96? 0.08? DENC?R?As? Ap? 19? 1.54? 0.03? 0.78? 0.06? DENC?R?As? EBg? 33? 1.62? 0.00? 0.09? 0.00? DENC?R?As? Bw? 90? 1.56? 0.01? 0.05? 0.00? MDC?N?AB? Oe? 9? 0.21? 0.02? 9.13? 0.44? MDC?N?AB? Oa? 22? 0.31? 0.09? 3.43? 0.57? MDC?N?AB? A1? 53? 0.34? 0.03? 1.71? 0.16? MDC?N?AB? A2? 72? 1.10? 0.19? 15.70? 1.13? MDC?N?AB? BCg? 150? 1.21? 0.04? 56.05? 0.39? MDC?N?BC? Oe? 5? 0.13? 0.01? 55.92? 0.22? MDC?N?BC? Oa?? 50? 0.42? 0.19? 13.90? 3.12? MDC?N?BC? A? 70? 0.59? 0.09? 7.67? 3.19? 240 Appendix?E:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?CEAP,?continued? ? ? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. MDC?N?BC? Bg? 97? 1.39? 0.06? 2.66? 0.57? MDC?N?BeW? Oe?? 8? 0.21? 0.02? 35.67? 1.72? MDC?N?BeW? A1?? 30? 1.13? 0.13? 2.45? 0.56? MDC?N?BeW? A2?? 54? 1.13? 0.03? 1.65? 0.22? MDC?N?JL? Oe? 4? 0.51? 0.09? 11.51? 1.99? MDC?N?JL? A? 22? 0.86? 0.09? 4.30? 0.25? MDC?N?JL? Bg1? 39? 1.41? 0.07? 0.69? 0.39? MDC?N?JL? Bg2? 84? 1.49? 0.17? 0.26? 0.02? MDC?PC??Hs? Ap? 19? 1.32? 0.13? 1.93? 0.36? MDC?PC??Hs? A? 30? 1.51? 0.05? 0.62? 0.21? MDC?PC??Hs? AB? 49? 1.38? 0.02? 0.40? 0.03? MDC?PC??Hs? Bg1? 66? 1.59? 0.08? 0.26? 0.05? MDC?PC??Hs? Bg2? 88? 1.83? 0.03? 0.13? 0.05? MDC?PC?BeF? Ap? 36? 1.26? 0.06? 2.60? 0.05? MDC?PC?BeF? A1? 58? 0.92? 0.00? 3.38? 0.14? MDC?PC?BeF? A2? 89? 0.93? 0.08? 2.73? 0.49? MDC?PC?Cr? Ap? 40? 1.59? 0.01? 0.81? 0.10? MDC?PC?Cr? AB? 66? 1.66? 0.03? 0.19? 0.02? MDC?PC?Cr? Bg1? 102? 1.83? 0.02? 0.09? 0.01? MDC?R?Bs? Ap? 13? 1.52? 0.01? 1.09? 0.08? MDC?R?Bs? 2A? 47? 1.37? 0.01? 3.16? 0.24? MDC?R?Bs? 2Btg1? 69? 1.74? 0.03? 0.12? 0.01? MDC?R?Bs? 2Btg2? 105? 1.79? 0.08? 0.06? 0.00? MDC?R?JL? A1? 11? 1.38? 0.03? 1.10? 0.06? MDC?R?JL? A2? 45? 1.43? 0.05? 1.44? 0.05? MDC?R?JL? BAg? 63? 1.35? 0.06? 1.12? 0.13? MDC?R?JL? Bg? 100? 1.38? 0.03? 0.40? 0.03? MDD?N?CF? A1? 2? 0.31? 0.02? 0.23? 0.04? MDD?N?CF? A2? 9? 1.27? 0.03? 0.25? 0.04? MDD?N?CF? Ab1? 19? 1.35? 0.13? 0.12? 0.00? MDD?N?CF? Ab2? 32? 1.37? 0.04? 9.60? 3.31? MDD?N?CF? BAgb? 53? 1.56? 0.00? 1.79? 0.23? MDD?N?CF? Bgb1? 89? 1.63? 0.02? 1.28? 0.27? MDD?PC?Br? Ap? 16? 1.73? 0.03? 0.79? 0.12? MDD?PC?Br? AEg? 55? 1.88? 0.02? 0.83? 0.13? MDD?PC?Br? Eg? 78? 1.82? 0.07? 0.10? 0.01? MDD?PC?Kp? Ap? 33? 1.61? 0.08? 0.03? 0.01? MDD?PC?Kp? ABg? 60? 1.61? 0.06? 1.05? 0.18? MDD?PC?Kp? BEg? 135? 1.82? 0.02? 0.32? 0.12? 241 Appendix?E:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?CEAP,?continued? ? ? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C % C St. Dev. MDD?R?Ck? AB? 11? 1.78? 0.12? 0.23? 0.13? MDD?R?Ck? Bg? 39? 1.78? 0.07? 0.07? 0.05? MDD?R?Ck? BCg? 66? 1.76? 0.05? 0.06? 0.01? MDD?R?Ck? Cg1? 118? 1.82? 0.13? 0.04? 0.01? MDD?R?Wn? A? 5? 1.27? 0.04? 1.35? 0.09? MDD?R?Wn? Ap? 24? 1.60? 0.01? 0.69? 0.04? MDD?R?Wn? Beg? 62? 1.93? 0.06? 0.10? 0.04? MDD?R?Wn? Bg? 115? 1.68? 0.06? 0.05? 0.01? MDQA?N?AF? Oe? 3? 0.33? 0.09? 20.00? 3.10? MDQA?N?AF? A? 17? 1.19? 0.02? 2.26? 0.21? MDQA?N?AF? Btg1?? 64? 1.39? 0.15? 0.67? 0.23? MDQA?N?AF? Btg2?? 97? 1.33? 0.10? 0.37? 0.04? MDQA?PC?Ss? A? 5? 1.15? 0.12? 1.94? 0.34? MDQA?PC?Ss? Ap? 36? 1.59? 0.02? 0.58? 0.12? MDQA?PC?Ss? A`? 66? 1.63? 0.04? 0.38? 0.03? MDQA?PC?Ss? Bg? 103? 1.88? 0.09? 0.07? 0.00? MDQA?R?En? Ap? 26? 1.51? 0.05? 1.08? 0.34? MDQA?R?En? Bg? 56? 1.60? 0.06? 0.24? 0.04? MDQA?R?En? 2Bg2? 71? 1.63? 0.02? 0.12? 0.00? MDQA?R?En? 2Bg3? 84? 1.80? 0.16? 0.05? 0.03? MDQA?R?Ss? Oe? 2? 0.74? 0.12? 0.32? 0.03? MDQA?R?Ss? A? 9? 1.49? 0.09? 6.32? 0.61? MDQA?R?Ss? Bg1? 31? 1.44? 0.01? 0.53? 0.10? MDQA?R?Ss? Bg2? 153? 1.59? 0.04? 0.22? 0.02? MDQA?R?Ws? A?? 14? 1.36? 0.11? 0.05? 0.00? MDQA?R?Ws? Btg1?? 38? 1.70? 0.01? 1.63? 0.40? MDQA?R?Ws? Btg2?? 63? 1.75? 0.05? 0.08? 0.00? MDQA?R?Ws? 2Bg? 98? 1.68? 0.13? 0.07? 0.02? MDT?N?SD? Oe? 5? 0.18? 0.08? 0.08? 0.01? MDT?N?SD? A? 22? 1.25? 0.04? 38.46? 6.01? MDT?N?SD? Bg1? 70? 1.39? 0.03? 1.28? 0.08? MDT?N?SD? Bg2? 126? 1.54? 0.03? 0.35? 0.07? MDT?R?DF? Oa? 2? 0.57? 0.03? 0.07? 0.00? MDT?R?DF? Ag? 29? 1.71? 0.01? 4.68? 0.34? MDT?R?DF? Bg? 66? 1.84? 0.00? 0.24? 0.05? MDT?R?DF? BCg? 127? 1.92? 0.11? 0.06? 0.01? NC?N?EC? Oe? 3? 0.13? 0.02? 0.03? 0.02? NC?N?EC? Oa1? 28? 0.29? 0.06? 58.87? 0.17? NC?N?EC? Oa2? 69? 0.27? 0.03? 59.87? 1.86? 242 Appendix?E:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?CEAP,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C %C St. Dev. NC?N?EC? BA? 95? 1.22? 0.01? 2.16? 0.15? NC?N?PLR1? Oe? 8? 0.20? 0.02? 33.82? 3.53? NC?N?PLR1? BC? 16? 0.36? 0.03? 1.96? 0.18? NC?N?PLR1? A? 51? 1.25? 0.22? 2.84? 0.50? NC?N?PLR1? Bg1? 80? 1.64? 0.01? 0.37? 0.08? NC?N?PLR1? Bg2? 106? 1.40? 0.08? 0.74? 0.12? NC?N?PLR2? Oa1? 13? 0.20? 0.03? 61.92? 0.65? NC?N?PLR2? Oa2? 29? 0.24? 0.04? 60.22? 8.79? NC?N?PLR2? Oa3? 58? 0.65? 0.02? 10.12? 0.82? NC?N?PLR2? Oa4? 118? 1.20? 0.18? 4.77? 1.36? NC?PC?EC? Oap? 13? 0.86? 0.02? 17.05? 0.38? NC?PC?EC? Oa? 35? 0.55? 0.11? 29.57? 5.40? NC?PC?EC? Ag? 57? 0.92? 0.03? 5.10? 0.49? NC?PC?EC? Bg? 125? 1.41? 0.03? 0.70? 0.09? NC?PC?KY? Oap1? 14? 0.73? 0.05? 27.35? 2.64? NC?PC?KY? Oap2? 33? 0.46? 0.04? 42.34? 12.45? NC?PC?KY? A? 53? 1.05? 0.06? 5.07? 0.48? NC?PC?KY? BA? 80? 1.71? 0.01? 1.01? 0.06? NC?PC?KY? BC? 100? 1.50? 0.12? 1.36? 0.26? NC?PC?MT? Oap? 22? 0.86? 0.02? 13.07? 0.47? NC?PC?MT? Oa1? 47? 0.51? 0.05? 22.42? 4.20? NC?PC?MT? Oa2? 87? 1.16? 0.02? 3.35? 0.02? NC?PC?MT? Ag? 110? 1.30? 0.05? 2.26? 0.90? NC?R?EC? Oap? 12? 0.57? 0.03? 26.57? 3.60? NC?R?EC? Oa? 40? 0.73? 0.03? 14.17? 0.64? NC?R?EC? Ag? 59? 1.15? 0.02? 2.53? 0.40? NC?R?EC? Bg? 75? 1.18? 0.02? 0.85? 0.30? NC?R?EC? Cg1? 125? 1.34? 0.07? 0.40? 0.33? NC?R?KY? Oap? 12? 0.37? 0.01? 70.65? 1.48? NC?R?KY? Oa? 33? 0.29? 0.00? 70.10? 0.43? NC?R?KY? A? 46? 1.10? 0.12? 4.50? 1.32? NC?R?KY? Bg? 59? 1.29? 0.10? 2.52? 0.50? NC?R?KY? Ab? 100? 1.60? 0.12? 1.06? 0.20? NC?R?MT? Oe? 10? 0.29? 0.02? 61.42? 0.63? NC?R?MT? Oa1? 44? 0.32? 0.01? 71.17? 0.93? NC?R?MT? Oa2? 86? 0.55? 0.06? 37.05? 6.04? NC?R?MT? Oa3? 137? 0.81? 0.05? 16.49? 0.70? VASH?PC?BKS? Ap? 24? 1.30? 0.00? 0.72? 0.15? VASH?PC?BKS? BE? 42? 1.60? 0.03? 0.05? 0.01? 243 Appendix?E:?Bulk?Density?and?Carbon?Data,?CEAP,?continued? Site? Horizon? Bottom? Depth? (cm)? Bulk? Density? (g?cm?3)? Bulk? Density? St.?Dev.? % C %C St. Dev. VASH?PC?BKS? Bw1? 95? 1.55? 0.01? 0.05? 0.00? VASH?R?BKS? Ap? 22? 1.45? 0.07? 1.80? 0.11? VASH?R?BKS? Ag? 45? 1.56? 0.12? 0.54? 0.18? VASH?R?BKS? Bg? 78? 1.57? 0.07? 0.17? 0.05? VASH?R?BKS? Bg2? 107? 1.53? 0.01? 0.11? 0.02? VASH?PC?Bn? Ap? 20? 1.50? 0.06? 0.91? 0.03? VASH?PC?Bn? A? 45? 1.65? 0.01? 0.43? 0.13? VASH?PC?Bn? Bt? 91? 1.71? 0.00? 0.07? 0.00? VASH?R?Bn? Ap? 25? 1.71? 0.00? 0.17? 0.02? VASH?R?Bn? BE? 64? 1.75? 0.04? 0.10? 0.01? VASH?R?Bn? Bt1? 116? 1.71? 0.02? 0.07? 0.01? VASK?N?CD? Oi? 10? 0.15? 0.02? 36.82? 5.81? VASK?N?CD? A? 30? 1.63? 0.04? 1.16? 0.08? VASK?N?CD? Btg1?? 68? 1.66? 0.02? 0.33? 0.07? VASK?N?CD? Btg2?? 120? 1.60? 0.06? 0.22? 0.02? VASK?PC?CD? Ap? 26? 1.79? 0.06? 0.29? 0.03? VASK?PC?CD? BE? 45? 1.75? 0.03? 0.12? 0.01? VASK?PC?CD? Bt1? 97? 1.65? 0.07? 0.08? 0.02? VASK?R?CD? Ap? 14? 1.51? 0.01? 0.96? 0.06? VASK?R?CD? BA? 43? 1.67? 0.06? 0.09? 0.06? VASK?R?CD? Btg1?? 78? 1.74? 0.04? 0.03? 0.00? VASX?N?NC1? Oe? 4? 0.25? 0.02? 20.21? 2.96? VASX?N?NC1? A? 32? 0.98? 0.12? 3.79? 0.42? VASX?N?NC1? Bg1? 87? 1.52? 0.15? 0.44? 0.34? VASX?N?TNC2? A? 16? 1.30? 0.05? 3.28? 0.17? VASX?N?TNC2? Bg1? 46? 1.55? 0.04? 0.38? 0.18? VASX?N?TNC2? Bg2? 70? 1.50? 0.04? 0.36? 0.08? VASX?N?TNC2? Bg3? 88? 1.46? 0.01? 0.37? 0.01? VASX?PC?BN? Ap? 28? 1.65? 0.01? 0.74? 0.01? VASX?PC?BN? Bw1? 55? 1.67? 0.00? 0.17? 0.01? VASX?PC?BN? Bw2? 90? 1.64? 0.01? 0.07? 0.01? VASX?R?BN? Oa? 0.5? 0.11? 0.00? 4.27? 0.53? VASX?R?BN? 1^BC? 11? 1.79? 0.03? 0.11? 0.01? VASX?R?BN? 2^CBg? 32? 1.98? 0.05? 0.05? 0.00? VASX?R?BN? 3Bgb? 52? 1.85? 0.02? 0.05? 0.00? VASX?R?BN? 3Bgb2? 79? 1.75? 0.01? 0.04? 0.01? VASX?R?BN? 4Bwb? 125? 1.77? 0.01? 0.03? 0.00? 244 References Anderson, C.J., and W.J. Mitsch. 2006. Sediment, carbon, and nutrient accumulation at two 10- year-old created riverine marshes. Wetlands 26:779-792. Anderson, D.W. 1995. Decomposition of organic matter and carbon emissions from soils., p. 161-175, In R. Lal, et al., (eds.) Soils and global change. ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Armentano, T.V., and E.S. Menges. 1986. Patterns of change in the carbon balance of organic soil-wetlands of the temperate zone. Journal of Ecology 74:755-774. Batjes, N.H. 1996. The total C and N in soils of the world. Soil Science 47:151-163. Bennett, S.H., and J.B. Nelson. 1991. Distribution and status of Carolina Bays in South Carolina. SC Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Columbia, SC. Nongame and Heritage Trust Publication No. 1. Blake, G.R., and K.H. Hartage. 1986. Bulk density, p. 363-375, In D. Buxton, et al., (eds.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods. second ed. SSSA Book Series No 5. SSSA, Madison, WI. Bliley, D.J., and D.E. Pettry. 1979. Carolina Bays on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43:558-564. Bruland, G.L., M.F. Hanchey, and C.J. Richardson. 2003. Effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on hydrology, soils, and water quality of a Carolina Bay complex. Wetlands Ecology and Management 11:141-156. Caldwell, P.V., M.J. Vepreskas, and J.D. Gregory. 2007. Physical properties of natural organic soils in Carolina Bays of the southeastern United States. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71:1051-1057. Chmura, G.L., S.C. Anisfeld, D.R. Cahoon, and J.C. Lynch. 2003. Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17. Collins, M.E., and R.J. Kuehl. 2001. Organic matter accumulation and organic soils., p. 137-162, In J. L. Richardson and M. J. Vepraskas, (eds.) Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classificaion. ed. CRC Press, Bocca Raton, FL. Dahl, T.E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 108 pp. Daniel, C.C.I. 1980. Hydrology, geology, and soils of pocosins: a comparison of natural and altered systems, p. 69-108, In C. J. Richardson, (ed.) Pocosin wetlands--an integrated analysis of coastal plain freshwater bogs in North Carolina. ed. Hutchinson Ross, Stroundsburg, PA. Davidson, E.A., and I.L. Ackerman. 1993. Changes in soil carbon inventories following cultivation of previously untilled soils. Biogeochemistry 20:161-193. Davis, J.J. 1963. Cesium and its relationship to potasium in ecology, p. 539-556, In V. Schultz and A. W. J. Klement, (eds.) Radioecology. ed. Reinhold, New York. DeSteven, D. 2011. Diverse applications of wetland restoration practices in the Southeast U.S., and the implications for ecosystem services. Proc. Soil and Water Conservation Society International Annual Conference, Washington, DC. 2011. DNR. 2000. Historic wetland loss (map). Available at http://dnr.maryland.gov. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service. Ellert, B.H., H.H. Janzen, and B.G. McConkey. 2001. Measuring and comparing soil carbon storage, In R. Lal, et al., (eds.) Assessment Methods for Soil Carbon. ed. Advances in Soil Science. Lewis Publishers, New York. 245 EPA. 2011. Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results: Maryland 303(d) Listed waters for Reporting Year 2010. Available at http://www.epa.gov/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Eswaran, H., E. Van den Berg, P. Reich, and J. Kimble. 1995. Global soil carbon resources, p. 27-43, In R. Lal, et al., (eds.) Soils and Global Change. ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Euliss Jr., N.H., R.A. Gleason, A. Olness, R.L. McDougl, H.R. Murkin, R.D. Robarts, R.A. Bourbonniere, and B.G. Warner. 2006. North American prairie wetlands are important nonforested land-based carbon storage sites. Science of the Total Environment 361:179- 188. Ewing, J.M., and M.J. Vepraskas. 2006. Estimating primary and secondary subsidence in an organic soil 15, 20, and 30 years after drainage. Wetlands 26:119-130. Gleason, R.A., B.A. Tangen, and M.K. Laubhan. 2008. Ecosystem services derived from wetland conservation practices in the United States Prairie Pothole Region with an emphasis on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs, Chapter C: carbon sequestration. US Geological Professional Paper 1745:23-30. Griffin, T.M., and M.C. Rabenhorst. 1989. Processes and rates of pedogenesis in some Maryland tidal marsh soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53:862-870. Haugen, L.E. 1992. Small-scale variation in deposition of radiocaesium from the Chernobyl fallout on cultivated grasslands in Norway. Analyst 117:465-468. Houghton, R.A., J.E. Hobbie, J.M. Melilo, B. Moore, B.J. Peterson, G.R. Shaver, and G.M. Woodwell. 1983. Changes in the carbon content of terrestrial biota and soils between 1860 and 1980: a net release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Ecological Monographs 53:235- 262. Ives, J.D. 1978. The maximum extent of the Laurentide Ice Sheet along the east coast of North America during the last glaciation. Arctic 31:24-53. Jobbagy, E.G., and R.B. Jackson. 2000. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecological Applications 10:423-436. Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula. 1990. Executive Summary, p. xvii-xxv Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. ed. Island Press, Washington, DC. Lal, R. 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environment International 29:437-450. Lal, R. 2004. Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Science 304:1623-1627. Longmore, M.E. 1982. The cesium-137 dating technique and associated applications in Australia: a review, p. 310-321, In W. Ambrose and P. Duerden, (eds.) Archaeometry: an Australasian perspective. ed. Australian National University Press, Canberra, Australia. Mann, L.K. 1986. Changes in soil carbon storage after cultivation. Soil Science 142:279-288. McCarty, G., Y. Pachepsky, and J. Ritchie. 2009. Impact of sedimentation on wetland carbon sequestration in an agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 38:804-813. McCarty, G.W., and J.C. Ritchie. 2002. Impact of soil movement on carbon sequestration in agricultural ecosystems. Environmental Pollution 116. Melton, F.A., and W. Scriever. 1933. The Carolina "Bays": are they meteorite scars? The Journal of Geology 41:52-66. Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. Fourth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ. 246 Murty, D., M.F. Kirschbaum, R.E. McMurtrie, and H. McGilvray. 2002. Does conversion of forest to agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? a review of the literature. Global Change Biology 8:105-123. NCSS. 2011. National Cooperative Soil Characterization Database. Available at http://ssldata.nrcs.usda.gov (accessed September 25, 2011). National Cooperative Soil Survey. Nelson, D.W., and L.E. Sommers. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter, In D. L. Sparks, et al., (eds.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical Methods. ed. SSSA Book Series No. 5. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. Norton, M.M., and T.R. Fisher. 2000. The effects of forest on stream water quality in two coastal plain watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Engineering 14:337-362. NRC. 1992. Restoration of Aqutic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Policy. National Research Council. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. NRCS. 2011. Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), Wetlands National Assessment. Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ (accessed 15 Aug 2011). USDA NRCS. Phillips, P.J., and R.J. Shedlock. 1993. Hydrology and chemistry of groundwater and seasonal ponds in the Atlantic Coastal Plain in Delaware, USA. Journal of Hydrology 141:157- 178. Post, W.M., and K.C. Kwon. 2000. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology 6:317-327. Prouty, W.F. 1952. Carolina Bays and their origin. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63:167-224. Rabenhorst, M.C. 1995. Carbon storage in tidal marsh soils, p. 93-103, In R. Lal, et al., (eds.) Soils and global Change. ed. Advances in Soil Science. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Raupach, M.R., G. Marland, P. Ciais, C. Le Qu?r?, J.G. Candell, G. Klepper, and C.B. Field. 2007. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emmissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:10288-10293. Richardson, C.J., and J.W. Gibbons. 1993. Pocosins, Carolina Bays, and mountain bogs., In S. G. Boyce, et al., (eds.) Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: lowland terrestrial communities. ed. John Wiley, New York. Ritchie, J.C., and J.R. McHenry. 1990. Application of radioactive fallout cesium-137 for measuring soil erosion and sediment accumulation rates and patterns: a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 19:215-233. Ritchie, J.C., and G.W. McCarty. 2003. 137Cesium and soil carbon in a small agricultural watershed. Soil & Tillage Research 69:45-51. Ritchie, J.C., C.E.E. C, and W.K. Rudoph. 1970. Distribution of fallout and natural gamma radionuclides in litter, humus, and surface mineral soils under natural vegetation in the Great Smoky Mountains, North Carolina-Tennessee. Health Physics 18:479-491. Ritchie, J.C., G.W. McCarty, E.R. Venteris, and T.C. Kaspar. 2007. Soil and soil organic carbon redistribution on the landscape. Geomorphology 89:163-171. Robbins, J.A., D.N. Edgington, and A.L.W. Kemp. 1978. Comparative 210Pb, 137Cs, and pollen geochronologies of sediments from Lakes Ontario and Erie. Quaternary Research 10:256-278. Ross, T.E. 1987. A comprehensive bibliography of the Carolina Bays literature. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 103:28-42. 247 Savage, H., Jr. 1982. The mysterious Carolina Bays. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. Schimel, J., and E.A. Holland. 2005. Global Gases, p. 491-509, In D. M. Sylvia, et al., (eds.) Priciples and Applications of Soil Microbiology. 2nd ed. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Sharitz, R.R. 2003. Carolina Bay wetlands: unique habitats of the southeastern United States. Wetlands 23:550-562. Sharitz, R.R., and J.W. Gibbons. 1982. The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina Bays: a community profile. FWS/OBS-82/04. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, DC. Shierlaw, J., and A. Alston. 1984. Effect of soil compaction on root growth and uptake of phosphorus. Plant and Soil 77:15-28. Six, J., R.T. Conant, E.A. Paul, and K. Paustian. 2002. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant and Soil 241:155-176. Stolt, M.H., and M.C. Rabenhorst. 1987a. Carolina Bays on the eastern shore of Maryland: II. distribution and origin. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51:399-405. Stolt, M.H., and M.C. Rabenhorst. 1987b. Carolina Bays on the eastern shore of Maryland: I. soil characterization and classification Soil Science Society of America Journal 51:394-398. SWS. 2000. Position paper on the difinition of wetland restoration. Society of Wetland Scientists. Takenaka, C., Y. Onda, and Y. Hamajima. 1998. Distribution of cesium-137 in Japanese forest soils: Correlation with the contents of organic carbon. Science of the Total Environment 222:193-199. Thom, B.G. 1970. Carolina Bays in Horry and Marion Counties, South Carolina. Geological Society of America Bulletin 81:783-813. Tiner, R.W. 2003. Geographically isolated wetlands of the United States. Wetlands 23:494-516. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Vepraskas, M.J., and S.P. Faulkner. 2001. Redox Chemistry of Hydric Soils, p. 85-105, In J. L. Richardson and M. J. Vepraskas, (eds.) Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification. ed. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Waller, H.D., and J.S. Olson. 1967. Prompt transfers of Cesium-137 to the soils of a tagged Liriodendron forest. Ecology 48:15-25. Weil, R.R., P.W. Benedetto, L.J. Sikora, and V.A. Bandel. 1988. Influence of tillage practices on phosphorus distribution and forms in three Ultisols. Agronomy Journal 80:503-509. Wieder, R.K., M. Novak, W.R. Schell, and R. Thomas. 1994. Rates of peat accumulation over the past 200 years in five Sphagnum-dominated peatlnads in the United States. Journal of Paleolimnology 12:35-47. Wills, S.A., B.A. Needelman, and R.R. Weil. 2008. Carbon distribution in restored and reference marshes at Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 25:239-248. Wolf, D.C., and G.H. Wagner. 2005. Carbon transformations and soil organic matter formation, p. 285-332, In D. M. Sylvia, et al., (eds.) Principles and Applications of Soil Microbiology. 2nd ed. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.