ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: IMPACT OF RESTORATION ACTIVITY ON WETLAND SOIL PROPERTIES AND FUNCTIONS Christopher A. Palardy, Master of Science, 2018 Thesis Directed By: Martin C. Rabenhorst, Professor, Department of Environmental Science and Technology Due to the essential nature of wetlands and their historic losses, wetland restoration has been a recent focus of conservation activity. The objective of this study was to compare selected physical soil properties and those properties and processes associated with carbon sequestration in restored and natural freshwater depressional wetlands on the Delmarva Peninsula. Three distinct hydrological zones within nine restored and five natural wetlands were sampled and monitored over the course of a year. As a result of earthmoving activities, restored wetlands demonstrated significant compaction, potentially limiting root and hydrological infiltration. Restored wetlands also demonstrated shorter periods of saturation, which led to increased carbon decomposition rates. As a result of soil disturbance, restored wetlands had significantly lower carbon stocks than natural wetlands. Restored wetlands also demonstrated no difference in carbon content across the three hydrological zones, the time since restoration being too short for carbon stocks to appreciably accumulate. IMPACT OF RESTORATION ACTIVITY ON WETLAND SOIL PROPERTIES AND FUNCTIONS by Christopher Andrew Palardy 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 2018 Advisory Committee: Professor Martin C. Rabenhorst, Chair Dr. Megan Lang Dr. Greg McCarty Associate Professor Brian Needelman Associate Professor Stephanie Yarwood © Copyright by Christopher Andrew Palardy 2018 Acknowledgements Special thanks to my advisor, Marty Rabenhorst. Thanks to committee members Brian Needelman, Stephanie Yarwood, Megan Lang, and Greg McCarty for their invaluable input. Also, thanks to Annie Rossi, Jess Rupprecht, Liza McFarland, Glade Dlott, Sara Mack, Nick Gilbert, Jacklyn Fiola, Ryan Adams, Sara Elbeheiry, Heather Hall, and Jon Vocke for assistance with field and laboratory work. Additionally, thanks to Gary Seibel and the ENST Project Development Center for assistance with instrumentation. This research was supported by the USDA-NRCS in association with the wetland component of the National Conservation Effects Assessment Project and by the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................ v List of Figures ............................................................................................................. vi Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2: Background .............................................................................................. 4 Wetland Functions ................................................................................................................ 4 Wetland Losses ..................................................................................................................... 5 Soil Changes Upon Conversion to Agriculture ..................................................................... 7 Wetland Protection/Restoration ............................................................................................ 9 Critical Elements of Restoration ......................................................................................... 13 Methods of Restoration ....................................................................................................... 15 Impacts of Scraping Method of Restoration ....................................................................... 16 Evaluating Restoration Success .......................................................................................... 17 Geographic Setting of this Study ........................................................................................ 25 Chapter 3: Physical Effects of Wetland Restoration .............................................. 27 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 27 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 29 Site Selection .................................................................................................................. 29 Site Zonation ................................................................................................................... 32 Penetration Resistance .................................................................................................... 34 Soil Morphology ............................................................................................................. 35 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................ 36 Site Information .............................................................................................................. 36 Cone Index ...................................................................................................................... 38 Bulk Density ................................................................................................................... 45 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 46 Chapter 4: Carbon Dynamics in Restored and Natural Wetlands ....................... 48 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 48 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 51 Study Location ................................................................................................................ 51 Site Selection .................................................................................................................. 52 Zonation .......................................................................................................................... 52 Siting Research Plots ...................................................................................................... 54 Field Methods ................................................................................................................. 55 Lab Methods ................................................................................................................... 59 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................ 61 Weather and Hydrology .................................................................................................. 61 IRIS Paint Removal ........................................................................................................ 63 Nitrogen Content of the Soils ......................................................................................... 65 Decomposition of Sticks ................................................................................................. 66 iii Carbon Stocks ................................................................................................................. 68 Synthesis ............................................................................................................................. 70 Chapter 5: Conclusions ........................................................................................... 72 Appendix A. Bulk density, percent C and carbon stocks to 50 cm ............................ 76 Appendix B. Percent of time saturated at 5 cm and 30 cm ........................................ 90 Appendix C. IRIS images and percent paint removed from IRIS tubes .................... 91 Appendix D. Penetration resistance (cone index kPa) ............................................. 108 Appendix E. Stick decomposition data .................................................................... 112 Appendix F. Soil morphology .................................................................................. 116 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 153 iv List of Tables Table 3-1. Site information for natural and restored wetland study sites. …………37 Table 4-1. Nitrogen data (means) for surface (0-10cm) soil samples in three hydrological zones from natural and restored sites. There were no significant differences in nitrate content among treatment or zones. For ammonium and total N, means followed by the same letter were not significantly different at the 0.05 level. ………………………………………………………………………………………65 v List of Figures Figure 3-1. Number of wetland sites in this study located within counties of Maryland and Delaware on the Delmarva Peninsula. .................................................................. 31 Figure 3-2. Schematic illustrating the stratified/nested design for measuring penetration resistance. Five sets of ten vertical measurements were made in four areas within each plot. .......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 3-3. Penetration resistance data for all sites by hydrologic zone. Each line represents the average of penetration resistance measured at three transect plots. ..... 39 Figure 3-4. Box and whisker diagram (median, quartiles and range) illustrating the maximum cone index measured within 45 cm of the soil surface. The mean is shown by the dot; the central horizontal line is the median; the box represents the 25th and 75th percentiles; the short lines are the 10th and 90th percentiles; the whiskers represent the range of the data Plots with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level. .................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 3-5. Box and whisker diagram illustrating the maximum cone index measured within 25 cm of the soil surface. The mean is shown by the dot; the central horizontal line is the median; the box represents the 25th and 75th percentiles; the short lines are the 10th and 90th percentiles; the whiskers represent the range of the data Plots with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level. ................................... 42 Figure 3-6. Maximum increase in cone index over a 5 cm vertical distance. The mean is shown by the dot; the central horizontal line is the median; the box represents the 25th and 75th percentiles; the short lines are the 10th and 90th percentiles; the whiskers represent the range of the data Plots with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level. ............................................................................................ 43 Figure 3-7. Frequency of plots with cone index above 1000 kPa at depths of 45 cm and 25 cm. ................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 3-8. Mean (+/- SEM) bulk density (g/cm3) of horizons with lower boundaries between 30 cm and 50 cm. Columns with the same letter are not significantly different at p=0.05). ..................................................................................................... 46 Figure 4-1. Cross section through a schematic representation of the wetland sites showing 4 distinct hydrological zones. Plots were established in zones 1, 2 and 3 but not in zone 0 (which was absent from some sites). ..................................................... 53 Figure 4-2. Three radially oriented transects were situated at each site, and plots were located within zones 1, 2 and 3 (A). Within each plot, 5 sets of replicate birch decomposition stick were distributed around a shallow (50 cm) well (B). ................. 54 vi Figure 4-3. One set of 5 replicate decomposition sticks connected with bailing twine and labeled with an aluminum tag. Five sets (of 5) sticks were installed at each research plot. ................................................................................................................ 57 Figure 4-4. Five sets of decomposition sticks installed in a zone 2 of a research plot around a flagged stake for identification. Also shown is the white top of the shallow 50 cm PVC well used for measuring water table levels. ............................................. 58 Figure 4-5. Precipitation data for Royal Oaks, MD compared to 30% and 70% monthly averages. All data obtained from the WETS (NRCS Climate Analysis for Wetlands Tables) database. ......................................................................................... 62 Figure 4-6. Percentage of the year research plots remained saturated at 30 cm depth. Columns sharing the same letter are not significantly different. ................................. 62 Figure 4-7. Summary of paint removal from the upper 30 cm of IRIS tubes in natural and restored wetland zones 1 and 2. Columns with the same letter are not significantly different. ................................................................................................ 64 Figure 4-8. Means of inorganic N measured on 10 cm cores collected from plots in zones 1, 2 and 3 in both natural (N) and restored (R) sites. Bars with different letters were significantly different at the 0.05 level. There were no significant differences in nitrate levels across zones or wetland types. .............................................................. 65 Figure 4-9. Percent of organic matter decomposition as mass loss over a 1-year period. Data connected with the same letter are not significantly different at the p = 0.05 level. ................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 4-10. Percent decomposition of sticks after 12 months plotted as a function of the percent of the year that the water table occurred within 30 cm of the soil surface. .. ................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 4-11. Carbon stocks in the upper 50 cm of the soil in natural and restored wetland sites. .............................................................................................................. 69 vii Chapter 1: Introduction Wetlands are unique and critical ecosystems, that, until recent decades have largely gone unappreciated. The environmental services and functions provide by wetlands are numerous. Wetlands play a critical role in stormflow buffering, nutrient cycling, and wildlife habitat. Additionally, wetlands are host to some of the highest areas of primary productivity found in nature. Additionally, wetlands act as valuable carbon sinks, storing carbon in the form of soil organic matter. Historically, many of these important roles and functions of wetlands were unknown or unappreciated, and therefore wetlands haven’t traditionally been afforded the respect they deserve. A large proportion of wetlands (nationally and regionally) have been drained for numerous reasons, but primarily to utilize their organic-rich soils for agriculture. They have been also drained in an attempt at mosquito and pest control, as well as for urban development. It is estimated that over half of the nation’s pre-colonial wetlands had been destroyed by the mid-twentieth century. It was only relatively recently that the importance of wetlands was recognized and they were afforded legal protection. These protections were afforded under such laws as the Rivers and Harbors Act, Clean Water Act, and Swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While important to preventing further wetland loss, these protections, did nothing to address the extensive prior historical loss of wetlands. New focus was placed upon restoration of wetlands and expanding wetland acreage. Numerous federal programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 1 were created in order to restore and/or establish wetland conditions on privately owned land. Ultimately, a combination of legal protections and restoration of disturbed wetlands have taken us from annual net losses of wetland acreage to net gains. Wetland restoration is undertaken by attempting to establish saturated soil conditions at the soil surface long enough for anaerobic soils conditions to establish themselves during the growing season. Efforts to establish wetland plant communities often follow. In the Delmarva region of Delaware and Maryland the most common way to implement the hydrological component of wetland restoration is through scraping – the intentional alteration and removal of soil material in order to raise the water table relative to the soil surface (by lowering the soil surface). Given the high water tables of the region, this is generally an easy approach, but could lead to several possible negative effects. The use of heavy machinery in the scraping process could lead to alterations in soil properties and to other serious disturbances to the soil itself. One focus of this study was to observe and quantify these disturbances. Another major focus of this study was to monitor and quantify a number of wetland properties related to the sequestration of carbon. Hydrology, considered the “master variable” of wetland conditions, was measured and modeled to document the hydroperiod and the duration of saturated soil conditions. Various components of carbon dynamics were documented in the form of the measuring decomposition rates, which when joined with carbon input data was related to soil carbon stocks. Using this approach, comparisons were made between restored and natural wetlands. 2 Thus the overall goal of this study was to compare wetlands restored using common techniques (scraping) over a 7 to 28 year period with natural wetland counterparts with regard to selected physical soil properties and also those properties and processes that contribute to the sequestration of organic carbon. 3 Chapter 2: Background Wetland Functions Wetlands are critical and unique environments that provide a bevy of environmental services. Wetlands represent the ecotone between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that fosters a number of highly productive and varied vegetative communities adapted to wet conditions (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007). Additionally, wetlands provide habitat for numerous animal species. Fully eighty percent of waterfowl species, fifty percent of protected migratory bird species, and ninety five percent of commercially harvested fish and shellfish species are wetland-dependent (Wharton et al., 1982; Feierabend & Zelazny, 1987). Wetlands modify local hydrology by mitigating stormflow. One study of the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin found that although wetlands only comprised 4% of the total basin area, they resulted in a floodflow reduction of 50% compared to basins without wetlands (Novitzki, 1985). Wetlands play a major role in a number of biologically mediated, redox- driven, biogeochemical nutrient cycles. Soils are central to the nitrogen cycle, and due to their wet nature, wetlands provide an environment facilitating denitrification (Brady & Weil, 2008). Aerobic soils, (whether on account of proximity to the soil surface or seasonal dryness) allow for nitrification to occur and ammonia to be oxidized to nitrate and leached. In contrast, wetland soil under anaerobic conditions due to prolonged wetness, allow for denitrification to occur and nitrate to be reduced 4 to nitrogen gas and lost to the atmosphere. Some wetland soils also play an important role in the sulfur cycle. Salt marshes, in particular, are the location where tidally- borne soluble sulfates are reduced to sulfides under strongly anaerobic conditions. Under these aerobic conditions, sulfides can either be immobilized and retained in the soil by being adsorbed to soil colloids or bonded to metal cations, or they can be volatized and released into the atmosphere in the form of hydrogen sulfide. Salt marshes are so central to the sulfur cycle that they account for twenty five percent of all yearly biogenic atmospheric sulfur input (Gosselink & Maltby, 1993). Of particular importance is the role wetlands play in the global carbon cycle. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are the principle driver behind climate change, and it is anticipated that their rate of atmospheric accumulation over the next few decades will only increase (Raupach et al., 2007). Wetland ecosystems are a natural carbon sink, as anaerobic conditions caused by prolonged saturation inhibit organic matter decomposition, that allows for carbon to accumulate in the soil (Collins & Kuehl, 2001). Globally, wetlands are responsible for storing a total of 513 Pg, of carbon, which is 23% of all soil carbon storage (Bridgham et al., 2006). Thus, restoration of wetland environments to increase soil carbon storage capacity is seen as one possible strategy to mitigate accelerating atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (Lal, 2004). Wetland Losses Prior to European colonization, North America was home to an abundance of wetlands. It is estimated that the lower 48 states alone contained 87 million hectares of wetlands pre-settlement (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007). Many of those wetlands have 5 subsequently been lost. Nationally, it is estimated that 53% of presettlement wetlands have been lost. Wetland loss in Maryland and Delaware, the two states of interest of this study, has exceeded the national average. These states have lost 73% and 54% of their precolonial wetlands, respectively (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007). Wetland loss has been attributed to various factors, but the primary cause has been the intentional draining, dredging, or filling of wetlands by human activity (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007). Wetland soils are often rich in organic matter and have been drained in order to be put into agriculture. During the 19th and 20th centuries, half a million hectares of land were drained yearly for agricultural use, of which, 65% was previously wetland (Gosselink and Maltby, 1993). To meet the demand for additional farmland, bottomland forests, traditionally harvested for timber, were clearcut for agriculture. Flood control measures to expand agriculture and human settlement along the Mississippi alluvial plain resulted in further wetland disturbance; levees resulted in changes to wetland hydrology and sedimentation patterns. Except for a decrease during World War II, the rate of wetland loss by conversion to agriculture has been remarkably steady during the past two centuries (Gosselink and Maltby, 1993). Urban development is another major cause of wetland loss, particularly on the East and West coasts of the United States. Two thirds of the world’s population lives near the coast, and population expansion often comes at the cost of wetland alteration and disruption. Coastal wetlands, as could be expected, are disproportionately impacted by drainage and clearance for urban or industrial uses. Nevertheless, wetland loss due to urban development accounts for a much smaller percentage of 6 total wetland loss than that due to agriculture, but the rate of loss has accelerated greatly since the end of World War II, and is closely tied to locations of high population density (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007). A third major cause for wetland loss has been the ditching of salt marshes in an attempt to control mosquito populations. Salt marshes serve as the habitat for the larval stage of several species of disease-vector mosquitoes. Shallow pools in the salt marshes allow for mosquito larvae to develop while sheltering them from predatory fish (Leisnham & Sandoval-Mohapatra, 2011). Parallel ditches were cut into marshes to drain these pools and allow mosquito predators access to the larvae. From the 1930’s to 1950’s, it is estimated that the Civilian Conservation Corps dug a total of 562,000 miles of parallel ditches into salt marshes from Maine to Virginia (Gedan et al., 2009). Approximately 90% of salt marshes of this region were impacted. Although mosquitoes were the target of this control measure, evidence shows that grid ditching has had widespread negative impacts on the ecology of salt marshes (Bourn & Cottam, 1951). Soil Changes Upon Conversion to Agriculture Human disturbance of wetlands can result in major changes in soil composition and properties. Conversion of wetland soil to an agricultural system results in several particular changes. Changes in hydrology are often the most noticeable alterations. Prior to modification, wetland soils have a water table at or near the surface for a portion of the year, show slow drainage after precipitation events, and surface flow is often intermittent. Upon conversion to agriculture, the water table is greatly lowered by the installation of tile drains or drainage ditches. 7 Drainage after precipitation events is rapid, and surface flow is redirected towards ditches and drains, and is continuous (Bruland et al., 2003). Changes in the hydrology of wetland soils facilitate additional changes in soil composition. Wetland hydrology allows the accumulation of soil organic matter, as aerobic decomposition is inhibited. The lowering of the water table allows the introduction of oxygen and facilitates aerobic decomposition. This greatly increases the rate at which soil organic matter is decomposed (Schlesinger, 1999). Liming, a common agricultural practice used to raise the pH of the soil, has been shown to further increase the rate of organic matter decomposition (Compton & Boone, 2000). In particularly organic-rich soils, this increased rate of decomposition can result in soil subsidence and loss (Lilly, 1981). Increases in soil compaction have also been shown to accompany the conversion of wetland soils to agricultural use. Tillage, in particular, is responsible for much of the compaction increase (Brady & Weil, 2008). Tillage often results in the creation of a compacted plowpan directly beneath the plow depth, and also an increase in subsoil compaction. Surface soil compaction is the result of the use of heavy machinery for tillage and planting, as well as the homogenization of existing soil horizons during tillage. Tillage also further aerates the soil, contributing to soil organic matter loss. Compaction as a result of agricultural activity has been shown to deteriorate soil structure, inhibit soil strength, lower hydraulic conductivity, and limit root penetration (Lipiec & Hatano, 2003). 8 Wetland Protection/Restoration Modern federal protection of wetlands was established under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Regulatory authority over wetlands was established by defining them as (or associated with) navigable water bodies. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act established a permitting system for controlling wetland disturbance under the auspices of regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into the waters of the US. Permitting authority was split between the EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers, the latter of which had previous experience running a permitting program under the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act (Hough & Robertson, 2009). Questions of jurisdictional rights between the EPA and the Corps of Engineers led to some confusion over permitting rights and requirements. In 1980, the EPA established a set of guidelines for wetland regulation called the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (EPA, 1980). Both agencies agreed to adopt the 1980 guidelines in a 1990 joint memorandum of understanding (Corps & EPA, 1990). Wetland protection legislation on the state and local level varies greatly by locale. In the mid-Atlantic region, the economic and environmental importance of the Chesapeake Bay has led to several efforts in Maryland and other states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to protect nontidal wetlands as a means to limit nutrient runoff to the Bay. The first multistate, formalized agreement to this end was the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Under this agreement, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington DC, and the federal government committed to cooperation in preserving the region’s nontidal wetlands in order to preserve the health of the Bay. Under this initiative, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water 9 Resources Administration was put in charge of a subcommittee to devise a wetlands policy for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Their stated goal was a “net resource gain” in wetland acreage and function for the region (McNeer, 1992). The state of Maryland put the policy suggestions of the Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy group into effect with the 1989 passage of the Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act. This law gave the Maryland Department of Natural Resource, Water Resources Administration (and later, the Maryland Department of the Environment, Water Management Administration) regulatory authority over “conservation, enhancement, regulation, creation, and monitoring” of nontidal wetlands. A permitting program was put in place in 1991 that required approval for all non-exempt activities within 25 feet of a nontidal wetland. Agricultural and forestry activities are exempted from this requirement, but still require local Soil Conservation District approval of the implementation of best management practices for soil conservation, sediment control, and water quality protection. These activities also require mitigation for any impacts on nontidal wetlands (McNeer, 1992). The 1980 EPA guidelines codified the protection requirements of the CWA into what has come to be known as the “mitigation sequence”(Hough & Robertson, 2009). This is a tiered series of emphases that should be addressed during the regulatory process. This approach emphasizes that impact avoidance is the prime concern of wetland protection, such that if an activity would negatively impact wetlands, that activity should not be allowed. When complete avoidance is not feasible, the subsequent concern should be to minimize any negative impact from the activity on wetlands. However, when substantial negative impact cannot be avoided, 10 then the third tier of this approach is to provide compensation for the impact, such as repairing, restoring, or rehabilitating impacted wetlands. Wetland creation and restoration falls under this category. As stipulated in the CWA, all damages to wetlands were required to be compensated with on-site and in-kind restorations. A variety of governmental programs were established to facilitate and encourage wetland protection and restoration. In 2003, a series of conservation programs were established by and funded through the US Department of Agriculture. These programs were aimed at providing private landowners with financial and technical support and incentives to engage in conservation activities. Each individual program is aimed towards protecting a particular environment of interest, and the majority of wetland restorations were done under the auspices of the Conservation Reserve (Enhancement) Program (CRP/CREP) and the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) (De Steven & Lowrance, 2011). The WRP alone accounts for 2.3 million acres of private land being enrolled in wetland protection. Comprehensive review of conservation policy was undertaken by the National Research Council in 2001 (NRC, 2001). Among their findings were that the requirements under the CWA, that compensation for wetland impacts must occur as in-kind and on-site actions, proved to be problematic. They observed that In-kind restorations often resulted in undesirable wetlands being replaced with additional undesirable wetlands. The on-site requirement hampered efforts to properly locate wetland restorations, as poorly suited upland sites would have to be utilized if there were no better on-site locations available. Oftentimes these poorly suited restorations would fail or be less desirable than wetlands that were appropriately located or 11 situated, but further away. The NRC recommended moving away from the emphasis of in-kind and on-site restorations found in the CWA. By expanding the view of wetland restoration to the landscape or watershed level, they argued, emphasis could be placed on properly siting wetland restorations in the landscape to maximize both the chances for restoration success, but also improved wetland function across the watershed. Further review of federal wetland conservation efforts came in the form of the establishment of the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) in 2003. Formed within the USDA, CEAP was intended to assess, review, and quantify the benefits of conservation practices implemented under federal Farm Bill programs (Goldman & Needelman, 2015). Since its inception, CEAP has been engaged in several regional and watershed-scale studies (Brinson & Eckles, 2011). Of particular interest to this research has been the CEAP Wetlands Mid-Atlantic Region (MIAR) Study, ongoing since 2008. The goal of this (MIAR-CEAP) study has been the collection of data on natural wetlands, restored wetlands, and prior-converted croplands in MD, DE, and VA. This study has encountered difficulties as privacy provisions of the Food Security Act preclude restoration monitoring, and information on the implementation of conservation practices is often lacking, thus sometimes limiting their ability to document effectiveness of the conservation efforts (De Steven & Lowrance, 2011). 12 Critical Elements of Restoration Wetlands, as ecosystems, rely on a very specific set of soil, water, and plant properties to ensure their proper function and composition. Any restoration or creation of a wetland must properly replicate these properties to ensure that the restoration behaves like a comparable natural wetland. These properties can be broadly divided into three categories: those related to wetland hydrology, those relating to wetland vegetation, and those related to wetland soil. Wetland hydrology is often considered the “master variable” of wetland properties (Bridgham & Richardson, 1993). It has been shown that proper hydrologic conditions are required for wetland biogeochemical function (Richardson, 2001). It follows that properly emulating natural wetland hydrology is a critical goal of successful wetland restoration. Unfortunately, hydrology is highly variable across multiple scales, from local to the watershed level, and affected by a multitude of factors, from topography, plant communities, climate, land use, etc. Furthermore, it has been shown that natural hydroperiods are critical to wetland function (Zedler & Kercher, 2005), so timing of saturated soil conditions must be taken into account, not merely their frequency or duration. Wetland plant community composition also heavily relies on hydrology; changes in hydrology often benefit invasive species (Bunn & Arthington, 2002). Changes in plant community structure can feedback and further impact other wetland properties, and, ultimately, wetland function, itself. The essential, complex, and interconnected nature of wetland hydrology requires long- term monitoring to document and ensure that natural hydrology is both restored, and that it is sustainable (Hunt, 1996). 13 The presence of wetland vegetation, or hydrophytes, is one of the three defining characteristics of a wetland environment. These plants are well-adapted to surviving in the saturated and anaerobic conditions found within wetland ecosystems and tend to out-compete dryland species in these environments. Plant communities contribute to the function a number of wetland services, including animal habitat, stormflow mitigation, and high rates of primary productivity. Plant communities also tend to be the most noticeable property of wetlands on account of them being primarily located above ground. Perhaps because of this ease of observation, wetland plant ecosystems are the most well studied and documented property of wetlands. For this reason, plant communities will not be a major focus of this study. Soils have been described as the physical foundation of wetland ecosystems (Stolt et al., 2000). A successful restoration should aim to minimize soil disturbance, as deviations in soil properties can have cascading effects on multiple wetland properties. One instance of this phenomenon occurring was in a section of San Diego Bay being restored for the purpose of providing endangered species habitat. The soil imported to provide wetland substrate proved to be too sandy to retain sufficient nitrogen to support the desired plant density, and the diminished plant cover failed to attract the target species. Soil texture proved to be a limiting factor to wetland restoration success (Zedler, 1998). The importance of soil properties is further amplified by their slowness to respond to restoration activity when compared to wetland hydrology and ecology. Though understudied, there are several long-term studies of soil development in restored wetlands. A 25-year study of created and natural North Carolina coastal tidal 14 marshes found that, even after 25 years, created marshes still had less organic C than reference sites, despite similar accumulation rates (Craft et al., 1999). A longer-term study was undertaken by Ballantine and Schneider. They observed restored wetlands in New York across a 55-year timespan. They noted a slower, establishment phase of wetland development dominated by allocthonous inputs, followed by a successional phase of development dominated by autocthonous inputs. Depressional wetlands, due to a lack of sedimentary or tidal inputs, respond to restoration even slower. Changes in soil properties were observed to be slow at first, but gradually accelerated with time. In the top 5 cm of soil, soil organic matter, bulk density, and cation exchange capacity were all less than 50% of reference levels after 55 years (Ballantine & Schneider, 2009). This sets the time frame for recovery of soil parameters in the range of decades to centuries. The capacity for soil recovery and development can be constrained by any number of factors, including restoration method, management decisions, and initial soil conditions (Zedler & Callaway, 1999). This stresses the importance factoring soil properties into restoration planning and maintenance, as well as monitoring of the restoration to ensure recovery is occurring along the expected trajectory. Site-specific strategies should be employed to address specific changes in soil properties (Zedler, 2000). Methods of Restoration Methods of freshwater wetland restoration in the Mid-Atlantic region can be broadly classified into two categories: scraping and plugging. Scraping is the 15 excavation, modification, or removal of soil material to form a depressional landform. Wetland hydrology is established by lowering the soil surface to be closer to the existent water table. Scraping is highly disruptive to the soil and plant communities, but does not require preexisting wetland hydrology, and thus can be implemented in areas regardless of site history. As such, scraping can be considered akin to wetland creation. Plugging, in contrast, is the reestablishment of wetland hydrology by removal of drains or damming of ditches. Upon removal of the artificial drainage, the water table is elevated closer to the soil surface, and hydric conditions result. This has a lesser environmental impact than scraping, but is limited to locations that were previously wetlands until being hydrologically modified. As such, plugging is more akin to true wetland restoration than wetland creation. Impacts of Scraping Method of Restoration The scraping method of restoration is much more common in the Mid-Atlantic region than any other means of restoration (Fenstermacher, 2012). As a result, the impacts on the soil inherent in its implementation have been widespread. Soil compaction as a result of wetland restoration can either be intentional or unintentional. Unintentional compaction can be an artifact of the use of heavy machinery during the restoration process. Often, however, soil compaction is an intended part of the restoration design. Regardless of local hydrology, once soil in the restoration area is excavated, water-limiting, clay-rich layers are laid down and compacted before being overlain with the excavated soil. Compaction of soil has the effect of increasing soil bulk density as well as skewing pore size distribution in favor 16 of smaller micropores by collapsing larger macropores (Brady & Weil, 2008). This lowers the hydraulic conductivity of the soil and can alter the hydrology of the wetland system. Such low conductivity, clay rich soil horizons have been shown to cause water table perching following rain events, as well as promoting rapid, lateral water movement (Vadas et al., 2007). In addition to impacting hydrology, these confining layers may impact nutrient cycling, as they may limit interaction between anoxic sediments and groundwater nitrate (Denver et al., 2014). Beyond compaction, scraping has additional soil impacts through the disturbance, homogenization, and removal of topsoil. Soil excavation negatively impacts soil structure, aerates previously anoxic soil material, encourages rapid decomposition of organic material, and can expose underlying soil material (Brady & Weil, 2008). This has been shown to have negative effects on the amount of available soil carbon, and the degree of surface-groundwater interactions (Goldman & Needelman, 2015). Evaluating Restoration Success In order to evaluate the success of a wetland restoration, it is necessary to establish measurable and realistically obtainable criteria to monitor the progress of the restoration towards achieving its design goals. These criteria are known as wetland performance standards, and must be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers as part of the permitting process for all CWA Section 404 mitigation projects (NRC, 2001). In order to be useful, performance standards must be tailored to the specific goals of the proposed restoration and the properties of the location 17 where the restoration activity will be undertaken. As such, wetland performance indicators as a group are extremely variable. The Wetland Reserve Program provides guidance to establishing wetland performance criteria in a 1999 technical note. Through an analysis of 300 permit applications, seven distinct approaches to the establishment of performance indicator criteria were described. These approaches are requirements for survival of planted species, requirements for plant density or plant cover, requirements staged over time, requirements based on wetland delineation methods, requirements employing wetland indices, comparison to reference wetlands, and requirements limiting exotic or nuisance species (Streever, 1999). Vegetation is the major focus of most wetland performance standards. There are several reasons for this. Wetland restoration goals are overwhelmingly focused on plant communities (Matthews & Endress, 2008), so it is logical that standards to measure a restoration’s success towards meeting these goals also focus on plant community properties. There is also a practical element to this focus. Plant communities tend to respond much more rapidly to the environmental disturbance brought about by restoration activities than other aspects of the wetland ecosystem. As such, monitoring timeframes can be much shorter than those measuring slower- changing criteria. In addition, observation of plant community changes can be performed relatively easily as compared to observation of other wetland properties. Annual sampling of wetland vegetation during the late summer has been shown to be sufficient to maximize the number of identifiable species obtained, though this may underestimate early-flowering species (Matthews, 2003). Performance indicators relating to vegetation, though highly variable in form 18 and scope, tend to rely on a few common plant community metrics. One commonly employed metric is monitoring survival of planted species. A certain percentage of species is required to survive over a designated number of growing seasons. This can be implemented as generalized planted species, or as different classes such as woody species, herbaceous species, or approved natural species. Often times these standards are specified to be measured by growing season, necessitating replanting if the targeted survival percentage is not met. Another metric to measure vegetative wetland performance is by determining percent vegetative cover. Several methods for measuring vegetative cover are available (Floyd & Anderson, 1987), but areal cover percentage and canopy cover percentage seem to be relatively common. Plant cover percentage standards can be established for specific target species, for specific plant types, or just generalized for all species. These values can be utilized by themselves, used to determine species dominance, or used to calculate a vegetation quality index. Vegetative indices are metrics utilized to quantify numerous plant properties, both quantitative and qualitative (i.e. frequency, desirability, resilience) as a single variable. Determination of the dominance of species in a system is one such method (Delineation., 1989). Species dominance is based solely on plant prevalence, and does not incorporate any qualitative metrics. All species present in an area are identified and their extent determined. An importance value for each species is calculated based on both the species frequency and percent cover in sampled areas. The importance values for the most prevalent species in the area are summed until a certain threshold is met. These species, as well as any species with 20% total cover, are considered dominant. This method can be employed to set standards by species, plant type, 19 invasiveness, or desirability. Two commonly used indices attempting to incorporate qualitative data are the coefficient of conservatism (C) and the floristic quality index (FQI). The indices were developed for use in the Chicago region (Swink & Wilhelm, 1994), but were later adapted for use in other regions of the world as well. The coefficient of conservatism is a subjective value established for each native species in a region. Values are based upon how tolerant a species is towards environmental degradation. The mean C value for each native species in an area is used, in concert with the number of species, to calculate the FQI for the area. FQI was developed to rapidly assess and quantify environment disturbance and biodiversity. Higher FQI values are associated with a less disturbed environment and greater species diversity. Standards can be set by a target FQI value to be met over a given timeframe. Beyond vegetation, hydrology is the second most common factor to base wetland performance standards upon. One cause for this that hydrology is generally more difficult to monitor than vegetation. Monitoring hydrological activity requires monitoring equipment (such as recording wells), and, unlike vegetation, which can be sufficiently gauged with annual measurement, requires much more frequent observation. Multiple seasons of data are often required, as precipitation anomalies can greatly affect seasonal data. Hydrology, however, is often considered the master variable in a wetland environment, so, even when not monitored directly, it can be viewed as being indirectly monitored through its impacts on the soil and vegetative community. When hydrology is directly monitored, several metrics can be employed, though some are rather vague. One metric to assess wetland hydrological 20 performance is by measurement of areal hydrology (Matthews & Endress, 2008). Other performance indicators employed involve assessing the presence or degree of saturated soil conditions, or setting standards for water quality or salinity (Streever, 1999). The most common standard by which hydrologic performance is assessed is by inclusion as a factor in a delineation-based assessment of whether the restoration meets the 31 growing season days of saturation requirement to meet the jurisdictional definition of wetland hydrology (Laboratory, 1987). Beyond being the generally least studied of the three criteria of jurisdictional wetland properties, hydric soil conditions also tend to be the least monitored as a criteria for restoration success. The reasons for this are manifold. Soil monitoring is both labor and skill intensive, requiring a multitude of field descriptions performed by technicians knowledgeable in both soil morphology and use of wetland indicators. Soil properties tend to be highly variable spatially, particularly in areas disturbed by restoration activity. This necessitates additional field descriptions to ensure the entirety of the wetland is covered by a monitoring protocol. Changes in soil properties also occur over a much longer timescale, requiring monitoring periods much longer than those for observation of vegetation or hydrology. On the other hand, the general stability of soil properties ensures that properties are not seasonally variable, and there is no need for continuous monitoring equipment. Metrics for monitoring of soil properties for evaluation of restoration success are rather rare. I was only able to locate one example of a monitoring plan that dictated the direct observation of a soil property. A 1999 technical note providing for guidance for developing wetland performance standards cited a 1998 creation of a 21 forested/herbaceous mixed wetland calling for the formation of subsurface muck layers to be a criteria for restoration success (Streever, 1999). Six inches of muck was required to be present in designated areas for the restoration to be considered a success. The protocol allotted an extended monitoring period of 25 years for the restoration to meet this goal. A much more common approach employed to monitor the formation of wetland soil properties is to monitor soils as a part of a delineation-based approach. A review of MD, VA, and NJ monitoring protocols shows that all call for the entirety of the wetland restoration to meet the 1987 USACOE jurisdictional definition of a wetland. Duration of monitoring varies by state, but all three states require regular monitoring over a period of 3-10 years. Regardless of the specific criteria monitored, the timeframe over which the monitoring is mandated plays an important role in the gauging of restoration success. Different wetland properties change at different rates, and observation timeframes for individual wetland properties should reflect this. Even the trajectory of change of individual properties is shown to be time sensitive. A 25-year study of constructed wetlands showed that soil organic matter was lost rapidly upon wetland restoration and only slowly re-accumulated. While vegetative and hydrological properties recovered quickly, the timeframe for restoration of soil properties was estimated to be in the range of decades to centuries (Craft et al., 1999). The typical duration of restoration monitoring is in the range of 3-5 years and focused primarily on development of plant communities (Matthews & Endress, 2008). 22 Given these discrepancies in timeframe, it would be useful to examine the rate at which redoximorphic features and hydric indicators form. Redoximorphic features have been shown to develop quickly under ideal conditions. One study demonstrated development of redoximorphic depletions after seven days of ponding (Vepraskas et al., 2006). Though resulting from saturated soil conditions, these depletions were, on their own, insufficient to meet a hydric soil indicator. The same study, however, found that hydric indicators did form in all plots after 3 years of periodic flooding. This study relied on ideal conditions for formation of redoximorphic features: homogenous, high-organic-matter-content (4.2%) A horizon material ponded for a duration longer than minimally required to be jurisdictionally classified as hydric. Other studies where soil conditions were less than ideal, show formation of hydric soil indicators in a period of five years (Vepraskas et al., 1999). This presents a dilemma for using hydric soil indicators as criteria for wetland success. The rate at which hydric soil indicators form is highly variable and dependent on a multitude of factors. Soil organic matter content, ponding duration, ponding frequency, and temperature all play a role at the rate redoximorphic features form and accumulate. A proper monitoring timeframe for measuring restoration success is, therefore, difficult to establish, and may well exceed the 3-5 year timeframe common for observation of other wetland features. Additionally, hydric indicator analysis doesn’t take into account the soil disturbance which occurs during restoration activity. Hydric indicators do not differentiate between relict and active redoximorphic features. Disturbance of soil material during restoration may result in existent features being translocated upwards in the solum where they would not form 23 naturally, or for soil material being moved far from the hydrologic conditions where it formed. Soil disturbance may also cause hydric indicator formation to occur in a spatially variable manner. Additionally, homogenization of multiple soil horizons is common during restoration, resulting in soil material which would artificially meet a hydric indicator. Alternative measurements of hydric soil condition should be entertained to address the shortfalls of relying exclusively on hydric soil indicators for assessment of wetland restoration success. One suggestion would be to use methods which do not rely on direct observation of indicator formation, but rather the measurement of the conditions required for the formation of reducing conditions. One proven method would be use of IRIS tubes (Rabenhorst, 2008). Through measurement of iron oxide paint removal from the surface of tubes placed in the soil during the growing season, the presence of reducing conditions in the soil can be rapidly assessed (Castenson & Rabenhorst, 2006; Rabenhorst & Burch, 2006). Use of IRIS tubes for identification of hydric soil conditions is a well-established methodology, and standards have already been established for their use (Soils, 2007). Another potential method of assessment would be use of α-α-dipyridyl dye to test for the presence of ferrous iron in the soil. Reduction of ferric iron to ferrous iron is an important intermediary step in the formation of redoximorphic soil features, and has been shown to occur as rapidly as within 3 days of soil inundation (Meek et al., 1968). This method can rapidly assess the presence of reducing conditions, and, in conjunction with hydrologic data, can assess the trajectory of wetland change towards hydric conditions. A third potential alternate to current assessment methods of hydric soil formation could be observation 24 of the development of redoximorphic features over time as compared to baseline observations taken immediately after restoration. This would have the benefit of compensating for relict redoximorphic features and pseudofeatures created by the soil disturbance inherent in restoration activity. Geographic Setting of this Study This study is focused on the Delmarva Peninsula, a portion of the states of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia bordered on the west by the Chesapeake Bay and the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The peninsula is 14,130 km2 in area and comprises the largest portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It is located entirely within the Atlantic Coastal Plain and is primarily comprised of fluvial and deltaic coastal plain sediments. The land is notable for its flat topography, highly permeable soils, and generally high water tables. The predominant land use on the peninsula is for agriculture, except for areas too wet for agriculture, which typically remain forested. There is a widespread history of cultivation and artificial drainage in the region (Goldman & Needelman, 2015). Hydrologically, subsurface flow is the favored method of groundwater transport, and groundwater is well oxygenated due to the high permeability of the soil (Hamilton et al., 1993). The Delmarva lends itself well towards restoration activities for a variety of reasons. In its natural state, the peninsula is home to a great deal of depressional wetlands known as Delmarva Bays, and, despite agricultural drainage, these wetlands remain common throughout its upper and middle portions (Fenstermacher et al., 2014). The naturally high water table allows for the easy reestablishment of wetland hydrologic conditions, and does not necessitate the construction of a confining soil 25 layer to maintain them. In addition, the prevalence and general mutability of agricultural land use allows for a great deal of flexibility in restoration siting. 26 Chapter 3: Physical Effects of Wetland Restoration Introduction The importance of wetlands is widely understood today, but as recently as 30 years ago, this was not the case. Wetlands have often been viewed as obstacles to development at best, and breeding grounds for disease vectors at worst. From colonial times, wetlands were traditionally drained for use as farmland (Gosselink & Maltby, 1993). Their organic-rich soil material was highly fertile, but, once drained, was subject to rapid organic matter decomposition and soil subsidence (Brady & Weil, 2008). During the Great Depression of the 1930s, wetlands became the target of mosquito control measures brought on by public works projects. Targeting the habitat of malaria-bearing mosquitoes, vast swathes of wetlands were ditched and drained. More recently, other causes for land clearing and drainage, such as clearing for urban land or future development have emerged as major contributors to wetland loss, but agriculture remains the leading cause (Dahl et al., 1991). So extensive were these various efforts at land clearing and drainage that it is estimated that 53% of wetlands have been lost nationwide (Dahl, 1990).. Fortunately, there has been a recent change in attitude towards wetlands, and society now generally acknowledges their positive benefits to both the environment in general, and our species in particular. As such, wetlands have been protected from development and drainage under a variety of federal laws, from the Clean Water Act to “Swampbuster” provisions under the Food Security Act of 1985 (Hough & Robertson, 2009). While protection of existing wetlands is necessary, the loss of so 27 much of their original extent has necessitated efforts to achieve restoration of degraded land to its original wetland condition. Various government programs have begun to address this need for wetland restoration. One of the primary efforts designed to restore wetland acreage was the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) run through the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, 2016). Under this program, the federal government leased private land under conservation easements. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) was charged with implementing efforts to restore the leased land to a wetland state. Landowners maintain all rights to the land short of development, and may reclaim complete ownership at the end of the easement period. After 2014, the WRP program was subsumed under the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) with relatively few changes to the program, but with some loss in funding. The NRCS has been placed in charge of overseeing and assessing the success of these restoration efforts through the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP). Two major methods are implemented in restoring wetlands in the region of the Delmarva Peninsula; “plugging” and “scraping” (Fenstermacher, 2012; Goldman & Needelman, 2015). Plugging is the damming, filling in, or otherwise obstruction of ditches, drains, or other artificial construct that has modified the hydrology of the land to be restored. When these drainage structures are effectively removed, the land is returned to its native wetland hydrologic character. This allows for the re- establishment of hydrophytic species of vegetation and wetland hydrology; hydric soils are commonly already present. Scraping differs from plugging in that heavy 28 machinery is used to lower the soil surface to the water table. It can result in heavy disturbance to the soil profile as surface soil horizons are moved about and homogenized, and can also cause compaction of subsurface layers. Soil surface compaction is a well-studied phenomena as it pertains to agriculture and is noted as a result of machinery traffic during both tilling and planting (Raper, 2005; Brady & Weil, 2008). Compaction has been shown to deteriorate soil structure, modifies soil strength, lower hydraulic conductivity, and limit root penetration (Lipiec & Hatano, 2003). Soil compaction has been anecdotally observed at several restored sites within the Delmarva region and is hypothesized to be an artifact of restoration (Fenstermacher, 2012; Goldman & Needelman, 2015). Additionally, it appears that restoration by scraping is far more common in this region than other methods. The primary goal of this study is the documentation of the physical impacts of wetland restoration efforts on soil physical properties. In order to accomplish such, selected physical properties of wetlands restored through the most common restoration process of scraping were evaluated and compared with those of natural counterparts. The way in which these physical properties vary across a hydrological and topographical gradient and affect wetland soil function were further documented. Methods Site Selection This study was conducted in the Delmarva region of Maryland and Delaware on the Atlantic Coast of the United States. The Delmarva is primarily an agricultural region, notable for poultry and feed corn production. The land is relatively flat and near sea level (elevation <30 m). Soils in the region were formed from fluvial and 29 deltaic coastal plain sediments, are well developed, and tend to have textures ranging from loamy to sandy. The average annual rainfall in the region is 116 cm and occurs evenly throughout the year. Seasonal water tables in the region are often found high in the soil profile and fluctuate as a result of evapotranspiration. Nine restored and five natural sites were selected for study. The restored sites were among a group of Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, or Wetland Reserve Program sites located across the Delmarva Peninsula. As documenting the properties of restored wetlands was a major component of this research, a greater proportion of restored sites were included in this study. Additionally, because restored sites tend to exhibit a greater variability of hydrological and pedological properties, a larger number of restored sites were required. Both restored and natural sites were freshwater and depressional in nature, but seasonally and spatially variable in hydrology. Both display topographic gradients that lead to gradual transitions between ponded wetland, saturated wetland, and upland zones. Natural sites, however, tend to be dominated by woody vegetation, while restored sites tend to mainly contain herbaceous plants. They both, however, provide habitat for a variety of emergent vegetative species in their wetter portions. An effort was made to try to avoid restorations that featured more abrupt changes in topography that resulted in a pond-like wetland. 30 Figure 3-1. Number of wetland sites in this study located within counties of Maryland and Delaware on the Delmarva Peninsula. 31 Research sites were distributed among 6 counties in MD and DE across the Delmarva Peninsula. As shown in Figure 3-1, twelve sites were located within the state of Maryland, with the remaining two in Delaware. The largest concentration of sites was located within Caroline and Queen Anne’s Counties, MD, but sites ranged as far northeast as New Castle Co, DE and as far south as Dorchester Co, MD. Sites were largely hydrologically isolated, with no major features providing surficial inflow or outflow. Site Zonation Since research sites were selected based on similarities in hydrology and topography, it was possible to define hydrologic zones that represented areas of broadly similar hydrologic character common throughout the research sites. During field visits, wetland sites were examined and three or four hydrological zones were identified at each study sites (0, 1, 2, and 3 - in order of decreasing wetness). Zone 0 was a deeply (and in some cases perennially) ponded (> 35 cm) wetland with little or no emergent vegetation present. Zone 0 was not observed at all sites, but when present, it was located centrally within the wetland, and often represented a small portion (10-20%) of the wetland. Because it was not present in all sites, and due to potential difficulty in sampling and the lack of vegetation, zone 0 was not included for observation in this study. Zone 1 was a seasonally ponded wetland with emergent vegetation present. The water table would often draw down during the warmer months, sometimes dropping below the soil surface, but typically remained ponded throughout the colder 32 months. Depth of ponding was generally less than 35 cm. This zone was present in all study sites, and represented the wettest zone studied. Zone 2 was a seasonally saturated wetland with a variety of vegetative wetland species present. This zone was rarely ponded (with a few cm of water) but commonly saturated. The water table dropped below the surface as the growing season progressed, but remained at or near the surface during the winter and spring. Zone 2 was present at all sites and was included in this study. Zone 3 consisted of upland areas adjacent to, but not included in, the wetland. This zone lacked hydric soils (and ranged from somewhat poorly drained to well drained), and was dominated by growth of non-wetland vegetation. Zone 3 was present at all sites, and marked the driest areas of observation in this study. Transects Three replicate transects of three plots each were established at each site. Each site was considered as if roughly circular in shape, and transects were established radially outward from the center. Each transect spanned the hydrologic gradient from zone 1 to 2 to 3. A system of stratified randomization was utilized in plot selection. Three compass bearings were randomly determined to be 36, 144 and 252 degrees (1, 4 and 7 tenths). Then, three transects (of three plots each) were established from the center of each wetland along these bearings. Rather than being located randomly along transects, plots were placed centrally within each hydrologic zone of interest (1, 2 and 3) using field observation and LiDAR DEMs (Digital Elevation Models). Specifically, evidence of seasonal 33 water table height, presence/absence of hydric soils, and vegetation type were used to help situate plots. Penetration Resistance Figure 3-2. Schematic illustrating the stratified/nested design for measuring penetration resistance. Five sets (b) of ten vertical measurements (a) were made in four areas (c) within each plot (d). Penetration resistance was used as an indicator of soil compaction. It is measured by the amount of force required to push a cone of known surface area a given distance through the soil, and thus it is a function of the force of resistance exerted on the cone and cone size. This reading of pressure is known as the cone index, and was recorded using an Eijkelkamp analog handheld penetrometer (Hummel et al., 2004). The penetrometer consists of a handheld dynamometer attached to a rod with a cone of standard size and shape affixed to the end. The meter records the force exerted as the cone is pushed vertically through the soil. The 34 maximum force exerted was recorded for each depth increment of 0-2.5 cm, 2.5-5 cm, then at 5 cm intervals thereafter to a total depth of 45 cm (Figure 3-2a). Thus, one set of penetrometer readings consisted of 10 measurements, at the depths prescribed above, as the cone was pushed progressively through the soil. In each plot, sets (of 10 measurements with depth) were taken in 4 groups of 5, with each grouping (of 5) being clustered within a 0.5 m2 area, and being located approximately 1-2 m from the plot center (Figure 3-2b). The four groups (of 5 sets) were equally spaced in relation to plot center, with one group towards the center of the wetland, one group away from center, and one group each radially left and right (Figure 3-2c). Therefore, at each site there were three plots being located along each of the three radial (replicate) transects so that a total of 60 sets of penetrometer readings were collected for each zone at each wetland site (Figure 3-2d). Penetrometer measurements are highly sensitive to moisture content of the soil (Hummel et al., 2004; Kumar et al., 2012). To control for moisture content, penetrometer readings in zones 1 and 2 were only taken at times when the water table was at or near the surface. Zone 3, being the driest area to be measured, was measured in the winter, when soils were moist and at or near field capacity. Zone 1, being the wettest, was taken in the summer when the water table drew down near the surface. Zone 2 was measured in the spring or fall when the water table was at or near the soil surface. Soil Morphology Soil morphological characteristics were assessed by means of soil profile descriptions generated from observations of samples retrieved using a bucket auger or 35 Macaulay auger at each study plot, for a total of 9 descriptions per research site. The soil was described to a depth of 1-2 m. Soil texture by feel, color, coarse fragment content, and redox features were described in the field using standard protocols (Schoeneberger et al., 2012a). From these data, soil horizon boundaries were established and horizons were described (Staff, 1999). Bulk density measurements for the upper 50 cm of the soil were acquired using a single 5 cm diameter aluminum core driven 50 cm into, and extracted from, each plot. The core was inserted vertically through the soil profile to a depth of 50 cm. The core was then carefully exhumed to avoid disturbance of the soil profile contained within. Once back at the lab, the core was frozen to aid in soil extrusion. The soil was extruded, horizonated, and the thickness of each horizon recorded. Bulk density of each horizon was determined from the dry weight of the horizon divided by its volume (as determined by core cross sectional area multiplied by recorded horizon depth). Results and Discussion Site Information Location, time since restoration and other site details are presented in Table 3- 1. The mean time since restoration for the 9 sites included in this study was 15 years, with a range of 21 years difference between the minimum and maximum. The site ages, however, were not normally distributed across this range. Six sites were restored relatively recently (from 2000 to 2007), while sites R-4, R-5, and R-9 were much older, having been restored between 1986 and 1993. 36 Table 3-1. Site information for natural and restored wetland study sites. Site Wetland County State Restoration Year Type Method Restored Maintenance Additional Notes N-1 Natural New Castle DE - - - N-2 Natural Caroline MD - - - N-3 Natural Caroline MD - - - N-4 Natural Caroline MD - - - N-5 Natural Caroline MD - - - R-1 Restored Kent DE Scraped 2007 R-2 Restored Caroline MD Scraped 2004 R-3 Restored Dorchester MD Scraped 2000 R-4 Restored Queen MD Scraped 1986 Pond-like Anne's restoration R-5 Restored Queen Anne's MD Scraped 1992 Pond-like restoration R-6 Restored Queen Anne's MD Scraped 2002 Mowed 2-3 times yearly R-7 Restored Queen Anne's MD Scraped 2004 R-8 Restored Queen Anne's MD Scraped 2004 R-9 Restored Talbot MD Scraped 1993 Pond-like restoration As outlined in Table 3-1, all restored sites were restored by scraping, or the removal of soil through use of heavy equipment. In addition to loss of soil material, this method had the secondary effect of amalgamating existing soil horizons. These horizons primarily consisted of surface organic-rich O and A material with associated subsurface E and B horizons. The depth to which this homogenization occurred varied between sites and location within the wetland, but evidence of this disturbance was often found at depths in excess of 50 cm. The regular mowing at site R-6 to control the growth of pioneering woody species such as Acer rubrum and Liquidambar styraciflua was an additional source of site disturbance. 37 Cone Index Penetration resistance was reported as cone index values, or the pressure exerted on a cone as it is pushed or driven through a given distance of soil. The cone index has a history of use in the literature as a measure of soil strength, but its use has primarily been limited to agricultural settings. In this study, penetration resistance was used as an indicator of soil compaction. Figure 3-3 shows penetration resistance data for all sites by hydrologic zone. Both restored and natural sites demonstrate a trend of increased penetration resistance with depth, but the restored sites show a greater magnitude of increase, as well as greater variability between sites. Differences between natural and restored sites appear greatest in the zone 1 plots, although it is evident in all 3 zones. 38 Figure 3-3. Penetration resistance data for all sites by hydrologic zone. Each line represents the average of penetration resistance measured at three transect plots. 39 Figure 3-4 demonstrates the magnitude of penetration resistance observed at sites to the maximum observed depth (45 cm), grouped by restoration status and hydrologic zone. Although there was tremendous variation between restored sites, penetration resistance was significantly greater than in natural sites (p<0.0001). Among restored sites, the cone index was greatest in hydrologic zone 1 and decreased in hydrologic zones 2 and3 (stats) while no similar trend occurred in the natural sites (stats). This is believed to be the result of wetland restoration practices that utilized heavy equipment, either intentionally to create a confining layer in the soil profile, or unintentionally as a part of other activities. Figure 3-4. Box and whisker diagram (median, quartiles and range) illustrating the maximum cone index measured within 45 cm of the soil surface. The mean is shown by the dot; the central horizontal line is the median; the box represents the 25th and 75th percentiles; the short lines are the 10th and 90th percentiles; the whiskers represent the range of the data Plots with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level. Figure 3-5, demonstrates that the maximum cone index within 25 cm was also much greater for the restored sites, although the magnitude of penetration resistance was approximately half that measured within 45 cm. We know that penetration 40 resistance normally increases with depth (Raper, 2005). Nevertheless, the comparably high cone index values in the rooting zone (0-25 cm) of the restored sites compared to their natural counterparts has important implications both for plant growth and also for other soil functions. Excessive compaction generally reduces porosity and therefore lowers the rate of groundwater percolation and the soil’s overall water retention capacity. These effects delay the delivery of downstream waters until the volume storage capacity of the depression is exceeded. In addition, compaction limits groundwater discharge into the wetland from the water table. This also limits the ability of the soil to properly cycle nutrients, as these processes require hydrological connectivity between groundwater and the wetland. 41 Figure 3-5. Box and whisker diagram illustrating the maximum cone index measured within 25 cm of the soil surface. The mean is shown by the dot; the central horizontal line is the median; the box represents the 25th and 75th percentiles; the short lines are the 10th and 90th percentiles; the whiskers represent the range of the data Plots with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level. 42 Figure 3-6. Maximum increase in cone index over a 5 cm vertical distance. The mean is shown by the dot; the central horizontal line is the median; the box represents the 25th and 75th percentiles; the short lines are the 10th and 90th percentiles; the whiskers represent the range of the data Plots with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level. Figure 3-6 illustrates the maximum increase in penetration resistance between two successive depths recorded at each plot. This metric demonstrates the abruptness with which these changes in cone index occur. Similar to the overall penetration resistance, restored sites demonstrated a much more abrupt change in penetration resistance as compared to their natural counterparts, and the differences were greatest in zone 1. The abruptness of the increase in soil penetration resistance may be the result of an abrupt change in soil texture, soil compaction, or a combination of the both. We expect that this represents either a pan that was unintentionally formed by 43 heavy machinery when the wetland was ‘scraped’ or the presence of an intentionally compacted clay layer laid down as part of the restoration effort. High penetration resistance was also found to be much more common in restored than in their natural counterparts. Figure 3-7 demonstrates the proportion of plots with a cone index of greater than 1000 kPa at each of two depths. The lower depth, 45 cm, was the maximum depth of observation, while the 25 cm was chosen to be representative of that portion of the soil profile most important for microbial activity and plant rooting. A cone index value of 1000 kPa has been reported to negatively affect plant root growth (Raper, 2005; Kumar et al., 2012). Across all hydrologic zones, high penetration values were much more frequently observed in restored than natural sites. A total of 86% of restored plots were found to have cone index values in excess of 1000 kPa compared to only 24% of natural plots. A similar trend was observed when limiting observation to the upper 25 cm of the soil profile, where 58% of restored plots (52 plots) exceeded this value, while only a single natural plot did (2%). This further confirms that in restored sites, soil compaction is much more prevalent and occurs much shallower in the soil profile. 44 Percentage of Plots Exceeding 1000 kPa Cone Index Value Within Given Depth 100% 80% 60% 40% 45 cm 20% 25 cm 0% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Res Res Res Nat Nat Nat Figure 3-7. Frequency of plots with cone index above 1000 kPa at depths of 45 cm and 25 cm. Bulk Density In addition to penetration resistance, bulk density is another parameter that could reflect soil compaction. Figure 3-8 provides information on the bulk density of soil horizons with lower boundaries between 30 and 50 cm (excludes upper horizons). The subsoil bulk densities of restored sites were greater than those in natural sites in all hydrological zones, although there were no significant differences between hydrological zones among the restored sites. Like the greater observed penetration resistance, the higher bulk densities also may be related to the heavy equipment traffic on these sites during the restoration process. 45 Percentage of Plots 1.80 a a a 1.60 b b 1.40 1.20 c 1.00 0.80 Restored 0.60 Natural 0.40 0.20 0.00 1 2 3 Zone Figure 3-8. Mean (+/- SEM) bulk density (g/cm3) of horizons with lower boundaries between 30 cm and 50 cm. Columns with the same letter are not significantly different at p=0.05). Conclusions A majority of wetland restoration activity on the Delmarva Peninsula has involved substantial earthmoving by heavy equipment (Fenstermacher et al., 2016). It appears that traffic from the machinery during wetland restoration/construction has resulted in pronounced soil compaction at these sites. This can be seen in higher overall penetration resistance, more abrupt increases in penetration resistance, and higher penetration resistance near the soil surface of restored sites, when compared to their natural counterparts. Additionally, restored sites demonstrated a higher subsurface soil bulk density. Soil compaction this severe is likely to result in numerous effects on wetland plant communities. Soil penetration resistance values observed are high enough to have deleterious effects on root penetration and growth of wetland plants. This can result in slower growth rates, reduced vegetation spread, and changes in speciation. 46 Bulk Density Additionally, compaction of this degree is likely to slow or reduce the transmission of water into and out of the restored wetland. Additionally, wetland soil functions themselves are likely to be impacted by soil compaction. Compaction of the degree observed might result in reduction in soil hydraulic conductivity, which can limit connectivity between the wetland and the surrounding watershed. Besides altering the wetland’s hydrology, this can have the effect of hydrologically isolating the wetland and preventing nutrient flux, impeding important nutrient cycling functions. This can also affect changes in wetland hydroperiod, which can impact amphibians and other wetland dependent species. When groundwater is deemed insufficient to maintain wetland conditions, and location within the catchment is suitable, compaction may be done intentionally in order to create a perched water table that could facilitate the development of wetland conditions. Apart from these specific conditions, greater effort should be made to utilize alternate strategies for wetland restoration. Less impactful practices (such as ditch plugging) can limit soil disturbance during the process of restoration. This will reduce the deleterious effects on wetland soil currently observed by the “scraping” method of restoration. Ultimately, new restoration strategies and practices should be devised and implemented with the goal of facilitating, rather than compromising, high levels of wetland function. 47 Chapter 4: Carbon Dynamics in Restored and Natural Wetlands Introduction The modern view of wetlands as a unique and valued ecosystem did not come into being until the mid-20th century. Wetlands were traditionally viewed as obstacles to development and/or breeding grounds for disease vectors. Post-colonization, American wetlands were often drained for cropland. This land was nutrient- and organic matter-rich, but, once drained, was susceptible to rapid carbon loss and soil subsidence from aerobic decomposition (Holden et al., 2004). These losses necessitated further clearing and draining of wetlands to compensate for decreased soil productivity. Further wetland losses occurred as mosquito control efforts resulted in systematic draining of wetlands as part of Depression-era stimulus measures. More recently, wetland loss due to urbanization has become an area of increasing concern. In total, it is estimated that, nationwide, 53% of traditional extent of wetlands have been lost (Bridgham et al., 2006). In the last few decades, a shift in attitudes towards wetlands has begun that places value on the positive environmental services they offer, as well as their intrinsic value as an ecosystem. Wetlands first achieved federal protection by their hydrological connection with navigable waters under the Clean Water Act (Hough & Robertson, 2009). Additional protection was afforded to them under the “Swampbuster” provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 as well as further regulations established on the state and local level (NRCS, 2008). 48 While protection of existing wetlands was necessary, the degree to which wetlands have been disturbed necessitated a strategy to restore previously-degraded wetlands to their original state. The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) was one such program, administered through the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and aimed at restoring degraded wetlands on private property through conservation easements. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was in charge of implementing these restorations, and the Wetlands Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP-Wetlands) was initiated to provide feedback and guidance as to the success of WRP and similar efforts (USDA, 2016). Following it’s expiration in 2014, the WRP program was subsumed under the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). Wetland restoration can be viewed as an effort to unify the water table (either apparent or perched) and the soil surface (for at least some portion of the year); one can either raise the water table to the soil surface, or lower the soil surface to the water table. On the Delmarva Peninsula, these goals have mostly been accomplished by either of two methods - ‘plugging’ or ‘scraping.’ Plugging is the restoration of wetland hydrology by eliminating (plugging or filling) ditches, drains, or other artificial structures which altered (removed) the original wetland hydrology. Once successfully restored, wetland hydrology often allows for the reestablishment of hydrophytic vegetation, and, since hydric soils are typically already present, wetland restoration is complete. Scraping, on the other hand, lowers the current soil surface to the water table by removal of soil material by heavy machinery. This restores (or establishes) saturated hydrologic conditions, which allows for the establishment of 49 hydrophytic vegetation. It also, however, results in extensive soil disturbance as soil horizons are moved about, homogenized or relocated. Additionally, it is thought that the use of heavy machinery during the process can result in soil compaction, much like has been extensively described in agricultural settings (Lipiec & Hatano, 2003; Raper, 2005). Soil compaction has been anecdotally observed at several restored wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic region (Fenstermacher, 2012). Restoration by scraping is far more common in this region than other methods (Fenstermacher, 2012; Goldman & Needelman, 2015). WRP-restored wetlands on the Delmarva Peninsula, which are generally depressional, have many commonalities with natural depressional wetlands. Both wetland types are freshwater wetlands with no tidal influence. They are also hydrologically variable, both spatially and seasonally. Both groups of wetlands feature small scale topographic changes that result in a gradual transition between wetter and drier portions. At a glance, their chief difference may be vegetative; natural sites are dominated by woody vegetation, while restored sites tend to be dominated by herbaceous vegetation (McFarland et al., 2015). The goal of restoration is generally to reinstate various functions and services, which are often facilitated by the presence/accumulation of soil organic matter. However, the accumulation of soil organic matter in restored wetlands is often a slow process. While accumulation of OC is an important process in wetland restoration, and one that drives other wetland functions, one should not expect soil OC stocks to increase quickly following restoration. 50 There have been numerous studies comparing carbon in restored and natural wetlands. One such study of Virginia wetlands found that cutting and scraping activity during restoration resulted in drastically lower C content compared to reference sites that remained little changed after 10 years (Stolt et al., 2000). These observations confirmed earlier studies that found no relation between restored wetland age and C content (Bishel-Machung et al., 1996). More recent studies, however, found that longer-term observation was required to document changes in SOM content in restored wetlands. One such study of New York wetlands demonstrated a increase in SOM content of restored wetlands, after 35-55 years (at a depth of 0-15 cm), but even then, SOM levels failed to approach natural levels within 55 years (Ballantine & Schneider, 2009). The objectives of this study were to compare natural and restored wetlands with regard to: 1) hydrology and cumulative saturation; 2) decomposition of organic matter; 3) and soil carbon stocks. Comparing restored wetlands to their natural counterparts will allow us to better judge the success of these efforts, which will, in turn, allow us to provide better guidance for future restoration efforts. This study will also advance our knowledge of the soil properties and processes involved in restored wetlands, an understudied portion of Earth’s critical zone (Lin, 2010). Methods Study Location This study was conducted across the Delmarva Peninsula of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia in the Mid-Atlantic region of the Atlantic coast of the United States. The region is notable for it’s relatively flat topography and elevation near sea 51 level (elevation <30 m). Average rainfall is 116 cm and occurs evenly throughout the year. Soils of the region are predominantly formed in fluvial and deltaic coastal plain sediments, pedogenically mature, and having seasonally high water tables that in some cases extend high in the soil profile. The predominant land use in the region is agriculture. Site Selection Ten restored and five natural wetland sites were initially selected for study on the Delmarva Peninsula. One of the restored sites was abandoned mid-study due to land owner practices that resulted in loss of data from that site. Restored sites had been included in the Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, or Wetland Reserve Program and varied in age from 7 to 28 years. Both restored and natural sites were freshwater, depressional wetlands, and were both spatially and temporally variable in hydrology. Additionally, all sites were hydrologically isolated from major surface water flows. Sites demonstrated a gradual topographic and hydrologic transition from the upland into the ponded wetland, with ponding in the deepest portions being generally less than 1 m depth during the winter (hydrologically wet) months. Zonation Research sites were subdivided into three or four hydrologic zones that represented a gradient from the wettest (zone 0) to the driest (zone 3). Sites were roughly circular, with the wettest zone occurring in the center, with sequentially drier zones occurring outward in concentric rings. 52 Zone 0 was permanently and deeply (> 35 cm) ponded wetland, and represented the wettest portion of each site included in the study. No emergent vegetation was present, and the water table never drew down below the surface. Zone 0 did not occur at all sites and thus was excluded from the study (Fig. 4-1). Figure 4-1. Cross section through a schematic representation of the wetland sites showing 4 distinct hydrological zones. Plots were established in zones 1, 2 and 3 but not in zone 0 (which was absent from some sites). Zone 1 was seasonally ponded wetland that contained emergent vegetation. The water table was above the soil surface during the colder months (generally <35 cm water depth), but drew down throughout the growing season, sometimes retreating below the ground surface. Zone 2 was seasonally saturated wetland containing hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. This zone was typically saturated during the winter and early spring 53 months, but was rarely ponded. Water tables typically dropped during the growing season. Zone 3 was upland located beyond the extent of the wetland proper, contained no hydric soils, and was dominated by non-hydrophytic vegetation. This was the driest zone addressed in the study. Siting Research Plots Three replicate transects were situated within each wetland. Each transect consisted of three research plots, with one located in each hydrologic zone previously described. Transects extended radially from the center of the wetland site, from zone 1 to zone 3 (Fig 4-2A). Figure 4-2. Three radially oriented transects were situated at each site, and plots were located within zones 1, 2 and 3 (A). Within each plot, 5 sets of replicate birch decomposition sticks were distributed around a shallow (50 cm) well (B). The radial direction of transects was determined randomly, but the location of each plot along each transect was located centrally within each hydrologic zone of 54 interest (stratified randomization). Transects were situated along compass bearings randomly selected at 36, 144 and 252 degrees, from a hypothetical center of the wetland. Plots were then located along the transect in the center of each of the three hydrologic zones of interest (1-3). Field observations of soil conditions, vegetation, water tables, topography and remotely sensed (color IR) imagery were utilized during placement of research plots (Fig 4-2B). Field Methods Hydrology - Two methods were utilized to record shallow water table levels. A well was inserted into the soil at the center of each research plot to a depth of 50 cm, from which the water table height for each plot was measured manually, approximately monthly. In addition, a single, continuous water table logger was situated within the wettest portion of each wetland site (zone 0 or 1). The water table level at this location was recorded at 30-minute intervals. IRIS Tubes - IRIS (Indication of Reduction In Soils) Tubes were used to measure the extent of reducing conditions in the soil. IRIS Tubes are PVC tubes coated in an iron oxide paint that is solubilized and removed in strongly reducing soil conditions. One nest of 3 replicate IRIS Tubes was installed within each plot in zones 1 and 2 in mid-March 2013. Tubes were retrieved in mid-May for analysis (Rabenhorst, 2008). Soil Sampling - Soils were sampled by horizon at each plot using a single, 5- cm-diameter, aluminum core that was inserted vertically into the soil to a depth of 50 cm. Depth from soil surface to the top of the tube was measured both inside and outside the tube in order to calculate the degree of soil compaction as a result of the 55 coring process. To ensure that the core was not disturbed by retrieval, soil was removed around the core and the bottom of the core was capped before removal. Soil cores were packed and capped for transit, and upon return to the lab, stored in a freezer until processing. Sampling for Soil Inorganic N - Soil samples for nitrate analysis were acquired during a previous study (McFarland et al., 2015). In August 2013, two 5 cm cores, 10 cm in length were composited into a single soil sample from each plot. The sample obtained was dried and ground before analysis. Decomposition Stick Installation/Removal - Decomposition was estimated by measuring mass loss of wooden sticks inserted into the soil and exhumed periodically. Thirty cm long northern white birch (Betula papyrifera) garden stakes were dried for 72+ hours at 60°C before being cooled in a desiccator and weighed. Sticks were strung in sets of five with baling twine to aid with recovery, and identification (Fig 4-3). 56 Figure 4-3. One set of 5 replicate decomposition sticks connected with bailing twine and labeled with an aluminum tag. Five sets (of 5) sticks were installed at each research plot. Sticks were installed in January of 2013. Five sets of five sticks each were inserted vertically into the soil at each plot, roughly equidistant around the plot center (Fig. 4-4). A sharpened steel bar slightly thicker than the decomposition sticks was used to create pilot holes to aid with installation. Baling twine was used to connect each set of sticks to the plot center stake to aid with retrieval. 57 Figure 4-4. Five sets of decomposition sticks installed in a zone 2 of a research plot around a flagged stake for identification. Also shown is the white top of the shallow 50 cm PVC well used for measuring water table levels. One set of five replicate sticks was exhumed and retrieved from each plot quarterly. Retrieval method varied by hydrologic zone, duration of exposure, and stick condition. Sticks in wetter hydrologic zones and sticks removed at the end of the 1st and 2nd quarters could mostly be removed by hand, or with the assistance of pliers. In some situations (where sticks were more deteriorated), a steel core was required to be driven into the soil around the stick, then the entirety of the core (soil and stick) removed. Sticks were briefly rinsed in the field before returning to the lab. 58 Lab Methods IRIS Processing - IRIS tubes were gently washed to remove adhering soil or other debris. Washed tubes were then photographed and then rotated 180° to collect images of both sides of the tube. Pairs of photographs of each tube were composited into a single image. Paint removal was then estimated visually (Rabenhorst, 2010) for the upper 30 cm of each tube, utilizing percent area standards (Schoeneberger et al., 2012b) for comparison. Soil Core Processing - Frozen cores were partially thawed, and electric sheet metal shears were used to cut a slot along each aluminum core lengthwise. The partially frozen sample was then gently extruded from the end of the core, taking care to keep the core intact and to minimize disturbance. The extruded soil core was divided into sections by soil horizons using standard morphological observations (Schoeneberger et al., 2012b). The thickness of each horizon was recorded, and the entire mass of each horizon was sampled separately, taking care to avoid cross- contamination. Soil horizons were dried in a 80°C oven for 72+ hours before weighing. Horizons were then ground in preparation for analysis. Total C and N Analysis - Soil samples from each horizon were crushed in a flail grinder and homogenized. Organic horizons were ground, using a modified coffee grinder. Approximately 2 grams of each horizon were transferred to glass scintillation vials and several small steel rods added to each. Vials were rotated on a spinner table for 24 hours to allow for the tumbling of the rods to grind the samples finely. Ground samples were then placed in a 100°C oven for 24 hours before weighing for analysis. Total C and N were run in duplicate using a LECO CN 59 Analyzer (Nelson & Sommers, 1996). If sufficient agreement between the duplicates was not obtained (both CV > 12% and SD > 0.2), additional subsamples were analyzed until sufficient analytical replication was achieved to bring these parameters below these thresholds. Inorganic N Analysis - Soil samples for N analysis were composites of two (5cm X 10cm) cores from each plot that were homogenized, ground and dried. Duplicate 2.5 g samples of were extracted using 25 mL of 2 M KCl. Samples were agitated on a shaker table for 1 hour and filtered through #4 filter paper. The resultant filtrate was then centrifuged at 1200 RPM for 10 minutes in order to eliminate any residual particulate matter. Ammonium and nitrate were determined on the extract using a Lachat 8500 flow injection analyzer (Maynard et al., 2007). Processing of Decomposition Sticks - Decomposition sticks collected from the field were hand washed to gently remove any remaining soil or organic material that adhered to the sticks following extraction. Sticks were then dried at 60°C for 72+ hours before being weighed (0.01 g), following the same protocol used initially. Hydrological Data Processing - Hydrographs were generated (modeled) by combining periodic water table measurements at each plot with continuous water table data collected using one central logger at each site. The long-term continuous data were adjusted (calibrated and optimized) using the manual measurements at each plot. Based on this modeling effort, a continuous water table hydrograph (for two years) was created for each individual plot. Using these data, a cumulative frequency curve for soil saturation vs depth was also developed for each plot. 60 Weather Data - Monthly rainfall data for the period of the study were obtained from the Royal Oak 2 SSW Station (187806, Coop; USC00187806, GHCN - Global Historical Climatology Network; Lat: 38.7153, Long: -76.1908), located near Easton, MD. These data were compared to long term rainfall data obtained at the the same station. Results and Discussion Weather and Hydrology As demonstrated in Figure 4-5, 9 of 12 months in 2013 had precipitation levels that fell between the 30th and 70th percentiles. The months of June and December had precipitation in excess of the 70th percentile and September was slightly below the 30th percentile. The total precipitation for 2013 was 1152 mm which was within 1% of the long term average of 1165 mm. For the period leading up to, and during the deployment of IRIS tubes, the monthly rainfall and the 3 month running average of the rainfall, all fell within the 30th and 70th percentiles. Therefore, we concluded that the precipitation of 2013 should be considered a normal year. 61 2013 Precipitation 250 200 30% 150 70% 100 Monthly 50 0 3mo RA Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Figure 4-5. Precipitation data for Royal Oaks, MD compared to 30% and 70% monthly averages. All data obtained from the WETS (NRCS Climate Analysis for Wetlands Tables) database. Cumulative Saturation at 30 cm 100% a b b 80% c 60% 40% Natural 20% d Restored e 0% 1 2 3 Zone Figure 4-6. Percentage of the year research plots remained saturated at 30 cm depth. Columns sharing the same letter are not significantly different. The cumulative percent of the year that the soil was saturated (water table at or above) at 30 cm is presented in Figure 4-6. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the percent of time the soil is saturated at or above 30 cm is significantly related 62 Percent of Year ppt (mm) to the hydrological zone (zone 1, 2 or 3) (p<0.0001) and also by the wetland type (natural vs restored) (p=0.0220). There was also a zone by wetland type interaction (p<0.0001). Seasonally ponded (zone 1) restored plots maintained saturation for fewer days than their natural counterparts, and were not statistically different than natural plots in zone 2. Interestingly, restored upland sites (zone 3) demonstrated a greater duration of saturation than their natural counterparts. This could be attributed to compaction caused from construction, causing a degree of water table perching, or it may simply be an artifact of plot selection. Regardless, the percent of time that the upland plots were saturated within 30 cm of the surface was minimal (<10%). IRIS Paint Removal The percentage of IRIS tube paint removed from the upper 30 cm of tubes placed in wetland zones 1 and 2 is shown in Fig. 4-7. ANOVA results indicate a significant effect on paint removal both by wetland type (p<0.0001) and wetland zone (p=0.0246). Interaction of the two effects was insignificant. All plots, however, demonstrated paint removal well in excess of the 30% removal required by technical standard of the NTCHS (2008) to demonstrate the presence of reducing conditions. These data corroborate the previous hydrologic analysis and indicate that zone 1 and 2 plots underwent extended periods of reducing conditions as well as (during) periods of saturation. Greater paint removal was observed in restored sites compared to their natural counterparts. Three environmental variables can viewed as controlling the degree to which paint removal occurs. These variables are saturation, carbon availability, and temperature. Since all sites are situated within the same geographic area, temperature 63 should vary little between the sites. Likewise, saturation should remain constant between the sites because IRIS tubes were deployed during a period in which both natural and restored sites were fully saturated. Carbon availability, however, differs between natural and restored sites. Natural sites are woody and the majority of soil carbon is added to the soil surface in the form of leaf litter. Restored sites tend to be dominated by herbaceous vegetation, which provides the soil with more labile carbon within the soil added as fine roots. Restored sites might therefore have more available carbon, supporting higher levels of microbial activity, which would result in greater iron reduction. 100 a 90 ab 80 bc 70 c 60 50 Natural 40 Restored 30 20 10 0 Zone 1 Zone 2 Figure 4-7. Summary of paint removal from the upper 30 cm of IRIS tubes in natural and restored wetland zones 1 and 2. Columns with the same letter are not significantly different. 64 Percent Paint Removed Nitrogen Content of the Soils Nitrogen data are presented in Figure 4-8 and in Table 4-1. Nitrate levels were generally very low, ranging from 5 to 7 mg/kg and did not differ significantly across zones and wetland types (Fig. 4-8). Most of the inorganic N was present as ammonium. Ammonium was significantly correlated (p<0.001) with total N (r2= 0.70), and total N was significantly correlated (p<0.001) with organic C (r2= 0.95). 200 180 Ammonium 160 a a Nitrate 140 120 100 80 b 60 40 c c c 20 0 N1 N2 N3 R1 R2 R3 Figure 4-8. Means of inorganic N measured on 10 cm cores collected from plots in zones 1, 2 and 3 in both n atural (N) and restored (R) sites. Bars with different letters were significantly different at the 0.05 level. T here were no significant differences in nitrate levels across zones or wetland types. Table 4-1. Nitrogen data (means) for surface (0-10cm) soil samples in three hydrological zones from natural and restored sites. There were no significant differences in nitrate content among treatment or zones. For ammonium and total N, means followed by the same letter were not significantly different at the 0.05 level. Natural Restored N1 N2 N3 R1 R1 R3 Nitrate mg/kg (NS) 7.1 6.4 5.5 7 7.1 7.5 Ammonium mg/kg 146a 148a 69b 30c 21c 19c Total N g/kg 14.6a 9.3b 4.6c 1.4d 1.8d 1.4d 65 mg/kg Decomposition of Sticks Data for the decomposition sticks are shown in Fig. 4-9, which were examined on the basis of wetland type and hydrologic zone. ANOVA demonstrates that both wetland type (p=0.0254) and hydrologic zone (p<0.0001) had significant effects on the organic matter decomposition, but that these effects showed no significant interaction. Decomposition was lowest in zone 1 where the soil was saturated longest. Decomposition was also significantly lower in natural wetlands than in restored wetlands. Because the wooden sticks had such a large C:N ratio (approximately 400:1), it was postulated that nitrogen levels in the soil might affect decomposition. Nitrate 45% 40% a 35% 30% 25% Natural 20% b Restored 15% 10% c 5% 0% Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Figure 4-9. Percent of organic matter decomposition as mass loss over a 1-year period. Data connected with the same letter are not significantly different at the p = 0.05 level. 66 levels were uniformly low across all zones and treatments and therefore would not be expected to have an effect. Ammonium levels, however, were significantly higher in natural sites, and decomposition of the sticks was also significantly (p=0.0254) greater in the natural sites. Thus, it is possible that ammonium could be enhancing decomposition of the sticks. On the other hand, ammonium levels also increased from the drier to the wetter zones (Fig. 4.8) where decomposition rates were dramatically and significantly lower (p<0.001). Therefore, if ammonium levels in the wetter zones contribute positively to the decomposition of the sticks, those effects appear to be negated or overwhelmed by the strong impact of wetter hydrological conditions. Prior analysis (Fig 4-6) clearly demonstrated that for a given hydrological zone, the natural sites remained saturated for a significantly longer period than the same zones in restored wetlands. Therefore, further analysis was undertaken to more carefully examine the effects of soil saturation on decomposition. Using the modeled hydrographs for each site and plot, decomposition was analyzed as a function of the percentage of the year the soil was saturated at or above a depth of 30 cm (Fig 4-10). Across all hydrologic zones and wetland types, there was a strong, statistically significant (p<0.001) exponential correlation (R2=0.6575) between stick decomposition and the percentage of the year the plot was saturated within 30 cm. Hydrological differences appear to be the major driver of the observed differences is organic matter decomposition and can explain about 2/3 of the observed variability in decomposition. Separate analysis of natural and restored sites showed that there was no difference in stick decomposition as a function of saturation. 67 Figure 4-10. Percent decomposition of sticks after 12 months plotted as a function of the percent of the year that the water table occurred within 30 cm of the soil surface. Carbon Stocks Figure 4-11 illustrates the quantity of C stored in the upper 50 cm of soils in each of the three hydrological zones and in the two wetland types. Wetland type (p<0.0001) and hydrologic zone (p=0.0003) both have highly significant affects on soil carbon stocks. A significant interaction was also observed (p<0.0001). In the natural sites, C stocks in the two wetland zones (1 and 2), which were not different 68 from each other, were both significantly greater than in the upland zone (3). Figure 4-11. Carbon stocks in the upper 50 cm of the soil in natural and restored wetland sites. In the restored sites, however, there were no significant differences in C stocks among the hydrological zones. This is most likely due to homogenization, mixing and removal of soil horizons during the restoration process, and a lack of sufficient time for carbon to accumulate post-restoration (Stolt et al., 2000; Ballantine & Schneider, 2009). Also of note is that natural upland sites have more carbon than restored uplands. This, again, can be attributed to soil and land disturbance associated both with normal cultivation and restoration activity, even outside the extent of the wetland itself. 69 Synthesis A companion study detailing the vegetation communities of these wetlands was conducted earlier (McFarland et al., 2015). Using the same research plots as this study, annual carbon inputs were estimated as the sum of annual herbaceous growth and annual leaf litter fall. Although restored wetlands were dominated by herbaceous inputs, and natural wetlands by leaf litter, total plant carbon inputs to restored and natural sites were not significantly different. We know that the soils in wetland zones 1 and 2 are ponded or saturated substantially longer than the soils in the non-wetland zone 3. This leads to establishment of anaerobic conditions for extended periods during the wet season as evidenced by the IRIS tube data. These saturated and anaerobic soil conditions force microbial decomposition to proceed through anaerobic pathways, which generally impedes the rates of organic matter decomposition. This is demonstrated by the much higher rates of decomposition recorded to sticks in the non-wetland zone 3 sites. Since McFarland’s (2015) data indicate that C inputs have been generally uniform across the sites, the lower rates of decomposition in the wetland zones 1 and 2 would lead us to expect that C stocks in these wetland zones would be greater than in the non-wetland sites. However, while we observe this in the natural sites, there is no difference in carbon in the restored sites. During the period since restoration (7 to 28 years depending on the particular site), the quantity of C stored in the restored wetland soils has not become detectably greater than in the non-wetland zones. There are likely two reasons for this. First, other researchers (Ballantine & Schneider, 2009; Fenstermacher et al., 2016) have 70 demonstrated that the expected timeframe to see significant increases in soil organic carbon in restored wetlands can be 30 to 55 years or even more. Secondly, restoration activity from earth-moving equipment can introduce variability through mixing of soil materials, which can make detection of small changes more difficult. Nevertheless, the data from this study indicate that organic carbon should be accumulating within the soils of the zones 1 and 2 restored wetlands. Eventually this should lead to the development and formation of A and O horizons and the accumulation of soil carbon stocks in the restored wetlands that are greater than in the surrounding non-wetland areas. In order to further evaluate whether organic carbon was measurably accumulating in the restored wetlands, the carbon stocks in the zone 1 plots were regressed against the time since restoration. This regression was not significant (p = 0.32). In addition, the ratio of organic C stocks in zone 1 to those in zone 3 (wetland:upland) were regressed against the age of the restored wetlands. Although this ratio would be expected to increase with restored wetland age, this regression also was not significant (p = 0.42). This further confirms that there has been insufficient time for organic carbon to appreciably accumulate in these restored wetlands. 71 Chapter 5: Conclusions The overall goal of this study was to compare selected physical soil properties, and also those properties and processes that contribute to the sequestration of organic carbon, between natural wetlands and those restored using common techniques (scraping). Fourteen freshwater depressional wetlands, including 5 natural sites and 9 sites restored over a 7 to 28 year period, were examined across the Delmarva Peninsula, and a total of 126 plots were established according to 3 distinct hydrological zones (ponded hydric soils; non-ponded hydric soils; and non-hydric soils). Each plot was sampled and instrumented in order to measure a number of physical and chemical soil properties over the course of a year. The observations made can be broadly divided into three categories: those pertaining to the physical effects of restoration activities, those pertaining to water tables, and those pertaining to soil carbon. The physical impact of restoration activity was primarily evidenced by increased soil compaction. This was manifest in both higher bulk density and higher penetration resistance in restored sites relative to the natural sites. Penetration resistance (as cone index) was higher overall in restored sites. It also increased more abruptly and at shallower depths in the soil profile in restored sites than in natural sites. This compaction and penetration resistance was most likely the result of vehicular traffic on the restored sites where heavy equipment was utilized during excavation, scraping, and shaping the land surface. It is also possible that there was intentional compacting of the soil during restoration with the goal of creating a 72 perching soil layer to maintain wetland hydrological conditions. The degree of soil compaction observed in restored sites was sufficient to be both root restricting and hydrologically limiting, which could impact the restored wetland in a number of ways. Resistance to root penetration can stunt plant growth, and can also cause changes in the plant community (that is better adapted to compacted soil conditions). These sorts of changes in wetland plant communities can lead to soil changes in the magnitude and form of soil carbon inputs. Two years of water table data were modeled for each plot from monthly manual water table readings and automatic water table data obtained from data loggers. These data confirmed initial assessments that the 3 zones identified by field methods were in fact hydrologically distinct in both restored and natural wetlands. Additionally, within each hydrologic zone, natural wetlands maintained longer periods of saturated soil conditions throughout the year than restored wetlands. This was further reflected in the decomposition rates obtained as mass loss of buried wooden sticks. Decomposition rates were correlated with duration of soil saturation, and hydric soils had demonstrably lower rates of decomposition than non-hydric soils. Other factors, such as quantity of soil nitrogen, did not appear to affect decomposition rates, or the effect was masked by the much larger effect of hydrology. Despite the observed difference in duration of saturation over the course of a year, IRIS tube analysis demonstrated that all the soils (in zones 1 and 2) in all sites were sufficiently saturated during the spring to allow the development of anaerobic conditions and to facilitate the reduction of iron in the soil. 73 Soil carbon data were obtained by horizon for each plot to a depth of 50 cm. Natural sites demonstrated greater overall carbon stocks than their restored counterparts. Additionally, natural sites had more carbon stored within hydric soil zones (1 and 2) than in the surrounding non-hydric zones. This was expected, given the greater duration of saturation and slower rates of decomposition in the wetter zones of natural sites. As a group, the restored sites stored less organic carbon than the natural sites. This is likely best attributed to the physical mixing and removal of organic-rich surface soil material during restoration, and the drier conditions (and resulting higher decomposition rates) post-restoration. Interestingly, restored sites showed no significant differences in carbon stocks between the three hydrologic zones, despite differences in the duration of inundation. This could be the result of homogenization of soil material during restoration activity, but it could also be as the result of the relatively short period of time since restoration that these soils have had had to accumulate carbon. Analysis of the plant communities and vegetative growth at these same sites (undertaken by McFarland in 2015) demonstrated that total carbon inputs to wetlands were similar between restored and natural wetlands, and were also similar among the three hydrologic zones. The proportion of inputs from herbaceous vegetation and leaf litter varied, but the overall carbon input did not. The restored wetlands in this study do not appear to have not accumulated appreciable amounts of carbon since restoration. This may be due in part to the greater overall decomposition rates demonstrated in the restored wetlands. Other studies, however, have demonstrated that carbon sequestration in restored wetlands my be a very slow process, and that it 74 may sometimes require in excess of 50 years (perhaps far more), in order for soil carbon stocks in restored wetlands to approach levels comparable to their natural state. This study suggests several implications for future restoration activity. If the goal of restoration is to foster development of natural-like systems, restoration methodology should seek to, above all, minimize soil disturbance and compaction. Approaches utilizing excavation and intentional compaction will likely result in wetlands with soil properties that are strongly contrasting with their natural counterparts. Therefore, when this is the primary goal, future restoration efforts should seek to target sites that do not require extensive earth moving effort to accomplish the restoration. One way to accomplish this would be to focusing restoration activity on prior-converted cropland (areas that formerly were wetlands). In addition to changes in restoration strategies, here should also be changes to restoration monitoring. This study is in agreement with numerous other studies that have found that some wetland soil properties are slow to change (such as increased accumulation of carbon stocks), often taking many decades to return to levels comparable to natural wetlands. Therefore, it should be expected that longer periods of monitoring and observation will be required in order to properly demonstrate that the soils of restored wetlands are on trajectory to return to a natural state. Nevertheless, some short term monitoring strategies (such as IRIS technology) may be useful in demonstrating that anaerobic wetland soil functions may be operating long before changes in carbon storage could be documented. 75 Appendix A. Bulk density, percent C and carbon stocks to 50 cm. Bulk Bottom Width Density Mean Total C C Stocks Site Plot Segment Depth (cm) (cm) Horizon (g/cm^3) %C (kg/m^2) (kg/m^2) DEK-R-Jr 1-1 1 3.0 3.0 A 1.15 3.44 1.19 3.61 2 18.6 15.6 Ap 1.89 0.59 1.74 3 26.0 7.4 A/Bt 1.88 0.23 0.31 4 38.1 12.1 Btg/A 1.71 0.13 0.27 5 42.2 4.1 Btg 1.74 0.13 0.09 1-2 1 11.5 11.5 A 1.49 1.18 2.02 4.24 2 24.3 12.8 Ap/Btg 1.80 0.73 1.68 3 34.6 10.3 Btg 1.84 0.22 0.42 4 40.4 5.8 BCg 1.74 0.12 0.12 1-3 1 7.0 7.0 A 0.69 3.26 1.59 8.87 2 37.9 30.9 A/Btg 1.51 1.13 5.28 3 47.0 9.1 A' 1.57 1.41 2.01 4-1 1 6.3 6.3 A 1.24 2.59 2.02 4.66 2 14.1 7.8 Ap 1.56 1.42 1.72 3 21.0 6.9 A/Bt 1.83 0.31 0.39 4 39.1 18.1 Btg/A 1.87 0.13 0.45 5 42.7 3.6 Btg 2.06 0.12 0.09 4-2 1 10.0 10.0 A 0.99 2.69 2.66 6.03 2 21.5 11.5 Ap 1.31 1.80 2.72 3 36.7 15.2 Btg/A1 1.67 0.18 0.45 4 48.5 11.8 Btg/A2 1.89 0.09 0.21 4-3 1 5.6 5.6 A 1.11 2.80 1.74 10.87 2 20.0 14.4 A/Btg 1 1.52 1.39 3.05 3 46.4 26.4 A/Btg 2 1.55 1.49 6.08 7-1 1 2.7 2.7 A 1.12 2.99 0.90 2.95 2 10.3 7.6 Ap 1.66 1.01 1.27 3 17.1 6.8 A/Btg 2.03 0.21 0.30 4 38.3 21.2 Btg/A1 1.71 0.11 0.40 5 43.7 5.4 Btg/A2 1.58 0.10 0.09 7-2 1 12.2 12.2 Ap 1.40 1.56 2.65 3.90 2 25.5 13.3 Btg1 1.75 0.33 0.78 3 36.3 10.8 Btg2 1.71 0.20 0.36 4 40.5 4.2 BCg 1.94 0.13 0.11 7-3 1 6.0 6.0 A1 1.07 1.72 1.10 6.32 2 16.1 10.1 A2 1.26 1.23 1.56 76 3 29.3 13.2 A3 1.24 1.02 1.68 4 50.0 20.7 A/Btg 1.56 0.61 1.98 DENC-N-BB 1-1 1 3.1 3.1 Oe 0.16 35.07 1.78 17.86 2 11.9 8.8 Oa 0.51 11.02 4.95 3 29.0 17.1 A 0.93 5.93 9.38 4 35.2 6.2 AB 1.19 2.39 1.76 1-2 1 12.2 12.2 Oe 0.28 25.88 8.86 12.39 2 22.9 10.7 A 0.96 2.97 3.04 3 39.7 16.8 Btg 1.67 0.18 0.50 1-3 1 5.6 5.6 Oe 0.33 14.79 2.71 6.64 2 13.5 7.9 A 0.82 3.42 2.21 3 27.2 13.7 E 1.44 0.61 1.21 4 42.2 15.0 Bt 1.42 0.24 0.51 4-1 1 4.9 4.9 Oe 0.20 25.33 2.42 13.69 2 13.8 8.9 Oa 0.65 6.66 3.87 3 29.8 16.0 A 0.81 5.42 6.98 4 34.3 4.5 C 1.36 0.69 0.42 4-2 1 2.0 2.0 Oe 0.43 11.82 1.02 17.43 2 7.1 5.1 A1 0.76 5.12 1.97 3 15.7 8.6 A2 1.24 3.35 3.58 4 45.7 30.0 A3 1.26 2.86 10.85 4-3 1 3.7 3.7 Oe 0.35 12.80 1.68 6.32 2 10.9 7.2 A 0.86 3.17 1.97 3 17.5 6.6 E 1.15 1.05 0.80 4 31.8 14.3 Bt 1.47 0.61 1.29 5 40.8 9.0 AE 1.44 0.45 0.58 7-1 1 2.8 2.8 Oe 0.12 30.20 1.04 13.49 2 12.5 9.7 Oa 0.48 13.28 6.20 3 28.1 15.6 A 0.91 4.40 6.25 7-2 1 3.2 3.2 Oe 0.22 26.81 1.92 18.55 2 9.0 5.8 A1 0.47 7.92 2.16 3 30.4 21.4 A2 1.10 3.81 8.97 4 43.8 13.4 AE 1.16 3.53 5.50 7-3 1 4.0 4.0 Oe 0.17 32.52 2.24 10.86 2 13.2 9.2 A 0.90 5.03 4.15 3 29.3 16.1 Bt 1.33 1.22 2.60 4 36.5 7.2 Ab 1.31 1.32 1.24 5 46.8 10.3 BC 1.54 0.40 0.63 MDC-N-AB 1-1 1 4.6 4.6 Oe 0.16 41.77 3.12 22.09 2 12.1 7.5 A1 0.50 17.98 6.77 3 24.3 12.2 A2 0.69 8.18 6.92 77 4 30.0 5.7 BEg 0.92 4.55 2.40 5 39.4 9.4 Btg 0.92 3.33 2.87 1-2 1 4.2 4.2 Oe 0.32 21.29 2.84 17.10 2 20.5 16.3 A 0.86 7.76 10.90 3 28.9 8.4 AB 1.40 1.48 1.75 4 37.4 8.5 Btg1 1.56 0.70 0.93 5 46.7 9.3 Btg2 1.39 0.52 0.68 1-3 1 2.9 2.9 Oe 0.36 16.25 1.68 19.29 2 18.7 15.8 A 0.79 6.90 8.62 3 27.4 8.7 E 0.90 3.26 2.55 4 36.9 9.5 Bs 1.12 3.00 3.19 5 42.9 6.0 Bhs 0.87 6.27 3.26 4-1 1 6.2 6.2 Oe 0.20 36.10 4.44 24.12 2 19.2 13.0 A1 0.59 11.09 8.46 3 29.6 10.4 A2 0.66 9.94 6.78 4 38.7 9.1 AB 0.74 5.04 3.42 5 43.9 5.2 Bt 0.66 2.96 1.02 4-2 1 2.8 2.8 Oe 0.37 27.56 2.82 21.32 2 11.8 9.0 Oa 0.86 9.53 7.40 3 26.3 14.5 A 1.11 5.13 8.22 4 43.4 17.1 Btg 1.38 1.22 2.88 4-3 1 4.2 4.2 Oi 0.14 38.57 2.24 10.26 2 10.4 6.2 Oe 0.59 9.35 3.41 3 16.6 6.2 AB 1.02 3.17 1.99 4 37.8 21.2 Bt 1.34 0.85 2.42 5 43.1 5.3 BC 1.62 0.23 0.20 7-1 1 3.7 3.7 Oe 0.14 40.95 2.16 26.49 2 12.0 8.3 A1 0.44 18.24 6.69 3 22.4 10.4 A2 0.65 12.50 8.47 4 31.7 9.3 AB1 0.78 6.84 4.98 5 41.0 9.3 AB2 0.91 4.94 4.19 7-2 1 3.1 3.1 Oe 0.36 30.34 3.41 21.03 2 17.6 14.5 Oa 0.59 14.16 12.02 3 27.2 9.6 A 1.17 3.12 3.50 4 49.6 22.4 Btg 1.57 0.60 2.10 7-3 1 5.9 5.9 Oe 0.40 19.98 4.72 9.97 2 15.0 9.1 A 1.08 3.04 2.98 3 25.9 10.9 AB 1.28 1.01 1.41 4 40.0 14.1 Bt1 1.20 0.37 0.62 5 46.4 6.4 Bt2 1.57 0.24 0.24 MDC-N-BC 1-1 1 4.5 4.5 Oe 0.09 45.94 1.87 35.33 78 2 46.0 41.5 Oa 0.44 18.38 33.47 1-2 1 5.7 5.7 Oe 0.25 34.16 4.84 24.26 2 24.1 18.4 A1 0.81 8.04 11.93 3 35.5 11.4 A2 1.16 3.79 5.03 4 41.5 6.0 AB 1.20 3.41 2.47 1-3 1 5.5 5.5 Oe 0.23 32.48 4.09 11.03 2 9.4 3.9 A1 0.79 6.38 1.96 3 15.6 6.2 A2 1.10 2.73 1.86 4 27.9 12.3 AB 1.31 1.48 2.38 5 50.0 22.1 Bw 1.58 0.21 0.74 4-1 1 8.0 8.0 Oe 0.16 36.76 4.67 27.47 2 36.0 28.0 Oa 0.30 27.12 22.80 4-2 1 9.2 9.2 Oe 0.15 47.00 6.47 30.64 2 26.9 17.7 A1 0.62 13.34 14.75 3 43.0 16.1 A2 1.10 5.30 9.42 4-3 1 4.3 4.3 Oe 0.44 15.22 2.88 6.35 2 9.1 4.8 A1 0.79 2.20 0.83 3 13.5 4.4 A2 1.42 1.33 0.83 4 21.5 8.0 AB 1.37 0.82 0.89 5 46.8 25.3 BE 1.58 0.23 0.92 7-1 1 5.5 5.5 Oe 0.13 45.53 3.34 26.15 2 43.2 37.7 Oa 0.43 14.05 22.81 7-2 1 8.0 8.0 Oe 0.15 38.98 4.72 21.53 2 18.7 10.7 A1 0.79 7.47 6.33 3 37.5 18.8 A2 1.27 3.46 8.26 4 42.7 5.2 AB 1.27 1.38 0.91 5 47.3 4.6 Ab 1.72 1.67 1.32 7-3 1 4.8 4.8 Oe 0.21 30.31 3.12 10.52 2 10.8 6.0 A1 1.10 3.88 2.57 3 21.2 10.4 A2 0.92 3.16 3.02 4 35.8 14.6 BE 1.16 0.81 1.38 5 45.9 10.1 Bw 1.46 0.29 0.43 MDC-N- BeW 1-1 1 8.2 8.2 Oe 0.16 30.53 4.02 11.48 2 18.5 10.3 A1 0.89 3.41 3.11 3 30.5 12.0 A2 0.96 1.86 2.15 4 42.5 12.0 AB 1.09 1.69 2.20 1-2 1 2.6 2.6 Oe 0.51 13.12 1.74 8.30 2 11.6 9.0 A 1.03 3.30 3.07 3 21.7 10.1 AB 1.47 1.02 1.52 4 32.3 10.6 Bt 1.37 1.37 1.98 1-3 1 4.0 4.0 Oe 0.34 20.95 2.82 7.11 79 2 14.1 10.1 A 1.09 2.22 2.44 3 25.2 11.1 AE 1.37 0.68 1.03 4 42.0 16.8 E 1.46 0.22 0.55 5 47.3 5.3 Bt 1.83 0.28 0.27 4-1 1 7.2 7.2 Oe 0.42 15.40 4.69 15.12 2 25.0 17.8 A1 1.13 3.56 7.18 3 35.5 10.5 A2 1.30 1.09 1.49 4 48.0 12.5 AB 1.28 1.10 1.76 4-2 1 5.1 5.1 Oe 0.50 12.60 3.19 10.58 2 12.3 7.2 A 0.86 5.61 3.48 3 19.9 7.6 Btg1 1.39 1.94 2.04 4 28.3 8.4 Btg2 1.26 0.91 0.97 5 38.9 10.6 Btg3 1.78 0.48 0.90 4-3 1 4.5 4.5 Oe 0.35 19.40 3.03 8.57 2 9.2 4.7 A 1.04 2.92 1.43 3 17.6 8.4 Bt/A 1.17 1.92 1.89 4 34.3 16.7 Bt 1.49 0.72 1.80 5 46.5 12.2 BC 1.67 0.21 0.43 7-1 1 6.6 6.6 Oe 0.40 14.96 3.95 9.62 2 22.0 15.4 A 1.10 2.35 3.98 3 39.3 17.3 BEg 1.70 0.44 1.28 4 45.7 6.4 Btg 1.56 0.40 0.40 7-2 1 4.1 4.1 Oe 0.30 18.76 2.31 9.44 2 11.2 7.1 A1 1.10 3.98 3.11 3 19.6 8.4 A2 1.37 2.16 2.48 4 32.4 12.8 Btg1 1.73 0.55 1.22 5 44.5 12.1 Btg2 2.13 0.13 0.33 7-3 1 5.3 5.3 Oe 0.54 9.50 2.74 8.79 2 10.6 5.3 A1 1.10 3.23 1.89 3 18.1 7.5 A2 1.15 1.59 1.37 4 28.0 9.9 AB 1.42 1.05 1.47 5 45.6 17.6 Btg 1.59 0.47 1.32 MDC-N-JL 1-1 1 10.0 10.0 Oa 0.34 7.62 2.60 9.06 2 20.3 10.3 A 1.54 2.99 4.73 3 29.1 8.8 ABg 1.42 0.96 1.20 4 38.5 9.4 Btg 1.64 0.34 0.52 1-2 1 5.7 5.7 Oe 0.44 12.38 3.13 19.07 2 27.4 21.7 A1 1.07 4.13 9.61 3 40.2 12.8 A2 1.18 3.63 5.46 4 46.4 6.2 A/Bt 1.22 1.17 0.88 1-3 1 6.6 6.6 Oe 0.46 15.70 4.74 10.93 80 2 11.0 4.4 A 0.79 4.25 1.47 3 21.5 10.5 AB 1.45 2.33 3.55 4 43.4 21.9 Bt 1.68 0.32 1.17 4-1 1 5.5 5.5 Oe 0.31 19.49 3.30 11.88 2 15.5 10.0 A 0.99 4.32 4.29 3 32.1 16.6 Ag 1.41 1.26 2.95 4 37.5 5.4 Ab 1.16 2.13 1.33 4-2 1 6.5 6.5 Oa 0.74 9.96 4.77 17.90 2 22.9 16.4 A1 1.38 2.59 5.86 3 34.5 11.6 A2 1.35 2.70 4.23 4 43.2 8.7 Bt 1.39 2.52 3.04 4-3 1 8.5 8.5 Oe 0.32 26.78 7.38 18.80 2 14.4 5.9 A/A1 1.16 5.04 3.45 3 20.5 6.1 AE/A2 1.04 3.89 2.47 4 27.8 7.3 Bhs/A3 0.90 4.29 2.82 5 42.7 14.9 Bt/AB 1.39 1.30 2.69 7-1 1 5.9 5.9 Oe 0.10 49.90 2.97 11.77 2 19.2 13.3 A1 0.88 6.09 7.16 3 29.0 9.8 A2 1.39 0.44 0.60 4 33.8 4.8 A3 1.30 1.67 1.04 7-2 1 3.7 3.7 Oe 0.27 30.63 3.04 21.04 2 31.4 27.7 A 0.97 5.56 15.00 3 42.6 11.2 AB 1.38 1.94 3.00 7-3 1 5.0 5.0 A1 0.47 15.18 3.54 6.88 2 18.0 13.0 A2 1.25 1.54 2.51 3 30.4 12.4 BE 1.66 0.26 0.52 4 44.7 14.3 Bt 1.78 0.12 0.30 MDC-R-JL 1-1 1 3.2 3.2 Oe 0.48 6.38 0.98 11.03 2 19.2 16.0 A 1.49 2.98 7.10 3 35.5 16.3 A/Btg 1.34 1.35 2.95 1-2 1 15.4 15.4 A 1.08 5.25 8.74 20.06 2 27.7 12.3 Ap 1.17 5.54 7.97 3 40.3 12.6 A/Btg 1.39 1.58 2.78 4 48.4 8.1 Btg 1.42 0.49 0.57 1-3 1 6.5 6.5 A 0.93 5.08 3.06 5.57 2 11.8 5.3 Ap 1.40 1.15 0.85 3 28.9 17.1 ^E/A 1.75 0.20 0.61 4 33.9 5.0 ^Btg/A 1.93 0.18 0.17 5 47.7 13.8 ^E/A' 1.67 0.38 0.87 4-1 1 2.2 2.2 Oe 0.49 9.82 1.06 10.79 2 24.5 22.3 A 1.60 2.21 7.88 81 3 33.5 9.0 AB 1.33 1.54 1.84 4-2 1 1.3 1.3 Oe 0.77 8.11 0.81 16.18 2 13.5 12.2 A 1.37 2.18 3.66 3 33.1 19.6 Ap/Btg 1.64 2.03 6.52 4 42.4 9.3 2Ap/Btg2 0.73 7.70 5.19 4-3 1 4.6 4.6 A 1.37 2.25 1.42 4.18 2 15.5 10.9 Ap1 1.35 0.92 1.35 3 25.0 9.5 Ap2 1.71 0.60 0.97 4 40.2 15.2 EB 1.89 0.10 0.28 5 49.0 8.8 Bt 1.88 0.10 0.17 7-1 1 22.0 22.0 A 1.23 3.61 9.77 12.17 2 37.0 15.0 A/Btg 1.41 1.14 2.40 7-2 1 13.8 13.8 A 0.99 5.24 7.12 22.32 2 29.9 16.1 Ap 1.23 4.24 8.39 3 45.5 15.6 A/Btg 1.36 3.20 6.82 7-3 1 4.1 4.1 A 1.06 2.24 0.97 5.21 2 25.1 21.0 Ap 1.49 1.22 3.82 3 39.0 13.9 BE 1.73 0.10 0.25 4 50.2 11.2 Bt 1.60 0.09 0.17 MDD-R-Ck 1-1 1 1.0 1.0 A 1.40 0.59 0.08 1.09 2 6.2 5.2 Bw 1.84 0.17 0.17 3 24.0 17.8 BC 1.64 0.13 0.39 4 44.1 20.1 Cg 1.75 0.13 0.45 1-2 1 2.3 2.3 A 0.67 5.94 0.91 8.22 2 6.6 4.3 Ap 1.50 2.43 1.56 3 19.1 12.5 2A1 1.30 1.69 2.73 4 29.2 10.1 2A2 1.45 1.40 2.05 5 42.8 13.6 A/Btg 1.76 0.40 0.96 1-3 1 8.5 8.5 Ap 1.45 2.47 3.04 13.30 2 30.0 21.5 Ap/E1 1.43 1.43 4.39 3 47.0 17.0 Ap/E2 1.72 2.01 5.87 4-1 1 6.4 6.4 Ap 1.30 2.77 2.29 4.67 2 13.5 7.1 A/Cg 1.80 0.83 1.07 3 21.7 8.2 Cg/A 1.82 0.38 0.56 4 34.2 12.5 Cg/Btg 1.76 0.19 0.43 5 44.3 10.1 Btg 1.69 0.19 0.32 4-2 1 2.2 2.2 A 1.12 3.49 0.86 3.78 2 10.2 8.0 Ap/Bt 1.69 1.24 1.68 3 20.0 9.8 BA 1.84 0.40 0.71 4 34.1 14.1 Btg 1.86 0.12 0.30 5 44.3 10.2 BCg 1.80 0.12 0.22 82 4-3 1 12.9 12.9 Ap1 1.40 2.97 5.37 8.86 2 30.0 17.1 Ap2 1.67 1.12 3.19 3 34.7 4.7 Btg 1.81 0.15 0.13 4 47.0 12.3 BCg 1.96 0.07 0.16 7-1 1 4.9 4.9 Ap 1.08 1.47 0.78 2.17 2 12.7 7.8 A/Btg 1.79 0.33 0.46 3 26.4 13.7 Btg 1.94 0.18 0.47 4 43.8 17.4 Btg/A 1.79 0.15 0.46 7-2 1 7.5 7.5 Ap 1.30 2.86 2.80 6.22 2 16.7 9.2 Ap/Bt 1.50 1.85 2.55 3 27.3 10.6 Bt 1.79 0.24 0.45 4 48.7 21.4 Btg 1.70 0.12 0.42 7-3 1 10.6 10.6 Ap 1.06 2.15 2.42 10.58 2 30.6 20.0 Ap/E 1.54 1.04 3.20 3 42.0 11.4 Ap' 1.49 2.93 4.97 MDQA-R- BsO 1-1 1 12.1 12.1 Ap1 0.91 1.82 2.01 3.14 2 23.3 11.2 Ap2 1.71 0.31 0.59 3 32.3 9.0 BE 1.75 0.24 0.38 4 41.0 8.7 Bt 1.52 0.12 0.16 1-2 1 3.1 3.1 A1 1.01 5.77 1.80 6.52 2 9.5 6.4 A2 0.96 3.08 1.90 3 29.5 20.0 BE 1.36 0.72 1.95 4 49.8 20.3 Bt 1.60 0.27 0.87 1-3 1 6.2 6.2 A 0.51 13.61 4.31 11.27 2 16.6 10.4 Ap 0.90 3.58 3.34 3 31.1 14.5 BE 1.21 1.11 1.95 4 49.0 17.9 Bt 1.47 0.64 1.67 7-1 1 2.1 2.1 Oe 1.06 1.49 0.33 1.93 2 10.0 7.9 A 1.32 0.69 0.72 3 18.4 8.4 Ap 1.65 0.35 0.49 4 31.7 13.3 BA 1.72 0.10 0.23 5 47.2 15.5 BE 1.63 0.07 0.17 7-2 1 3.3 3.3 A1 0.74 4.24 1.04 2.84 2 7.0 3.7 A2 1.05 1.98 0.77 3 18.4 11.4 BA 1.53 0.43 0.74 4 29.8 11.4 Btg 1.80 0.07 0.14 5 48.3 18.5 BCg 1.53 0.05 0.14 7-3 1 4.0 4.0 A 1.25 2.20 1.10 3.26 2 15.9 11.9 AB 1.44 0.75 1.29 3 38.0 22.1 Btg 1.73 0.19 0.74 4 47.5 9.5 BC 1.56 0.08 0.12 83 9-1 1 2.5 2.5 Oe 0.84 2.65 0.55 1.79 2 12.7 10.2 A 1.47 0.37 0.55 3 21.0 8.3 Ap 1.59 0.15 0.20 4 38.5 17.5 Btg 1.51 0.13 0.36 5 41.4 2.9 Ab 1.44 0.30 0.13 9-2 1 4.8 4.8 A 0.32 19.68 3.00 4.16 2 16.5 11.7 BAg 1.32 0.49 0.75 3 29.5 13.0 Btg1 1.87 0.07 0.18 4 49.2 19.7 Btg2 1.77 0.06 0.22 9-3 1 3.0 3.0 A1 1.13 1.95 0.66 2.06 2 7.9 4.9 A2 1.43 0.58 0.40 3 23.8 15.9 Btg 1.68 0.26 0.70 4 48.1 24.3 BCg 1.64 0.07 0.30 MDQA-R- BsY 0-1 1 4.5 4.5 Oe 0.61 8.34 2.31 5.02 2 11.2 6.7 Ag 1.36 0.72 0.66 3 20.2 9.0 ABtg 1.59 0.61 0.87 4 28.5 8.3 Btg1 1.70 0.45 0.63 5 46.5 18.0 Btg2 1.80 0.17 0.56 0-2 1 4.5 4.5 Oe 0.79 4.64 1.65 4.97 2 18.1 13.6 Ap1 1.58 0.68 1.46 3 36.1 18.0 2Ap2 1.70 0.48 1.45 4 49.8 13.7 3Btg 1.79 0.17 0.41 0-3 1 9.1 9.1 A 1.13 1.41 1.46 3.79 2 37.0 27.9 BE 1.59 0.43 1.92 3 46.2 9.2 Bt 1.74 0.26 0.42 6-1 1 3.5 3.5 Oe 0.73 6.92 1.77 2.76 2 6.9 3.4 Ag 1.66 0.31 0.17 3 18.5 11.6 Btg/Ag 1.84 0.13 0.28 4 36.1 17.6 Btg1 1.72 0.13 0.40 5 42.8 6.7 Btg2 1.83 0.11 0.13 6-2 1 6.9 6.9 A 1.24 2.39 2.04 5.18 2 21.3 14.4 A/Btg1 1.54 0.57 1.26 3 33.8 12.5 A/Btg2 1.59 0.51 1.02 4 45.0 11.2 A/Btg3 1.63 0.47 0.86 6-3 1 8.4 8.4 A 1.06 2.47 2.19 5.22 2 20.1 11.7 AB 1.50 0.72 1.26 3 31.8 11.7 BEg 1.60 0.39 0.73 4 47.2 15.4 Btg 1.57 0.43 1.03 8-1 1 5.3 5.3 Ag 0.75 4.00 1.59 3.51 2 10.2 4.9 Btg 1.77 0.46 0.40 3 20.0 9.8 Bt1 1.72 0.37 0.62 84 4 28.2 8.2 Bt2 1.79 0.26 0.39 5 43.0 14.8 BC 1.61 0.21 0.51 8-2 1 5.4 5.4 A1 1.17 1.19 0.75 3.11 2 11.6 6.2 A2 1.63 0.45 0.46 3 28.8 17.2 A/Btg 1.73 0.43 1.27 4 46.4 17.6 Btg 1.81 0.20 0.63 8-3 1 6.6 6.6 A 1.19 2.39 1.88 4.04 2 23.5 16.9 BA 1.58 0.56 1.49 3 46.0 22.5 2Bt 1.75 0.17 0.67 MDQA-R- En 1-1 1 3.2 3.2 A 1.22 1.43 0.56 3.81 2 17.5 14.3 Ap1 1.47 0.93 1.95 3 26.1 8.6 Ap2 1.53 0.44 0.58 4 42.7 16.6 Btg 1.48 0.29 0.72 1-2 1 8.5 8.5 A 1.42 1.16 1.41 3.63 2 17.5 9.0 Ap 1.65 0.85 1.27 3 24.5 7.0 Btg1 1.83 0.30 0.39 4 42.5 18.0 Btg2 1.82 0.17 0.57 1-3 1 6.3 6.3 A 1.09 4.30 2.96 6.06 2 12.9 6.6 AB 1.17 1.95 1.50 3 21.1 8.2 BA 1.31 0.82 0.88 4 42.6 21.5 BE 1.35 0.25 0.72 4-1 1 3.8 3.8 A 1.28 1.74 0.84 3.72 2 10.9 7.1 Ap1 1.52 1.10 1.18 3 20.2 9.3 Ap2 1.76 0.60 0.98 4 42.8 22.6 Btg 1.59 0.20 0.72 4-2 1 5.0 5.0 A 1.34 1.99 1.34 3.22 2 12.5 7.5 Ap 1.82 0.86 1.17 3 23.8 11.3 Btg 2.10 0.14 0.32 4 35.6 11.8 C1 1.86 0.11 0.25 5 43.5 7.9 C2 1.66 0.11 0.14 4-3 0.00 7-1 1 3.4 3.4 A 0.48 6.91 1.13 3.35 2 10.0 6.6 Ap 1.74 0.73 0.84 3 15.1 5.1 AB 1.54 0.56 0.44 4 30.2 15.1 Btg 1.56 0.26 0.60 5 43.7 13.5 CBg 1.84 0.14 0.34 7-2 1 3.8 3.8 A 0.93 3.41 1.21 5.74 2 19.3 15.5 Ap1 1.56 0.90 2.18 85 3 30.9 11.6 Ap2 1.58 0.85 1.55 4 49.0 18.1 Btg 1.45 0.31 0.80 7-3 1 3.0 3.0 Oe 0.80 7.87 1.88 4.77 2 8.5 5.5 A 1.42 1.22 0.95 3 16.5 8.0 E 1.65 0.44 0.58 4 32.0 15.5 Bt1 1.46 0.37 0.84 5 42.0 10.0 Bt2 1.69 0.31 0.53 MDQA-R-Ss 1-1 1 3.6 3.6 Oe 0.30 10.96 1.20 3.24 2 10.0 6.4 Ag 1.00 1.49 0.95 3 28.7 18.7 Btg1 1.52 0.22 0.63 4 41.0 12.3 Btg2 1.47 0.21 0.38 5 45.0 4.0 Btg3 1.36 0.14 0.08 1-2 1 2.6 2.6 A 0.54 6.17 0.86 5.46 2 11.8 9.2 AB1 1.35 1.23 1.53 3 30.6 18.8 AB2 1.52 0.76 2.17 4 48.0 17.4 Btg 1.55 0.34 0.91 1-3 1 3.1 3.1 A 1.08 2.67 0.89 3.43 2 11.4 8.3 Ap1 1.46 0.91 1.10 3 21.5 10.1 Ap2 1.63 0.36 0.60 4 38.0 16.5 Bt 1.67 0.24 0.65 5 45.9 7.9 BC 1.87 0.13 0.19 4-1 1 2.0 2.0 0.24 14.37 0.68 5.95 2 10.0 8.0 0.98 2.24 1.75 3 24.0 14.0 1.52 0.89 1.89 4 29.0 5.0 1.38 1.10 0.76 5 46.0 17.0 1.56 0.33 0.86 4-2 1 4.2 4.2 A 0.71 3.63 1.08 6.00 2 15.1 10.9 AB1 1.32 1.40 2.02 3 28.9 13.8 AB2 1.58 0.81 1.75 4 45.6 16.7 Btg 1.48 0.46 1.14 4-3 1 8.6 8.6 Ap 1.37 1.30 1.53 3.33 2 17.2 8.6 Ap/Bt 1.44 0.63 0.78 3 34.1 16.9 Bt1 1.60 0.25 0.67 4 46.2 12.1 Bt2 1.55 0.19 0.35 7-1 1 4.0 4.0 Oe 0.27 10.77 1.18 3.47 2 10.0 6.0 A 1.12 1.14 0.77 3 22.5 12.5 E 1.49 0.40 0.74 4 43.0 20.5 Btg1 1.42 0.24 0.68 5 46.0 3.0 Btg2 1.82 0.18 0.10 7-2 1 1.5 1.5 A 0.52 6.41 0.50 6.49 2 10.5 9.0 AB1 1.26 1.30 1.47 86 3 27.5 17.0 AB2 1.48 0.86 2.17 4 35.6 8.1 Bt 1.27 0.90 0.93 5 45.5 9.9 Ab 1.26 1.13 1.42 7-3 1 4.2 4.2 A 0.99 1.79 0.74 3.12 2 19.1 14.9 Ap 1.54 0.65 1.51 3 30.7 11.6 BE 1.74 0.21 0.42 4 46.4 15.7 Bt1 1.67 0.15 0.39 5 49.6 3.2 Bt2 1.74 0.12 0.07 MDQA-R- Ws 1-1 1 2.6 2.6 Oe 0.28 15.52 1.12 4.42 2 12.8 10.2 A 1.24 1.22 1.55 3 28.0 15.2 ABg 1.51 0.48 1.10 4 37.1 9.1 Btg1 1.72 0.21 0.33 5 47.0 9.9 Btg2 1.64 0.20 0.32 1-2 1 1.9 1.9 Oe 0.50 9.64 0.91 3.68 2 18.4 16.5 Ap 1.48 0.80 1.96 3 31.3 12.9 Btg1 1.73 0.19 0.43 4 47.6 16.3 Btg2 1.82 0.13 0.38 1-3 1 6.4 6.4 A 1.05 1.76 1.19 4.35 2 27.0 20.6 Ap 1.52 0.77 2.40 3 40.0 13.0 BE 1.72 0.22 0.49 4 50.3 10.3 Bt 1.62 0.17 0.28 4-1 1 2.0 2.0 Oe 0.56 9.07 1.02 3.35 2 13.9 11.9 Ag 1.43 0.74 1.26 3 20.2 6.3 ABg 1.61 0.54 0.55 4 29.6 9.4 Btg1 1.75 0.17 0.28 5 41.0 11.4 Btg2 1.81 0.11 0.23 4-2 1 2.0 2.0 Oe 0.73 5.90 0.86 4.07 2 11.3 9.3 A 1.69 0.88 1.39 3 23.0 11.7 AB 2.01 0.43 1.02 4 46.6 23.6 Btg 1.60 0.21 0.79 4-3 1 2.3 2.3 ^A 0.89 4.00 0.82 4.24 2 8.8 6.5 ^C 1.61 0.41 0.43 3 34.0 25.2 Ab 1.55 0.61 2.39 4 48.6 14.6 Btg 1.64 0.25 0.60 7-1 1 5.1 5.1 Ag1 1.30 1.36 0.90 3.16 2 21.2 16.1 Ag2 1.47 0.71 1.67 3 35.0 13.8 Btg1 1.67 0.16 0.38 4 44.4 9.4 Btg2 1.56 0.14 0.21 7-2 1 2.0 2.0 Oe 1.12 3.63 0.81 4.91 2 15.0 13.0 A1 1.51 0.92 1.80 3 27.5 12.5 A2 1.64 0.64 1.32 87 4 42.5 15.0 Btg 1.58 0.41 0.97 7-3 1 18.4 18.4 A 1.34 1.19 2.93 4.35 2 27.4 9.0 Ap 1.49 0.56 0.75 3 40.5 13.1 BE 1.66 0.23 0.49 4 46.5 6.0 Bt 1.70 0.17 0.18 MDT-R-DF 1-1 1 6.1 6.1 A 1.12 1.88 1.28 2.39 2 19.1 13.0 AB 1.79 0.22 0.52 3 33.1 14.0 Bt 1.85 0.13 0.33 4 43.6 10.5 BC1 1.73 0.10 0.19 5 49.0 5.4 BC2 1.51 0.09 0.08 1-2 1 2.6 2.6 ^Ag 1.22 2.12 0.67 3.30 2 12.6 10.0 ^ABg 1.38 0.48 0.67 3 24.0 11.4 ^Cg1 1.61 0.47 0.87 4 34.1 10.1 ^Cg2 1.79 0.31 0.56 5 50.9 16.8 2Btg 1.75 0.18 0.53 1-3 1 6.6 6.6 A1 1.06 1.42 0.99 3.80 2 15.4 8.8 A2 1.69 0.44 0.65 3 28.3 12.9 A3 1.68 0.37 0.80 4 47.7 19.4 Ag 1.68 0.42 1.35 3-1 1 4.1 4.1 A 1.10 1.99 0.90 2.76 2 15.2 11.1 Ap 1.54 0.53 0.90 3 29.5 14.3 Btg1 1.67 0.21 0.49 4 46.6 17.1 Btg2 1.75 0.15 0.46 3-2 1 3.7 3.7 ^A 0.83 3.88 1.19 3.63 2 25.4 21.7 ^Cg(Ag) 1.59 0.53 1.82 3 44.6 19.2 2Btg 1.70 0.19 0.63 3-3 1 6.5 6.5 A 1.17 1.61 1.22 2.71 2 28.7 22.2 A/Btg 1.53 0.36 1.22 3 40.0 11.3 Btg 1.76 0.14 0.27 4-1 1 4.9 4.9 A 1.20 1.98 1.17 3.79 2 13.6 8.7 AB 1.58 0.55 0.76 3 30.4 16.8 BA 1.62 0.48 1.30 4 45.4 15.0 Btg 1.53 0.25 0.56 4-2 1 2.0 2.0 ^A 0.75 5.54 0.83 3.74 2 6.2 4.2 ^AB 1.30 1.55 0.85 3 24.0 17.8 ^Bg 1.61 0.48 1.39 4 35.4 11.4 2Btg 1.59 0.21 0.38 5 46.0 10.6 2Btg2 1.89 0.15 0.29 4-3 1 3.3 3.3 A1 1.07 1.13 0.40 2.91 2 25.4 22.1 A2 1.61 0.43 1.52 3 42.0 16.6 A/Btg 1.70 0.28 0.80 88 4 51.0 9.0 Btg 1.73 0.12 0.19 MDT-R-Fr 1-1 1 11.0 11.0 Ap 0.74 3.08 2.50 3.04 2 23.8 12.8 Cg1 1.76 0.10 0.22 3 34.0 10.2 Cg2 1.82 0.07 0.12 4 45.0 11.0 2Btg 1.68 0.11 0.20 1-2 1 4.0 4.0 Oe 0.46 10.00 1.84 3.47 2 6.5 2.5 A 1.83 0.68 0.31 3 16.5 10.0 Ap 1.67 0.46 0.77 4 29.5 13.0 Cg1 1.58 0.13 0.26 5 43.0 13.5 Cg2 1.78 0.12 0.29 1-3 1 5.5 5.5 Ap1 1.33 1.48 1.08 3.88 2 13.1 7.6 Ap2 1.44 0.74 0.81 3 21.5 8.4 EA 1.56 0.57 0.75 4 33.0 11.5 E 1.58 0.40 0.73 5 49.3 16.3 Btg 1.72 0.18 0.51 4-1 1 4.3 4.3 A 0.38 9.96 1.65 3.08 2 9.0 4.7 Ap 1.05 1.51 0.75 3 19.8 10.8 Btg1 1.24 0.25 0.34 4 40.0 20.2 Btg2 1.47 0.12 0.35 4-2 1 7.0 7.0 Oa 0.47 6.83 2.23 5.36 2 17.0 10.0 A 1.17 1.03 1.20 3 33.5 16.5 Btg1 1.43 0.62 1.47 4 44.0 10.5 Btg2 1.51 0.29 0.45 4-3 1 4.0 4.0 Oe 1.27 1.79 0.91 4.97 2 20.0 16.0 A 1.44 0.92 2.12 3 33.0 13.0 AE 1.58 0.65 1.34 4 44.0 11.0 Bt 1.55 0.35 0.60 7-1 1 7.6 7.6 Ap 0.88 3.51 2.34 3.12 2 16.6 9.0 Btg1 1.61 0.27 0.39 3 32.2 15.6 Btg2 1.61 0.12 0.29 4 43.0 10.8 CBg 1.43 0.06 0.10 7-2 1 3.5 3.5 Oe 0.61 7.00 1.50 4.27 2 10.5 7.0 A 1.54 0.79 0.86 3 28.0 17.5 Ap 1.65 0.48 1.39 4 43.0 15.0 Btg 1.50 0.23 0.52 7-3 1 2.5 2.5 Oe 0.96 2.54 0.61 4.45 2 22.0 19.5 A 1.40 0.95 2.60 3 37.0 15.0 Bt 1.52 0.37 0.83 4 47.0 10.0 Btg 1.55 0.26 0.40 89 Appendix B. Percent of time saturated at 5 cm and 30 cm. Based upon modeling of hydrographs at each plot over the two year period of July 2012 through June 2014. Plot Depth 1-1 4-1 7-1 Zone 1 Mean Zone 1 SEM 1-2 4-2 7-2 Zone 2 Mean Zone 2 SEM 1-3 4-3 7-3 Zone 3 Mean Zone 3 SEM BB N1 5 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 74.9% 48.7% 88.5% 70.7% 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AB N2 5 cm 91.7% 91.7% 91.5% 91.6% 0.1% 63.3% 66.7% 63.3% 64.4% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 88.6% 89.0% 88.6% 88.8% 0.1% 1.4% 0.0% 1.1% 0.8% 0.4% BC N3 5 cm 100.0% 98.2% 99.0% 99.1% 0.5% 71.6% 66.3% 27.0% 55.0% 14.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 93.1% 90.5% 83.2% 89.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% BeW N4 5 cm 88.7% 88.0% 87.3% 88.0% 0.4% 39.4% 16.2% 0.0% 18.6% 11.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 79.2% 74.6% 68.5% 74.1% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% JLN N5 5 cm 100.0% 97.4% 98.1% 98.5% 0.8% 63.4% 72.8% 74.4% 70.2% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 88.1% 96.1% 97.3% 93.8% 2.9% 0.6% 37.4% 4.8% 14.3% 11.6% Jr R1 5 cm 94.2% 94.1% 94.0% 94.1% 0.1% 39.9% 36.7% 36.7% 37.8% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 95.3% 95.2% 94.9% 95.2% 0.1% 80.8% 79.1% 79.1% 79.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% JLR R2 5 cm 81.4% 78.0% 79.2% 79.5% 1.0% 49.2% 45.0% 46.6% 46.9% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 93.5% 87.7% 89.6% 90.3% 1.7% 77.0% 73.7% 74.5% 75.1% 1.0% 0.0% 6.7% 15.6% 7.4% 4.5% Ck R3 5 cm 64.6% 63.5% 64.0% 64.1% 0.3% 29.3% 29.3% 23.3% 27.3% 2.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 30 cm 70.4% 70.3% 70.3% 70.3% 0.1% 55.5% 55.5% 54.5% 55.2% 0.3% 1.9% 49.3% 3.2% 18.1% 15.6% BsO R4 5 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 12.5% 13.4% 38.1% 21.3% 8.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 44.1% 56.1% 96.8% 65.7% 16.0% 0.0% 31.1% 29.9% 20.3% 10.2% BsY R5 5 cm 66.2% 100.0% 89.1% 85.1% 10.0% 27.4% 0.0% 27.8% 18.4% 9.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.3% 0.3% 30 cm 85.6% 100.0% 100.0% 95.2% 4.8% 40.9% 39.0% 44.1% 41.3% 1.5% 11.4% 23.2% 33.3% 22.6% 6.3% En R6 5 cm 97.5% 98.2% 97.9% 97.9% 0.2% 34.9% 56.9% 38.9% 43.5% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 83.1% 91.8% 83.7% 86.2% 2.8% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% Ss R7 5 cm 95.2% 91.2% 97.2% 94.5% 1.8% 30.7% 11.2% 26.6% 22.8% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 57.3% 35.7% 54.3% 49.1% 6.8% 1.6% 6.0% 0.0% 2.5% 1.8% Ws R8 5 cm 51.5% 55.5% 56.8% 54.6% 1.6% 22.1% 23.8% 35.4% 27.1% 4.2% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 30 cm 59.5% 61.9% 62.9% 61.4% 1.0% 58.0% 58.3% 59.8% 58.7% 0.6% 42.2% 31.0% 0.0% 24.4% 12.6% Fr R9 5 cm 93.6% 84.0% 100.0% 92.5% 4.6% 36.8% 24.4% 21.9% 27.7% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30 cm 100.0% 86.7% 100.0% 95.6% 4.4% 86.2% 51.9% 70.4% 69.5% 9.9% 12.6% 0.0% 39.4% 17.4% 11.6% 90 Appendix C. IRIS images and percent paint removed from IRIS tubes. Plot Site Treatment Zone Transect Tube 1a Tube 1b Tube 2a Tube 2b Tube 3a Tube 3b Tube 1 Mean Tube 2 Mean Tube 3 Mean Plot Mean AB 1-1 AB N 1 1 68 59 61 80 59 52 64 71 56 63 AB 4-1 AB N 1 4 42 50 56 51 62 76 46 54 69 56 AB 7-1 AB N 1 7 75 60 46 53 72 64 68 50 68 62 AB 1-2 AB N 2 1 95 92 94 94 83 97 94 94 90 93 AB 4-2 AB N 2 4 94 83 98 90 78 97 89 94 88 90 AB 7-2 AB N 2 7 69 81 68 83 75 76 75 BB 1-1 BB N 1 1 85 95 72 75 79 77 90 74 78 81 BB 4-1 BB N 1 4 87 86 92 100 87 96 91 BB 7-1 BB N 1 7 96 92 94 94 BB 1-2 BB N 2 1 40 40 40 40 BB 4-2 BB N 2 4 14 11 3 0 5 6 13 2 6 7 BB 7-2 BB N 2 7 43 52 16 32 100 93 48 24 97 56 BC 1-1 BC N 1 1 97 90 92 89 99 100 94 91 100 95 BC 4-1 BC N 1 4 69 76 74 81 73 78 75 BC 7-1 BC N 1 7 100 99 72 73 98 96 100 73 97 90 BC 1-2 BC N 2 1 71 73 63 70 57 72 72 67 65 68 BC 4-2 BC N 2 4 74 98 77 97 86 87 87 BC 7-2 BC N 2 7 78 77 76 79 68 72 78 78 70 75 BeW 1-1 BeW N 1 1 41 46 39 61 76 59 44 50 68 54 BeW 4-1 BeW N 1 4 79 76 72 71 75 78 78 72 77 75 BeW 7-1 BeW N 1 7 73 74 68 56 74 62 68 BeW 1-2 BeW N 2 1 11 21 52 53 17 17 16 53 17 29 BeW 4-2 BeW N 2 4 7 13 4 5 16 42 10 5 29 15 BeW 7-2 BeW N 2 7 69 71 16 26 41 31 70 21 36 42 BsO 1-1 BsO R 1 1 42 71 97 100 62 96 57 99 79 78 BsO 7-1 BsO R 1 7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 BsO 9-1 BsO R 1 9 100 98 100 99 99 100 99 BsO 1-2 BsO R 2 1 99 83 64 73 96 76 91 69 86 82 BsO 7-2 BsO R 2 7 52 74 53 54 49 51 63 54 50 56 BsO 9-2 BsO R 2 9 98 98 100 97 100 100 98 99 100 99 BsY 0-1 BsY R 1 0 100 100 90 80 100 100 100 85 100 95 BsY 6-1 BsY R 1 6 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 BsY 8-1 BsY R 1 8 100 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 99 100 BsY 0-2 BsY R 2 0 99 100 100 100 90 99 100 100 95 98 BsY 6-2 BsY R 2 6 88 71 93 89 94 94 80 91 94 88 BsY 8-2 BsY R 2 8 100 99 100 98 100 100 100 99 100 100 Ck 1-1 Ck R 1 1 92 92 90 91 89 100 92 91 95 92 Ck 4-1 Ck R 1 4 77 92 99 99 100 74 85 99 87 90 Ck 7-1 Ck R 1 7 94 90 99 100 60 86 92 100 73 88 Ck 1-2 Ck R 2 1 7 18 66 52 44 80 13 59 62 45 Ck 4-2 Ck R 2 4 81 54 94 95 93 98 68 95 96 86 Ck 7-2 Ck R 2 7 90 95 90 43 44 61 93 67 53 71 DF 1-1 DF R 1 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 DF 3-1 DF R 1 3 100 100 99 94 98 97 100 97 98 98 DF 4-1 DF R 1 4 77 75 100 100 78 83 76 100 81 86 DF 1-2 DF R 2 1 20 18 56 88 13 17 19 72 15 35 DF 3-2 DF R 2 3 96 96 13 31 6 20 96 22 13 44 DF 4-2 DF R 2 4 37 89 29 58 41 67 63 44 54 54 91 Plot Site Treatment Zone Transect Tube 1a Tube 1b Tube 2a Tube 2b Tube 3a Tube 3b Tube 1 Mean Tube 2 Mean Tube 3 Mean Plot Mean En 1-1 En R 1 1 98 100 99 99 96 98 99 99 97 98 En 4-1 En R 1 4 53 65 100 100 94 100 59 100 97 85 En 7-1 En R 1 7 98 100 99 96 95 92 99 98 94 97 En 1-2 En R 2 1 100 100 99 99 100 100 100 99 100 100 En 4-2 En R 2 4 100 100 100 99 99 98 100 100 99 99 En 7-2 En R 2 7 99 97 96 97 96 99 98 97 98 97 Fr 1-1 Fr R 1 1 100 100 100 100 100 96 100 100 98 99 Fr 4-1 Fr R 1 4 78 81 98 77 98 76 80 88 87 85 Fr 7-1 Fr R 1 7 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Fr 1-2 Fr R 2 1 98 98 100 100 100 99 98 100 100 99 Fr 4-2 Fr R 2 4 99 98 96 96 81 95 99 96 88 94 Fr 7-2 Fr R 2 7 97 97 96 95 98 96 97 96 97 97 JLN 1-1 JLN N 1 1 95 37 74 48 47 49 66 61 48 58 JLN 4-1 JLN N 1 4 41 80 13 13 43 24 61 13 34 36 JLN 7-1 JLN N 1 7 100 58 59 63 74 75 79 61 75 72 JLN 1-2 JLN N 2 1 74 56 86 64 60 50 65 75 55 65 JLN 4-2 JLN N 2 4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 JLN 7-2 JLN N 2 7 51 61 47 59 56 53 55 JLR 1-1 JLR R 1 1 74 93 92 91 77 83 84 92 80 85 JLR 4-1 JLR R 1 4 58 82 79 65 47 49 70 72 48 63 JLR 7-1 JLR R 1 7 58 72 56 74 100 98 65 65 99 76 JLR 1-2 JLR R 2 1 96 96 100 97 100 98 96 99 99 98 JLR 4-2 JLR R 2 4 98 100 97 100 100 100 99 99 100 99 JLR 7-2 JLR R 2 7 94 98 43 52 39 50 96 48 45 63 Jr 1-1 Jr R 1 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Jr 4-1 Jr R 1 4 99 98 100 100 98 100 99 100 99 99 Jr 7-1 Jr R 1 7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Jr 1-2 Jr R 2 1 97 98 98 97 98 100 98 98 99 98 Jr 4-2 Jr R 2 4 90 68 88 58 78 61 79 73 70 74 Jr 7-2 Jr R 2 7 90 95 96 72 90 97 93 84 94 90 Ss 1-1 Ss R 1 1 42 88 54 99 58 48 65 77 53 65 Ss 4-1 Ss R 1 4 90 64 100 77 100 75 77 89 88 84 Ss 7-1 Ss R 1 7 90 58 45 61 96 89 74 53 93 73 Ss 1-2 Ss R 2 1 70 90 86 98 80 92 86 Ss 4-2 Ss R 2 4 50 28 43 41 3 30 39 42 17 33 Ss 7-2 Ss R 2 7 43 64 42 58 51 63 54 50 57 54 Ws 1-1 Ws R 1 1 90 98 100 95 100 100 94 98 100 97 Ws 4-1 Ws R 1 4 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 95 100 98 Ws 7-1 Ws R 1 7 49 95 96 96 72 96 84 Ws 1-2 Ws R 2 1 25 8 51 22 40 45 17 37 43 32 Ws 4-2 Ws R 2 4 99 97 98 97 96 97 98 98 97 97 Ws 7-2 Ws R 2 7 90 62 35 23 83 85 76 29 84 63 92 AB 93 BB 94 BC 95 BeW 96 BsO 97 BsY 98 Ck 99 DF 100 En 101 Fr 102 JLN 103 JLR 104 Jr 105 Ss 106 Ws 107 Appendix D. Penetration resistance (cone index kPa). Data for each plot represents Means of 20 points per plot Max Max 1000 2000 resistance increase kPa Depth kPa Depth within 45 over 5 within to 1000 within to 2000 Site Treatment Transect Zone cm cm 45 cm? kPa 45 cm? kPa DENC-N-BB Nat 1 1 332 84 0 >45 0 >45 DENC-N-BB Nat 4 1 195 71 0 >45 0 >45 DENC-N-BB Nat 7 1 390 190 0 >45 0 >45 DENC-N-BB Nat 1 2 674 155 0 >45 0 >45 DENC-N-BB Nat 4 2 1374 289 1 40 0 >45 DENC-N-BB Nat 7 2 966 180 0 >45 0 >45 DENC-N-BB Nat 1 3 577 206 0 >45 0 >45 DENC-N-BB Nat 4 3 648 127 0 >45 0 >45 DENC-N-BB Nat 7 3 730 213 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-AB Nat 1 1 390 193 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-AB Nat 4 1 479 198 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-AB Nat 7 1 560 142 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-AB Nat 1 2 1231 228 1 25 0 >45 MDC-N-AB Nat 4 2 831 122 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-AB Nat 7 2 856 157 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-AB Nat 1 3 1687 495 1 40 0 >45 MDC-N-AB Nat 4 3 1659 1028 1 45 0 >45 MDC-N-AB Nat 7 3 1429 491 1 45 0 >45 MDC-N-BC Nat 1 1 296 88 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BC Nat 4 1 272 106 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BC Nat 7 1 324 89 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BC Nat 1 2 603 117 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BC Nat 4 2 679 114 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BC Nat 7 2 798 99 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BC Nat 1 3 633 117 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BC Nat 4 3 385 48 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BC Nat 7 3 770 167 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BeW Nat 1 1 506 146 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BeW Nat 4 1 684 182 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BeW Nat 7 1 1365 446 1 40 0 >45 MDC-N-BeW Nat 1 2 814 301 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BeW Nat 4 2 1996 1064 1 45 0 >45 MDC-N-BeW Nat 7 2 4856 2137 1 30 1 35 108 MDC-N-BeW Nat 1 3 780 156 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BeW Nat 4 3 800 241 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-BeW Nat 7 3 572 111 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-JL Nat 1 1 679 162 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-JL Nat 4 1 464 94 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-JL Nat 7 1 507 144 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-JL Nat 1 2 1170 167 1 40 0 >45 MDC-N-JL Nat 4 2 1132 367 1 45 0 >45 MDC-N-JL Nat 7 2 947 139 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-JL Nat 1 3 995 261 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-N-JL Nat 4 3 1897 393 1 35 0 >45 MDC-N-JL Nat 7 3 643 193 0 >45 0 >45 DEK-R-Jr Res 1 1 5226 1006 1 15 1 25 DEK-R-Jr Res 4 1 6608 1962 1 25 1 30 DEK-R-Jr Res 7 1 5807 1041 1 15 1 20 DEK-R-Jr Res 1 2 1882 686 1 40 0 >45 DEK-R-Jr Res 4 2 2103 511 1 35 1 45 DEK-R-Jr Res 7 2 2823 1136 1 25 1 35 DEK-R-Jr Res 1 3 521 290 0 >45 0 >45 DEK-R-Jr Res 4 3 781 205 0 >45 0 >45 DEK-R-Jr Res 7 3 591 235 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-R-JL Res 1 1 652 258 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-R-JL Res 4 1 633 137 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-R-JL Res 7 1 800 203 0 >45 0 >45 MDC-R-JL Res 1 2 2247 654 1 30 1 45 MDC-R-JL Res 4 2 1112 448 1 35 0 >45 MDC-R-JL Res 7 2 1294 355 1 45 0 >45 MDC-R-JL Res 1 3 3985 726 1 15 1 20 MDC-R-JL Res 4 3 2638 931 1 25 1 30 MDC-R-JL Res 7 3 5592 1442 1 20 1 30 MDD-R-Ck Res 1 1 8295 1517 1 10 1 20 MDD-R-Ck Res 4 1 1717 355 1 20 0 >45 MDD-R-Ck Res 7 1 1707 506 1 25 0 >45 MDD-R-Ck Res 1 2 3785 1116 1 10 1 25 MDD-R-Ck Res 4 2 3459 946 1 10 1 15 MDD-R-Ck Res 7 2 4435 1332 1 10 1 15 MDD-R-Ck Res 1 3 4045 2548 1 20 1 30 MDD-R-Ck Res 4 3 4731 1797 1 20 1 30 MDD-R-Ck Res 7 3 2828 1392 1 20 1 35 MDQA-R-BsO Res 1 1 2613 786 1 25 1 30 MDQA-R-BsO Res 7 1 5220 1015 1 20 1 25 MDQA-R-BsO Res 9 1 3760 996 1 20 1 35 109 MDQA-R-BsO Res 1 2 2823 1136 1 25 1 35 MDQA-R-BsO Res 7 2 4270 1051 1 15 1 20 MDQA-R-BsO Res 9 2 4916 1637 1 15 1 20 MDQA-R-BsO Res 1 3 2478 591 1 25 1 40 MDQA-R-BsO Res 7 3 5341 2863 1 25 1 25 MDQA-R-BsO Res 9 3 2233 606 1 15 1 35 MDQA-R-BsY Res 0 1 1637 511 1 15 0 >45 MDQA-R-BsY Res 6 1 4781 1282 1 15 1 25 MDQA-R-BsY Res 8 1 6112 1532 1 15 1 20 MDQA-R-BsY Res 0 2 2313 1071 1 20 1 20 MDQA-R-BsY Res 6 2 4225 1612 1 25 1 30 MDQA-R-BsY Res 8 2 1422 360 1 25 0 >45 MDQA-R-BsY Res 0 3 1712 801 1 15 0 >45 MDQA-R-BsY Res 6 3 2338 569 1 20 1 40 MDQA-R-BsY Res 8 3 1717 1046 1 45 0 >45 MDQA-R-En Res 1 1 2042 446 1 35 1 45 MDQA-R-En Res 4 1 2178 606 1 15 1 45 MDQA-R-En Res 7 1 6608 1537 1 20 1 25 MDQA-R-En Res 1 2 1502 360 1 30 0 >45 MDQA-R-En Res 4 2 6002 1517 1 20 1 25 MDQA-R-En Res 7 2 1837 806 1 25 0 >45 MDQA-R-En Res 1 3 671 182 0 >45 0 >45 MDQA-R-En Res 4 3 816 225 0 >45 0 >45 MDQA-R-En Res 7 3 1667 514 1 30 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ss Res 1 1 1652 531 1 20 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ss Res 4 1 1472 466 1 35 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ss Res 7 1 1297 461 1 25 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ss Res 1 2 1538 552 1 30 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ss Res 4 2 1636 469 1 15 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ss Res 7 2 1962 561 1 20 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ss Res 1 3 1427 285 1 35 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ss Res 4 3 1442 446 1 35 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ss Res 7 3 3184 1021 1 35 1 40 MDQA-R-Ws Res 1 1 1018 357 1 45 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ws Res 4 1 2253 786 1 35 1 45 MDQA-R-Ws Res 7 1 2852 1459 1 35 1 45 MDQA-R-Ws Res 1 2 3484 911 1 20 1 25 MDQA-R-Ws Res 4 2 1432 481 1 45 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ws Res 7 2 3549 1282 1 25 1 40 MDQA-R-Ws Res 1 3 2568 696 1 25 1 45 MDQA-R-Ws Res 4 3 781 295 0 >45 0 >45 MDQA-R-Ws Res 7 3 701 245 0 >45 0 >45 110 MDT-R-Fr Res 1 1 6438 1707 1 15 1 25 MDT-R-Fr Res 4 1 2528 856 1 35 1 45 MDT-R-Fr Res 7 1 6943 2653 1 30 1 35 MDT-R-Fr Res 1 2 3835 1427 1 20 1 30 MDT-R-Fr Res 4 2 1382 461 1 25 0 >45 MDT-R-Fr Res 7 2 736 245 0 >45 0 >45 MDT-R-Fr Res 1 3 1367 260 1 35 0 >45 MDT-R-Fr Res 4 3 1191 205 1 40 0 >45 MDT-R-Fr Res 7 3 1156 345 1 45 0 >45 111 Appendix E. Stick decomposition data (mean values for each plot). Decomp Decomp Decomp Decomp Site Treatment Transect Zone 3 mo 6 mo 9 mo 12 mo DENC-N-BB Nat 1 1 0.02% 0.75% 2.35% 2.96% DENC-N-BB Nat 4 1 0.41% 1.42% 3.73% 3.67% DENC-N-BB Nat 7 1 0.42% 1.55% 2.38% 4.41% DENC-N-BB Nat 1 2 0.91% 4.28% 9.56% 16.09% DENC-N-BB Nat 4 2 1.27% 11.00% 19.07% 16.60% DENC-N-BB Nat 7 2 0.56% 3.88% 8.69% 11.28% DENC-N-BB Nat 1 3 -0.09% 12.42% 53.50% 55.23% DENC-N-BB Nat 4 3 0.62% 9.84% 16.15% 40.93% DENC-N-BB Nat 7 3 0.37% 10.68% 25.56% MDC-N-AB Nat 1 1 -0.66% 0.68% 3.19% 3.06% MDC-N-AB Nat 4 1 0.53% 1.78% 3.92% 4.49% MDC-N-AB Nat 7 1 0.40% 1.54% 2.90% 3.00% MDC-N-AB Nat 1 2 -0.60% 0.98% 7.47% 10.46% MDC-N-AB Nat 4 2 0.66% 1.08% 5.13% 6.00% MDC-N-AB Nat 7 2 0.49% 1.36% 7.68% 7.51% MDC-N-AB Nat 1 3 -0.48% 9.13% 16.94% 18.65% MDC-N-AB Nat 4 3 0.54% 6.89% 12.84% 20.82% MDC-N-AB Nat 7 3 0.67% 6.45% 23.27% 24.27% MDC-N-BC Nat 1 1 -0.32% 1.85% 2.06% 2.21% MDC-N-BC Nat 4 1 0.72% 1.78% 2.51% 3.02% MDC-N-BC Nat 7 1 0.50% 0.85% 2.69% 1.53% MDC-N-BC Nat 1 2 -0.45% 1.53% 2.06% 5.00% MDC-N-BC Nat 4 2 0.71% 2.13% 5.72% 12.40% MDC-N-BC Nat 7 2 0.58% 1.95% 6.36% 9.57% MDC-N-BC Nat 1 3 0.25% 5.38% 15.32% 19.11% MDC-N-BC Nat 4 3 0.23% 4.22% 17.77% 22.74% MDC-N-BC Nat 7 3 0.67% 9.76% 18.01% 31.32% MDC-N-BeW Nat 1 1 -0.46% 0.69% 6.95% 9.37% MDC-N-BeW Nat 4 1 -0.34% 1.34% 5.70% 4.41% MDC-N-BeW Nat 7 1 0.04% 0.74% 7.13% 9.93% MDC-N-BeW Nat 1 2 -0.37% 2.32% 5.39% 6.48% MDC-N-BeW Nat 4 2 -0.36% 3.60% 4.93% 9.74% MDC-N-BeW Nat 7 2 0.46% 2.60% 7.40% 12.34% MDC-N-BeW Nat 1 3 -0.60% 15.25% 34.82% 43.39% MDC-N-BeW Nat 4 3 -0.24% 7.34% 25.41% 37.48% MDC-N-BeW Nat 7 3 0.85% 15.64% 17.32% 34.92% MDC-N-JL Nat 1 1 -0.33% 0.86% 2.65% 2.03% 112 MDC-N-JL Nat 4 1 0.35% 0.24% 2.43% 2.87% MDC-N-JL Nat 7 1 1.13% 1.72% 2.95% 3.31% MDC-N-JL Nat 1 2 0.04% 0.63% 6.62% 7.02% MDC-N-JL Nat 4 2 0.94% 1.26% 3.62% 4.22% MDC-N-JL Nat 7 2 1.10% 1.59% 3.72% 4.04% MDC-N-JL Nat 1 3 -0.01% 11.77% 41.86% 49.79% MDC-N-JL Nat 4 3 1.18% 8.08% 28.88% 20.44% MDC-N-JL Nat 7 3 0.72% 7.75% 16.10% 26.53% DEK-R-Jr Res 1 1 0.11% 0.81% 2.02% 3.44% DEK-R-Jr Res 4 1 -0.76% 1.00% 2.37% 3.00% DEK-R-Jr Res 7 1 0.11% 1.07% 2.06% 2.11% DEK-R-Jr Res 1 2 -0.70% 2.93% 10.77% 10.97% DEK-R-Jr Res 4 2 -1.26% 2.50% 14.24% 11.75% DEK-R-Jr Res 7 2 -1.12% 2.65% 13.79% 15.79% DEK-R-Jr Res 1 3 3.97% 24.02% 29.53% 64.58% DEK-R-Jr Res 4 3 -0.65% 11.13% 31.82% 71.49% DEK-R-Jr Res 7 3 0.51% 12.88% 38.18% 32.63% MDC-R-JL Res 1 1 -1.00% 1.51% 6.05% 8.40% MDC-R-JL Res 4 1 -0.29% 1.45% 7.65% 9.71% MDC-R-JL Res 7 1 0.27% 1.14% 5.05% 6.90% MDC-R-JL Res 1 2 -0.78% 1.11% 10.71% 7.24% MDC-R-JL Res 4 2 -0.44% 1.49% 11.43% 18.25% MDC-R-JL Res 7 2 0.29% 2.04% 7.65% 11.84% MDC-R-JL Res 1 3 0.51% 9.56% 20.58% 23.68% MDC-R-JL Res 4 3 0.36% 18.50% 13.15% 25.96% MDC-R-JL Res 7 3 1.54% 16.69% 29.19% 27.65% MDD-R-Ck Res 1 1 0.32% 1.01% 6.33% 9.83% MDD-R-Ck Res 4 1 0.62% 1.00% 3.30% 5.93% MDD-R-Ck Res 7 1 0.37% 1.21% 11.85% 15.97% MDD-R-Ck Res 1 2 -0.45% 1.15% 4.67% 5.70% MDD-R-Ck Res 4 2 0.49% 0.72% 17.77% 13.54% MDD-R-Ck Res 7 2 0.52% 0.71% 8.80% 5.97% MDD-R-Ck Res 1 3 1.09% 20.59% 26.85% 63.25% MDD-R-Ck Res 4 3 1.10% 2.87% 18.21% 15.82% MDD-R-Ck Res 7 3 1.18% 14.30% 15.10% 28.64% MDQA-R- BsO Res 1 1 -1.59% 2.33% 5.92% 5.89% MDQA-R- BsO Res 7 1 0.32% 2.68% 9.90% 10.16% MDQA-R- BsO Res 9 1 -0.11% 9.19% 14.84% 17.29% MDQA-R- BsO Res 1 2 -0.76% 4.66% 11.33% 19.19% 113 MDQA-R- BsO Res 7 2 0.02% 1.33% 8.22% 12.40% MDQA-R- BsO Res 9 2 0.34% 2.16% 13.27% 12.32% MDQA-R- BsO Res 1 3 0.47% 16.50% 36.30% MDQA-R- BsO Res 7 3 -0.24% 4.74% 7.16% 11.14% MDQA-R- BsO Res 9 3 0.56% 6.52% 17.04% 23.49% MDQA-R-BsY Res 0 1 -0.01% 3.01% 10.00% 18.84% MDQA-R-BsY Res 6 1 0.03% 2.40% 2.61% 3.72% MDQA-R-BsY Res 8 1 -0.13% 2.49% 7.17% 9.20% MDQA-R-BsY Res 0 2 0.26% 1.15% 23.66% 14.45% MDQA-R-BsY Res 6 2 -1.07% 12.09% 29.73% MDQA-R-BsY Res 8 2 -0.58% 1.81% 9.51% 19.32% MDQA-R-BsY Res 0 3 1.48% 32.18% 33.20% 52.70% MDQA-R-BsY Res 6 3 -0.50% 16.85% 19.51% 15.73% MDQA-R-BsY Res 8 3 -1.05% 8.66% 35.80% 40.59% MDQA-R-En Res 1 1 -0.22% 2.89% 6.45% 6.34% MDQA-R-En Res 4 1 0.51% 2.97% 6.90% 5.15% MDQA-R-En Res 7 1 -0.12% 1.53% 4.01% 4.73% MDQA-R-En Res 1 2 -0.48% 4.47% 28.90% 26.93% MDQA-R-En Res 4 2 0.19% 0.68% 6.40% 8.42% MDQA-R-En Res 7 2 -0.03% 2.65% 12.17% 19.21% MDQA-R-En Res 1 3 1.28% 14.60% 27.48% 34.44% MDQA-R-En Res 4 3 1.35% 26.06% 27.19% 38.44% MDQA-R-En Res 7 3 0.57% 53.04% 43.46% 94.51% MDQA-R-Ss Res 1 1 -1.09% 1.59% 9.19% 5.98% MDQA-R-Ss Res 4 1 -0.56% 1.63% 6.91% 7.97% MDQA-R-Ss Res 7 1 -1.08% 1.29% 3.38% 2.74% MDQA-R-Ss Res 1 2 -1.51% 3.68% 6.53% 11.82% MDQA-R-Ss Res 4 2 -0.18% 4.18% 11.50% 15.67% MDQA-R-Ss Res 7 2 -1.71% 1.31% 6.08% 12.03% MDQA-R-Ss Res 1 3 -0.16% 9.27% 14.29% 20.54% MDQA-R-Ss Res 4 3 -0.14% 6.28% 15.92% 16.95% MDQA-R-Ss Res 7 3 -0.27% 7.85% 19.53% 16.66% MDQA-R-Ws Res 1 1 -0.17% 3.82% 21.57% 25.35% MDQA-R-Ws Res 4 1 -0.67% 4.02% 16.95% 13.36% MDQA-R-Ws Res 7 1 -0.70% 5.12% 36.59% 16.12% MDQA-R-Ws Res 1 2 -0.82% 3.70% 20.69% 17.75% MDQA-R-Ws Res 4 2 -1.48% 21.92% 23.76% 25.63% MDQA-R-Ws Res 7 2 -0.68% 4.15% 35.54% 56.21% 114 MDQA-R-Ws Res 1 3 0.17% 8.23% 14.54% 15.05% MDQA-R-Ws Res 4 3 -0.48% 16.09% 32.23% 23.57% MDQA-R-Ws Res 7 3 1.28% 10.70% 35.11% 48.35% MDT-R-Fr Res 1 1 -0.19% 2.47% 6.38% 8.14% MDT-R-Fr Res 4 1 0.10% 3.33% 8.73% 9.16% MDT-R-Fr Res 7 1 0.09% 3.85% 8.30% 10.56% MDT-R-Fr Res 1 2 0.09% 0.95% 12.10% 7.28% MDT-R-Fr Res 4 2 -0.16% 0.45% 13.89% 6.55% MDT-R-Fr Res 7 2 -0.72% 1.47% 6.16% 7.08% MDT-R-Fr Res 1 3 -0.44% 55.07% 62.81% MDT-R-Fr Res 4 3 0.49% 17.74% 39.67% 26.25% MDT-R-Fr Res 7 3 0.05% 9.16% 49.69% 26.39% 115 Appendix F. Soil morphological descriptions 116 Site MDC-N-AB Date 9/25/2013 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,JV MDC-N-AB Zone 1 Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 142 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 8 Mky Pt 5YR 2.5/1 SP Oa A1 24 Mk 10YR 2/1 SP/BA A1 A2 47 Mky SiL (12%) 2.5Y 3/1 Mucky modified BA A2 AB 71 SiL (15%) 2.5Y 3/1 BA Btg Bt 96 L (20%) 2.5Y 6/1 15% D BA BCg BC 142+ SiL (13%) 5Y 5/1 5% P Site MDC-N-AB Date 9/25/2013 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 191 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oa Oe 11 Mky Pt 10YR 2/1 SP A1 A1 39 Mk 10YR 2/1 BA A2 A2 63 SiL (8%) 10YR 2/1 BA AB AB 103 SiL (17%) 10YR 2/1 BA Abt 115 SiCL (28%) 10YR 3/1 6% D BA 157 L (11%) 10YR 4/1 3% D BA 191+ SiL (14%) 5Y 4/1 Site MDC-N-AB Date 9/25/2013 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 155 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 7 Mky Pt 5YR 2.5/1 SP Oa A1 20 Mk 10YR 2/1 SP/BA A1 A2 49 Mk 10YR 2/1 BA A2 AB 69 SiL (20%) 10YR 3/1 BA Bg1 Bt 120 L (25%) 2.5Y 4/1 18% P BA Bg2 BC 155+ SiL (15%) 2.5Y 5/1 10% P 117 Site MDC-N-AB Date 11/20/2013 Plot Number 1-2 Describers CAP,SE MDC-N-AB Zone 2 Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 193 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 9 10YR 2/1 SP A A1 33 Mky L (12%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA EA A2 57 Mky L (15%) 10YR 3/1 BA EAg AE 89 LS (5%) 2.5Y 5/2 15% F 3% gravel BA Eg E 112 S (2%) 2.5Y 6/2 2% gravel BA Bg Bt1 131 LS (6%) 2.5Y 7/2 25% P 1% gravel BA Bw Bt2 147 LS (5%) 2.5Y 6/4 30% P 3% gravel BA B'g1 Bt3 162 LS (5%) 2.5Y 6/2 8% D BA B'g2 Btg 178 SL (10%) 2.5Y 6/2 5% gravel BA CBg CB 193+ S (2%) 2.5Y 7/2 Site MDC-N-AB Date 11/20/2013 Plot Number 4-2 Describers CAP,SE Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 194 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oa Oa 8 7.5YR 2.5/1 SP A A 33 Mky SL (8%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA EAg AE 56 SL (4%) 10YR 4/1 BA Eg EB 79 SL (6%) 10YR 4/1 BA BEg BE 100 SL (9%) 2.5Y 5/2 12% P BA Btg1 Btg1 140 SL (19%) 2.5Y 6/1 10% D, 4% P BA Btg2 Btg2 176 SCL (23%) 2.5Y 6/1 8% P BA CBg CBg 194+ S (2%) 2.5Y 6/2 Site MDC-N-AB Date 11/20/2013 Plot Number 7-2 Describers CAP,SE Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 168 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 5 10YR 2/1 SP Oa A1 22 10YR 2/1 SP A A2 35 Mky L (12%) 10YR 2/1 BA EAg AB 54 L (8%) 10YR 4/1 BA Eg EB 71 LS (4%) 2.5Y 5/2 BA Btg1 Bt 91 SL (18%) 10YR 4/1 35% P BA Btg2 Btg 119 SCL (22%) 5Y 6/1 10% P, 20% D BA Btg3 BC 147 SL (16%) 2.5Y 5/2 5% F BA BCg CBg 168+ SL (6%) 2.5Y 6/2 118 Site MDC-N-AB Date 7/30/2014 Plot Number 1-3 Describers CAP,JR Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 182 cm MDC-N-AB Zone 3 HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 6 5YR 3/3 SP A A 24 SL (11%) 10YR 2/1 SP AB AB 39 SL (13%) 10YR 3/3 3% D BA Bhsm Bhsm 58 SL (15%) 2.5YR 2.5/2 Ortstein BA Bhs1 Bhs1 69 SL (17%) 2.5YR 2.5/1 BA Bhs2 Bhs2 99 LS (3%) 7.5YR 3/2 BA BC BC 123 SL (12%) 2.5Y 6/2 BA CB CB 146 SL (14%) 2.5Y 6/3 10% D 15% D BA Cg Cg 182+ SL (13%) 2.5Y 6/1 22% P Site MDC-N-AB Date 7/30/2014 Plot Number 4-3 Describers CAP,JR Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 187 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 10 2.5YR 2.5/3 SP A A 17 SL (12%) 10YR 2/2 SP/BA EA AE 43 SL (10%) 2.5Y 5/4 BA E E 74 SL (7%) 2.5Y 6/4 BA Bt Bt 97 SL (10%) 2.5Y 6/4 10% P 9% D BA Btg Btg 128 SL (10%) 2.5Y 7/1 25% D, 7% P BA B't B't 172 SL (10%) 2.5Y 6/4 10% D 15% D BA BCg BCg 187+ Gr SL (10%) 2.5Y 7/2 10% D 20% gravel Site MDC-N-AB Date 7/30/2014 Plot Number 7-3 Describers CAP,JR Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 161 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 9 5YR 3/3 SP A A 24 SL (11%) 10YR 3/2 SP EA AE 39 SL (13%) 2.5Y 3/4 BA E1 E1 59 LS (5%) 2.5Y 6/4 25% P 2% D BA E2 E2 83 LS (3%) 10YR 5/6 20% D BA Bt1 Bt1 111 SL (6%) 2.5Y 6/3 50% P 10% D BA Bt2 Bt2 139 Gr SL (9%) 10YR 5/6 5% F 20% gravel BA Bt3 Bt3 161+ SL (8%) 2.5Y 6/6 5% F 119 DENC-N-BB Zone 1 Site DENC-N-BB Date 9/16/2013 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 30 cm, augered to 165 cm HS FI Obs Field Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Clay) Moist SP Oa Oa1 9 10YR 2/2 SP/BA A1 Oa2 35 10YR 2/1 Possibly mucky A BA A2 65 SL (7%) 10YR 2/1 BA AB 83 SL (16%) 10YR 3/1 BA Bg1 107 SL (19%) 10YR 5/1 6% P 10YR 3/6 BA Bg2 130 SL (12%) 10YR 5/1 3% D 10YR 4/6 BA Bg3 152 L (14%) 2.5Y 4/1 5% P 10YR 4/6 BA BC 165+ L (14%) 10YR 3/2 1% D 10YR 4/6 Site DENC-N-BB Date 9/16/2013 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 161 cm HS FI Obs Field Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Clay) Moist SP Oa Oa1 7 Mky Pt 10YR 2/1 SP A1 Oa2 28 Mk 10YR 3/1 Possibly mucky A SP/BA A2 48 Mk 10YR 2/1 BA A3 65 SL (8%) 10YR 3/1 BA AB 83 SCL (23%) 2.5Y 3/1 BA Btg1 103 SiCL (30%) 2.5Y 5/1 BA Btg2 132 SiCL (35%) 2.5Y 6/1 BA Btg3 161+ SiCL (28%) 5Y 6/1 Site DENC-N-BB Date 9/16/2013 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 139 cm HS FI Obs Field Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Clay) Moist SP Oa Oa1 10 Mky Pt 10YR 2/1 SP A1 Oa2 37 Mk 10YR 2/1 Possibly mucky A BA A2 49 SL (8%) 10YR 3/1 BA ABt 73 SC (38%) 2.5Y 2.5/1 BA Btg1 105 SCL (30%) 2.5Y 4/1 BA Btg2 139+ SL (17%) 2.5Y 4/1 120 DENC-N-BB Zone 2 Site DENC-N-BB Date 3/17/2015 Plot Number 1-2 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 119 cm HS FI Obs Field Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Clay) Moist SP Oa Oa 7 PT 2.5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 34 MKY SL (6%) 10YR 2/2 SP/BA Eg Eg 57 LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/2 BA Btg1 83 SL (15%) 2.5Y 6/2 25% P 7.5YR 5% F 2.5Y 7/1 5/6 BA Btg2 104 SL (10%) 2.5Y 7/2 20% P 7.5YR 8% F 2.5Y 7/1 5/6 BA BCg 119+ LS (5%) 2.5Y 7/2 30% P 7.5YR 5/6 Site DENC-N-BB Date 8/27/2013 Plot Number 4-2 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 30 cm, augered to 153 cm HS FI Obs Field Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Clay) Moist SP A1 Oe 10 5YR 3/3 SP A2 A1 21 SL (6%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA A3 A2 50 SL (7%) 10YR 2/1 BA AB AB 69 SL (8%) 10YR 2/2 BA EB EB 91 LS (5%) 2.5Y 5/4 BA Bw Bw 121 SL (6%) 2.5Y 5/3 BA BC BC 153+ LS (3%) 2.5Y 6/3 Site DENC-N-BB Date 8/27/2013 Plot Number 7-2 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 30 cm, augered to 145 cm HS FI Obs Field Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 8 5YR 3/3 SP A1 26 SL (8%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA A2 63 SL (9%) 10YR 2/1 BA Bw 104 LS (3%) 2.5Y 5/4 Heavily intermixed BA BC 145+ LS (4%) 5Y 5/3 121 DENC-N-BB Zone 3 Site DENC-N-BB Date 3/17/2015 Plot Number 1-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 116 cm HS FI Obs Field Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 4 MKY PT 2.5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 17 SL (7%) 10YR 2/2 SP/BA Bw1 45 SL (5%) 2.5Y 5/4 BA Bw2 65 LS (4%) 2.5Y 5/4 5% F 10YR 5/6 BA Bw3 95 LS (3%) 2.5Y 6/3 20% D 7.5YR 5/6 BA Bw4 116+ S (2%) 2.5Y 7/3 15% D 10YR 5/6 25% D 2.5Y 7/2 Site DENC-N-BB Date 3/17/2015 Plot Number 4-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 107 cm HS FI Obs Field Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 8 MKY PT 2.5Y 2.5/2 SP A A 21 SL (6%) 10YR 2/1 SP Bw1 40 LS (5%) 10YR 5/6 3% D 5YR 5/6 BA Bw2 60 S (4%) 2.5Y 5/3 BA Bw3 81 S (2%) 2.5Y 6/3 BA Bw4 107+ S (2%) 2.5Y 6/3 Site DENC-N-BB Date 3/17/2015 Plot Number 7-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 110 cm HS FI Obs Field Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Horizon Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 4 MKY PT 2.5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 8 SL (6%) 10YR 2/2 SP BA Bw1 25 LS (5%) 10YR 4/4 SP Bw1 Bw2 41 LS (5%) 2.5Y 6/4 3% F 10YR 6/6 BA Bw2 Bw3 59 S (4%) 2.5Y 5/3 3% F 10YR 6/6 BA Bw3 Bw4 80 S (4%) 2.5Y 6/3 15% P 10YR 5/6 5% 2.5Y 6/3 BA Bw4 BC1 101 S (3%) 2.5Y 6/3 30% P 7.5YR 10% F 2.5Y 5/6 6/2 BA BC BC2 110+ S (2%) 2.5Y 6/3 40% D 7.5YR 3% subrounded gravel 5/6 122 Site MDC-N-BC Date 9/24/13 MDC-N-BC Zone 1 Transect Number 1-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 191 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 8 7.5YR 3/3 SP/BA Oa A 51 10YR 2/2 BA A AB 89 10YR 2/1 BA Bt 107 10YR 4/3 Sand lens BA BCg 134 10YR 4/2 BA CBg 191+ 2.5Y 4/1 Site MDC-N-BC Date 9/24/13 Transect Number 4-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 50 cm, augered to 203 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 11 10YR 2/1 SP Oa A1 45 Mky SiL (12%) 10YR 2/1 3 Gr structure SP/BA A A2 73 SiL (16%) 10YR 2/1 2 Gr structure BA ABt1 101 SiL (22%) 10YR 2/1 1 SBk structure BA ABt2 130 SiL (25%) 10YR 2/1 BA BCg 203+ SiL (8%) 10YR 4/2 Site MDC-N-BC Date 9/11/15 Transect Number 7-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 179 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 5 7.5YR 3/3 SP Oa1 Oa 13 7.5YR 2.5/2 SP Oa2 A1 37 L (13%) 10YR 2/2 Mucky modified, 2- 3 GR structure SP/BA A A2 61 L (15%) 10YR 2/1 1-2 GR structure BA BE 85 FSL (10%) 10YR 3/1 BA Btg 99 L (20%) 10YR 4/2 BA BCg 144 FSL (12%) 10YR 4/2 BA CBg 163 SL (8%) 2.5Y 5/2 Raff - prob mostly spoil BA Cg 179+ LS? (series of 2.5Y 5/1 Raff - prob mostly expletives %) spoil 123 MDC-N-BC Zone 2 Site MDC-N-BC Date 8/20/13 Transect Number 1-2 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 28 cm, augered to 157 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 15 5YR 3/4 SP A1 A1 28 SL (6%) 10YR 2/1 BA A2 A2 44 SL (8%) 10YR 2.5/1 BA AB AB 72 L (15%) 10YR 3/2 BA Bg1 Btg1 92 SL (16%) 2.5Y 6/2 BA Bg2 Btg2 117 SCL (21%) 2.5Y 6/2 BA CBg BCg 157+ LCS (4%) 2.5Y 6/2 10% fluvial gravel Site MDC-N-BC Date 8/20/13 Transect Number 4-2 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 38 cm, augered to 192 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 22 7.5YR 2.5/3 SP A A 38 SL (6%) 10YR 2/1 BA AB AB 46 SL (8%) 10YR 2/1 BA Bw Bt 60 SL (17%) 10YR 3/2 BA CBg BC 77 LCS (3%) 2.5Y 4.5/2 BA C CB 192+ CS (2%) 10YR 4/3 Site MDC-N-BC Date 8/20/13 Transect Number 7-2 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 50 cm, augered to 81 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 24 7.5YR 3/4 SP A1 A1 50 LS (5%) 10YR 2/1 BA A2 A2 62 LS (4%) 10YR 2/2 BA Bg Bw 73 LS (3%) 10YR 4/2 BA C BC 81+ S (2%) 2.5Y 5/4 124 MDC-N-BC Zone 3 Site MDC-N-BC Date 8/6/14 Transect Number 1-3 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 187 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - conc RMF -dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 13 5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 28 SL (11%) 10YR 2/2 SP EA AE 42 SL (13%) 2.5Y 6/4 SP/BA E E 53 SL (7%) 2.5Y 6/4 18% D 10YR 5/6 BA BE BE 75 SL (8%) 2.5Y 6/4 25% D 10YR 5/6 10% D 2.5Y 7/2 BA Btg Btg 98 SL (16%) 2.5Y 7/1 15% D 10YR 5/6 10% rounded gravel BA Bt Bt 120 SL (13%) 2.5Y 6/4 22% D 10YR 5/6 7% 2.5Y 7/2 BA B'tg B'tg 140 SL (16%) 2.5Y 7/2 15% P 7.5YR 5/8 BA BCg BCg 181 SL (6%) 2.5Y 7/1 1% angular gravel BA Cg Cg 187+ LS (3%) 2.5Y 7/1 Site MDC-N-BC Date 7/30/14 Transect Number 4-3 Describers CAP,JR Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 202 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - conc RMF -dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 5 5YR 3/2 SP A A 18 SL (12%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA E1 AE 54 SL (8%) 2.5Y 5/4 BA E2 EA 85 SL (6%) 10YR 5/6 2% F BA E3 E 102 LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/4 10% F 2% D BA BE 140 SL (5%) 2.5Y 6/3 15% D 25% P BA Btg 184 SL (19%) 5Y 7/1 15% D BA Cg 202+ SiL (8%) 5Y 7/1 15% D Site MDC-N-BC Date 7/30/14 Transect Number 7-3 Describers CAP,JR Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 174 cm HS FI Obs Field Matrix Color Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - conc RMF -dep Other Method Horizon Moist SP Oe Oe 6 5YR 3/2 SP A A 15 SL (12%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA AE AE 55 SL (10%) 10YR 3/4 BA E 96 LS (3%) 2.5Y 6/4 15% F BA EB 116 LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/6 30% P BA BE 140 SL (6%) 2.5Y 6/6 10% P 5% D BA Bt 160 SL (19%) 10YR 6/6 5% D 40% P BA Cg 174+ S (2%) 2.5Y 6/2 10% gravel 125 MDC-N-BeW Zone 1 Site MDC-N-BeW Date 8/8/13 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,MG Observation Method small pit to 33 cm, augered to 151 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oa A 18 L (12%) 2.5Y 3/2 SP Ag BEg 33 L (14%) 10YR 4/1 C/D 10YR 4/6 C/F 10YR 5/1 BA ABg Btg1 54 L (22%) 10YR 4/2 M/P 10YR 3/3 C/F 10YR 5/1 BA Bg Btg2 81 CL (28%) 2.5Y 4/1 C/P 10YR 4/6 C/D 10YR 5/1 Some evidence of disturbance BA BC ^2C1 97 SCL (25%) 10YR 3/1 C/P 10YR 4/6 Increase in grain size of sand fraction. Evidence of disturbance BA CB ^2C2 114 SCL (30%) 7.5YR 3/1 C/P 10YR 4/6 Coarse sand grading into medium sand. Evidence of disturbance BA 2CBg 3BCg 134 L (20%) 2.5Y 5/2 C/P 10YR 3/3 No evidence of disturbance BA 2Cg 3CBg 151+ SiL (16%) 2.5Y 6/1 M/P 10YR 3/3 C/P 10YR 4/6 Site MDC-N-BeW Date 8/8/13 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,MG Observation Method small pit to 42 cm, augered to 137 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oa A 19 SL (7%) 10YR 3/1 SP Ag BEg 42 L (11%) 10YR 4/1 C/D 10YR 3/3 C/P 10YR 4/6 BA BAg Bt1 59 L (18%) 10YR 3/1 M/P 10YR 5/6 Evidence of disturbance F/D 10YR 3/3 BA Bw Bt2 114 SCL (22%) 2.5Y 3/1 M/P 10YR 4/6 Abrupt boundary at 114 cm, evidence C/P 10YR 5/6 of disturbance BA 2BCg 2BCg 137+ SiCL (32%) 2.5Y 5/1 C/P 10YR 4/6 C/P 7.5YR 3/4 Site MDC-N-BeW Date 8/8/13 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,MG Observation Method small pit to 38 cm, augered to 148 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A A 20 L (9%) 10YR 4/1 SP BEg BEg 38 L (13%) 10YR 5/2 C/P 10YR 3/3 F/D 10YR 4/6 BA Bg1 Btg1 66 SCL (24%) 10YR 4/2 C/P 10YR 3/3 Evidence of disturbance C/D 10YR 4/6 BA Bg2 Btg2 101 SL (16%) 10YR 4/1 M/P 10YR 5/6 Coarse sand, evidence of disturbance F/P 10YR 3/3 BA 2BC 2Bt 134 SiL (17%) 10YR 5/6 C/D 10YR 3/3 BA 2BCg 2BC 148+ SiL (15%) 10YR 5/1 C/P 5YR 3/4 C/P 10YR 5/6 126 MDC-N-BeW Zone 2 Site MDC-N-BeW Date 8/6/14 Plot Number 1-2 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 200 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 13 7.5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 23 L (10%) 10YR 3/1 5% F 7.5YR 3/4 SP/BA Ag Ag 44 L (8%) 10YR 4/1 40% P 5YR 4/6 BA Btg 70 SCL (23%) 10YR 4/1 45% D 7.5YR 4/6 BA BCg 95 SL (12%) 10YR 6/1 5% D 10YR 5/6 BA CB 115 LS (4%) 2.5Y 5/3 3% D 10YR 5/6 BA CBg 142 LS (4%) 5Y 5/2 5% F 10YR 5/4 BA Cg1 172 S (3%) 5Y 5/1 2% F 2.5Y 5/4 BA Cg2 200+ S (2%) 5Y 5/1 Site MDC-N-BeW Date 8/6/14 Plot Number 4-2 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 196 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 5 5YR 2.5/2 SP A1 A1 22 L (12%) 10YR 2/1 SP AE A2 37 L (10%) 10YR 3/1 5% D 7.5YR 3/4 BA Btg Btg 53 SL (15%) 10YR 5/1 15% P 5YR 3/4 BA BC BC 64 LS (5%) 10YR 5/4 10% D 10YR 5/6 5% D 2.5Y 7/1 BA CBg CBg 87 LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/1 5% D 2.5Y 6/6 BA Cg Cg 103 LS (3%) 2.5Y 6/2 10% F 2.5Y 6/4 BA C C 124 LS (3%) 2.5Y 5/3 30% D 2.5Y 5/4 BA C'g1 C'g1 144 S (3%) 2.5Y 6/2 30% D 2.5Y 5/4 BA C'g2 C'g2 179 S (2%) 5Y 5/1 5% F 2.5Y 5/3 BA C'g3 C'g3 196+ CoS (2%) 5Y 5/1 Site MDC-N-BeW Date 8/27/14 Plot Number 7-2 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 189 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 8 5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 29 SL (10%) 10YR 3/2 SP/BA BE BE 55 S (3%) 2.5Y 6/3 BA Bw Bw 94 LS (6%) 7.5YR 4/6 22% P 2.5Y 6/2 BA BC BC 110 LS (4%) 10YR 4/3 15% D 7.5YR 4/6 BA CBg1 CBg1 143 Gr CS (2%) 2.5Y 5/2 5% D 10YR 4/6 20% gravel BA CBg2 CBg2 189+ SL (7%) 2.5Y 5/2 127 MDC-N-BeW Zone 3 Site MDC-N-BeW Date 8/27/14 Plot Number 1-3 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 198 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 4 5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 23 SL (10%) 10YR 2/2 SP/BA Bw1 Bw1 59 SL (8%) 2.5Y 5/4 BA Bw2 Bw2 83 LS (5%) 2.5Y 5/4 15% P 10YR 3/6 BA CB1 CB1 116 S (2%) 2.5Y 6/3 10% D 10YR 5/6 5% F 2.5Y 6/2 BA CB2 CB2 171 S (3%) 2.5Y 6/3 20% D 10YR 6/6 7% F 2.5Y 6/2 BA CB3 CB3 198+ LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/3 10% P 10YR 4/6 5% F 2.5Y 6/2 Site MDC-N-BeW Date 8/27/13 Plot Number 4-3 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 201 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 4 7.5YR 5/3 SP A A 16 SL (14%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA Bw Bw 66 SL (10%) 2.5Y 5/4 BA BC BC 100 S (3%) 2.5Y 5/3 8% F 2.5Y 4/4 4% F 5Y 6/2 BA CB1 CB1 134 S (3%) 2.5Y 6/3 6% F 2.5Y 4/4 6% F 5Y 6/2 BA CB2 CB2 164 S (4%) 2.5Y 6/3 15% P 7.5YR 5/6 BA CB3 CB3 201+ LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/3 40% P 7.5YR 5/6 Site MDC-N-BeW Date 8/27/14 Plot Number 7-3 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 203 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A1 Oe 4 5YR 3/3 SP A2 A1 21 SL (12%) 10YR 2/2 SP EB A2 39 SL (10%) 10YR 3/4 BA Bw Bw 79 SL (8%) 2.5Y 5/4 3% P 10YR 3/6 BA BC BC 105 S (3%) 2.5Y 5/3 25% P 10YR 4/6 5% D 2.5Y 7/2 BA CB1 CB1 125 S (4%) 2.5Y 6/3 20% P 10YR 5/6 10% D 2.5Y 7/2 BA CB2 CB2 153 LS (5%) 2.5Y 6/3 10% D 2.5Y 6/6 30% D 2.5Y 6/2 BA CB3 CB3 179 LS (8%) 7.5YR 5/8 30% P 2.5Y 6/3 10% P 2.5Y 6/3 BA CB4 CB4 203+ LS (6%) 2.5Y 6/3 5% D 10YR 6/6 20% F 2.5Y 6/2 128 MDQA-R-BsO Zone 2 Site MDQA-R-BsO Date 3/18/15 Transect Number 1-2 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 109 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP ^A A 9 FSL (6%) 10YR 3/2 SP ^AC1 Ap1 19 FSL (7%) 10YR 5/3 10% D 5YR 4/6 SP ^AC2 Ap2 33 FSL (10%) 10YR 5/3 15% D 10YR 5/6 SP/BA Btb Bt 74 CL (30%) 10YR 5/6 25% D 5YR 5/6 20% P 10YR 6/1 Bone dry - aquaclude? BA Btmgb1 Btg1 90 L (24%) 10YR 5/1 10% P 5YR 5/6 Cemented, bone dry - aquaclude? BA Btmgb2 Btg2 109+ SCL (21%) 10YR 6/1 7% D 10YR 6/6 Cemented, bone dry - aquaclude? Site MDQA-R-BsO Date 8/6/14 Transect Number 7-2 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 157 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP ^A A 7 FSL (14%) 7.5YR 3/2 3% F 5YR 3/4 SP ^Cg Btg 22 FSL (12%) 2.5Y 5/2 15% P 5YR 3/4 SP BCb BC 41 LFS (5%) 2.5Y 5/3 22% D 10YR 5/6 BA C1b C1 87 FS (3%) 2.5Y 6/3 3% F 10YR 5/6 BA C2b C2 157+ FS (2%) 2.5Y 5/3 Site MDQA-R-BsO Date 8/6/14 Transect Number 9-2 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 154 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP Oe Oe 6 7.5YR 3/2 SP ABg ABg 17 FSL (12%) 2.5Y 5/2 1% D 10YR 5/6 SP/BA Btg1 BAg 65 FSL (15%) 2.5Y 6/2 40% D 2.5Y 6/4 5% D 10YR 5/6 BA Btg2 Btg 86 FSL (18%) 2.5Y 6/1 40% P 10YR 5/6 3% rounded gravel BA Cg Cg 154+ LFS (4%) 2.5Y 6/1 25% D 10YR 5/6 129 MDQA-R-BsO Zone 3 Site MDQA-R-BsO Date 3/18/15 Transect Number 1-3 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 105 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP Oe Oe 7 MKY PT 10YR 3/3 SP A A 19 FSL (12%) 10YR 3/4 SP AE AE 29 FSL (10%) 10YR 4/4 Platy structure SP/BA Bt1 Bt1 60 FSL (26%) 10YR 5/6 10% F 7.5YR 5/6 BA Bt2 74 FSL (24%) 10YR 5/4 10% D 7.5YR 5/6 15% D 2.5Y 6/2 BA BC1 85 LFS (4%) 2.5Y 5/3 5% D 10YR 5/6 5% F 2.5Y 6/2 BA BC2 105+ FS (3%) 10YR 5/4 10% F 10YR 5/6 20% F 2.5Y 6/3 Site MDQA-R-BsO Date 3/18/15 Transect Number 7-3 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 109 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP ^A A 8 FSL (7%) 10YR 4/3 4% D 7.5YR 4/6 SP ^AC Ap 31 FSL (16%) 10YR 6/3 20% D 7.5YR 4/6 SP/BA Bwb1 Bw1 53 LFS (5%) 10YR 6/6 25% D 7.5YR 5/6 18% D 10YR 6/2 BA Bwb2 Bw2 67 LFS (3%) 10YR 5/4 BA BCb BC 105+ FS (2%) 10YR 5/3 Site MDQA-R-BsO Date 3/18/15 Transect Number 9-3 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 103 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP ^A A 10 FSL (7%) 10YR 4/3 SP ^AC Ap 36 FSL (12%) 10YR 5/3 8% D 10YR 5/6 SP/BA Bwb1 Bw1 56 LFS (4%) 10YR 6/3 10% D 7.5YR 5/6 BA Bwb2 Bw2 75 FS (3%) 10YR 6/3 BA BCb BC 103+ FS (2%) 10YR 5/3 130 MDQA-R-BsY Zone 1 Site MDQA-R-BsY Date 8/26/13 Transect Number 0-1 Describers CAP,NG,JV Observation Method small pit to 35 cm, augered to 171 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP ^A ^Oe 5 10YR 2/2 SP ^Ag1 ^Ag1 20 L (18%) 10YR 4/2 SP ^Ag2 ^Ag2 35 L (20%) 10YR 4/1 10% F 10YR 3/4 BA Bg1 Bg1 53 FSL (13%) 10YR 6/1 15% F 2.5Y 6/4 BA Bg2 Bg2 70 FSL (10%) 10YR 6/1 22% D 10YR 6/6 BA Bg3 Bg3 83 FSL (12%) 10YR 6.5/1 22% D 10YR 6/6 BA BCg BCg 116 FSL (4%) 2.5Y 6.5/1 15% D 10YR 6/6 BA CBg CBg 135 LFS (3%) 2.5Y 6/2 25% D 10YR 5/6 BA Cg Cg 171+ FS (2%) 10YR 6/2 30% D 10YR 4/6 Site XXX Date X/XX/XXXX Transect Number XXX Describers XXX Observation Msemtahlol dp it to XX cm, augered to XXX cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist Site MDQA-R-BsY Date 8/26/13 Transect Number 8-1 Describers CAP,NG,JV Observation Method small pit to 35 cm, augered to 163 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP ^Ag1 ^Ag1 13 SiL (6%) 10YR 4/2 SP ^Ag2 ^Ag2 20 L (18%) 7.5YR 4/1 SP ^ABg ^ABg 35 SCL (23%) 2.5Y 4/4 40% F 10YR 4/6 BA BAg BAg 49 SL (4%) 2.5Y 5/2 15% D 10YR 4/4 BA Bw1 78 SL (8%) 2.5Y 5/3 10% D 10YR 4/4 15% D 2.5Y 6/1 BA Bw2 91 SL (10%) 2.5Y 5/3 25% D 10YR 4/4 10% D 2.5Y 6/1 BA Bg 109 SL (15%) 10YR 6/1 25% P 10YR 5/6 BA BCg 134 SL (5%) 2.5Y 6/2 10% D 2.5Y 5/3 BA CBg 163+ SL (5%) 2.5Y 6/2 131 MDQA-R-BsY Zone 2 Site MDQA-R-BsY Date 7/27/2011 Transect Number 0-2 Describers AMR, MCR Observation Method small pit to 32 cm, augered to 198 cm HS FI almost meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Sandy material above the depleted matrix must have value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less, and, viewed through at 10x or 15x hand lens, at least 70% of the visible soil particles must be masked with organic material Obs Depth Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Texture RMF Other Depth %C Method (cm) Moist SP Oe Oe 13 MK PT 5YR 2.5/2 4.5 4.6415 SP A A 20 S 10YR 2.5/1.5 18.1 0.6781 SP Cg1 Cg1 30 S 2.5Y 4.5/2 3-4% org. rich pockets, 2-10 mm diam., 7.5YR 2.5/3 and 10YR 3/1.5 36.1 0.4752 H2S smell 49.8 0.1682 SP/BA Cg2 Cg2 56 S 2.5Y 4.5/1.5 H2S smell BA Cg3 Cg3 82 S 2.5Y 4.5/1 H2S smell BA 2Ab 2Ab1 99 MK SIL 7.5YR 2.5/2 BA 3Oa 2Oab 109 MUCK 7.5YR 2.5/1 BA 3Cg1 3Cg1 157 S 10YR 4.5/1.5 BA 3Cg2 3Cg2 177 S 2.5Y 3.5/1 BA 4Cg3 3Cg3 198+ COS 2.5Y 3.5/1 Site XXX Date 7/27/2011 Transect Number 6-2 Describers AMR, MCR Observation Method small pit to 32 cm, augered to 198 cm HS FI almost meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Sandy material above the depleted matrix must have value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less, and, viewed through at 10x or 15x hand lens, at least 70% of the visible soil particles must be masked with organic material Obs Depth Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Texture RMF Other Depth %C Method (cm) Moist SP Oe Oe 13 MPT 5YR 2.5/2 surface: ~1 cm pine needles, leaf litter 6.9 2.387 SP A A 24 S 10YR 4.5/1.5 5-10% org. rich pockets around roots, 21.3 0.5675 SP C1 C1 51 S 10YR 5.5/2 5% org. rich pockets around roots, 7.5YR 33.8 0.5147 SP C2 C2 65 S 2.5Y 5.5/2 3% org. rich pockets around roots, 7.5YR 45 0.46855 BA C3 C3 92 S 10YR 5/2 BA Cg Cg 119 S 2.5Y 5/1 H2S smell BA 2Ab1 2Ab1 131 MK SIL 10YR 2/2 BA 3Ab2 2Ab2 136 MK L 10YR 2/1 BA 4Ab3 3Ab 152 LS 10YR 3/1 BA 4ACb 3AC 170 S 2.5Y 3.5/1.5 BA 4Cg 3Cg 196+ S 2.5Y 4.5/1.5 Site XXX Date 7/27/2011 Transect 8-2 Describers AMR, MCR Number Observati small pit to on 32 cm, Method augered to 198 cm HS FI almost meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Sandy material above the depleted matrix must have value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less, and, viewed through at 10x or 15x hand lens, at least 70% of the visible soil particles must be masked with organic material Obs Depth Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Texture RMF Other Depth %C Method (cm) Moist SP Oe Oe 13 MPT 5YR 2.5/2 surface: ~1 cm pine needles, leaf litter 5.4 1.1885 SP A A 24 S 10YR 4.5/1.5 5-10% org. rich pockets around roots, 11.6 0.4541 SP C1 C1 51 S 10YR 5.5/2 5% org. rich pockets around roots, 7.5YR 28.8 0.42555 SP C2 C2 65 S 2.5Y 5.5/2 3% org. rich pockets around roots, 7.5YR 46.4 0.1987 BA C3 C3 92 S 10YR 5/2 BA Cg Cg 119 S 2.5Y 5/1 H2S smell BA 2Ab1 2Ab1 131 MK SIL 10YR 2/2 BA 3Ab2 2Ab2 136 MK L 10YR 2/1 BA 4Ab3 3Ab 152 LS 10YR 3/1 BA 4ACb 3AC 170 S 2.5Y 3.5/1.5 BA 4Cg 3Cg 196+ S 2.5Y 4.5/1.5 132 MDQA-R-BsY Zone 3 Site MDQA-R-BsY Date 7/27/2011 Transect Number 0-3 Describers AMR, MCR Observation Method small pit to 32 cm, augered to 198 cm HS FI almost meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Sandy material above the depleted matrix must have value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less, and, viewed through at 10x or 15x hand lens, at least 70% of the visible soil particles must be masked with organic material Obs Depth Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Texture RMF Other Depth %C Method (cm) Moist SP Oe Oe 13 MK PT 5YR 2.5/2 9.1 1.411 SP A A 20 S 10YR 2.5/1.5 37 0.4315 SP Cg1 Cg1 30 S 2.5Y 4.5/2 3-4% org. rich pockets, 2-10 mm diam., 7.5YR 2.5/3 and 10YR 3/1.5 46.2 0.25975 H2S smell SP/BA Cg2 Cg2 56 S 2.5Y 4.5/1.5 H2S smell BA Cg3 Cg3 82 S 2.5Y 4.5/1 H2S smell BA 2Ab 2Ab1 99 MK SIL 7.5YR 2.5/2 BA 3Oa 2Oab 109 MUCK 7.5YR 2.5/1 BA 3Cg1 3Cg1 157 S 10YR 4.5/1.5 BA 3Cg2 3Cg2 177 S 2.5Y 3.5/1 BA 4Cg3 3Cg3 198+ COS 2.5Y 3.5/1 Site XXX Date 7/27/2011 Transect Number 6-3 Describers AMR, MCR Observation Method small pit to 32 cm, augered to 198 cm HS FI almost meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Sandy material above the depleted matrix must have value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less, and, viewed through at 10x or 15x hand lens, at least 70% of the visible soil particles must be masked with organic material Obs Depth Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Texture RMF Other Depth %C Method (cm) Moist SP Oe Oe 13 MPT 5YR 2.5/2 surface: ~1 cm pine needles, leaf litter 8.4 2.47 SP A A 24 S 10YR 4.5/1.5 5-10% org. rich pockets around roots, 10YR 20.1 0.7186 SP C1 C1 51 S 10YR 5.5/2 5% org. rich pockets around roots, 7.5YR 31.8 0.39075 SP C2 C2 65 S 2.5Y 5.5/2 3% org. rich pockets around roots, 7.5YR 47.2 0.42825 BA C3 C3 92 S 10YR 5/2 BA Cg Cg 119 S 2.5Y 5/1 H2S smell BA 2Ab1 2Ab1 131 MK SIL 10YR 2/2 BA 3Ab2 2Ab2 136 MK L 10YR 2/1 BA 4Ab3 3Ab 152 LS 10YR 3/1 BA 4ACb 3AC 170 S 2.5Y 3.5/1.5 BA 4Cg 3Cg 196+ S 2.5Y 4.5/1.5 Site XXX Date 7/27/2011 Transect Number 8-3 Describers AMR, MCR Observation Method small pit to 32 cm, augered to 198 cm HS FI almost meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Sandy material above the depleted matrix must have value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less, and, viewed through at 10x or 15x hand lens, at least 70% of the visible soil particles must be masked with organic material Obs Depth Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Texture RMF Other Depth %C Method (cm) Moist SP Oe Oe 13 MPT 5YR 2.5/2 surface: ~1 cm pine needles, leaf litter 6.6 2.385 SP A A 24 S 10YR 4.5/1.5 5-10% org. rich pockets around roots, 10YR 23.5 0.5605 SP C1 C1 51 S 10YR 5.5/2 5% org. rich pockets around roots, 7.5YR 4/4 and 10YR 4/3 46 0.16905 SP C2 C2 65 S 2.5Y 5.5/2 3% org. rich pockets around roots, 7.5YR BA C3 C3 92 S 10YR 5/2 BA Cg Cg 119 S 2.5Y 5/1 H2S smell BA 2Ab1 2Ab1 131 MK SIL 10YR 2/2 BA 3Ab2 2Ab2 136 MK L 10YR 2/1 BA 4Ab3 3Ab 152 LS 10YR 3/1 BA 4ACb 3AC 170 S 2.5Y 3.5/1.5 BA 4Cg 3Cg 196+ S 2.5Y 4.5/1.5 133 MDD-R-Ck Zone 1 Site MDD-R-Ck Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 108 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP/BA ^C/A ^C/A 43 LS (6%) 2.5Y 5/3 LS (4%) 5YR 2.5/2 BA Bgb1 BAgb 65 LS (5%) 10YR 6/2 4% D 10YR 6/6 BA Bgb2 Bgb1 93 CoS (3%) 2.5Y 7/1 2% F 10YR 5/6 BA Bgb3 Bgb2 108+ LS (4%) 2.5Y 7/1 Significant dead root matter present Site MDD-R-Ck Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 103 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A ^A 13 SL (6%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA ^Cg ^Cg 49 CL (30%) 10YR 5/1 20% P 7.5YR 4/6 BA Egb1 73 CoSL (10%) 2.5Y 5/1 5% F 10YR 5/6 Significant dead root matter present - potential /A master horizon BA Egb2 91 CoS (2%) 10YR 5/1 10% gravel BA Btgb 103+ C (70%) 2.5Y 7/1 20% P 7.5YR 6/8 Site MDD-R-Ck Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 101 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A ^A 6 MKY SL (6%) 10YR 3/2 SP ^Cg1 ^Ag 16 SL (9%) 2.5Y 6/1 SP/BA ^Cg2 ^Cg1 46 SCL (27%) 2.5Y 5/1 12% D 10YR 5/6 BA ^Cg3 ^Cg2 81 SCL (22%) 2.5Y 5/1 4% F 10YR 6/6 BA BCgb BCgb 101+ CoS (2%) 2.5Y 5/1 1% D 10YR 6/6 134 MDD-R-Ck Zone 2 Site MDD-R-Ck Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 1-2 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 108 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A1 ^A1 6 MKY SL 10YR 3/2 (11%) SP ^A2 ^A2 27 L (10%) 10YR 3/2 SP/BA ^C ^C 51 SL (15%) 2.5Y 5/3 20% P 10YR 6/8 5% F 2.5Y 6/2 BA ^Cg 67 SCL (22%) 2.5Y 6/1 40% P 7.5YR 5/8 BA BCgb 87 S (4%) 2.5Y 7/1 20% P 7.5YR 5/8 BA CBb 108+ CoS (2%) 10YR 4/3 Site MDD-R-Ck Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 4-2 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 108 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A1 ^Oe 4 MKY PT 10YR 2/2 SP ^A2 ^A 21 L 10YR 2/2 2% D 10YR 5/6 SP/BA ^C ^AC 48 S (4%) 10YR 5/3 15% P 5YR 4/6 BA ^Cg1 64 S (3%) 2.5Y 7/1 30% D 10YR 6/6 BA ^Cg2 78 SCL (24%) 2.5Y 6/1 10% D 10YR 6/6 BA Ebgb 87 LS (5%) 2.5Y 5/1 20% P 10YR 6/8 BA Btgb 99 SCL (21%) 2.5Y 6/1 1% D 10YR 6/6 BA BCgb 108+ S (2%) 2.5Y 6/2 Site MDD-R-Ck Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 7-2 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 114 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A ^A 20 L (13%) 10YR 3/1 SP/BA ^C ^C 43 SCL (21%) 10YR 5/4 20% P 10YR 5/6 30% D 10YR 6/2 BA Egb 65 S (3%) 2.5Y 5/1 10% D 2.5Y 6/6 BA Btgb 94 SC (36%) 5Y 6/1 15% D 2.5Y 6/6 BA BCgb 114+ CoS (2%) 2.5Y 6/2 30% F 2.5Y 6/6 135 MDD-R-Ck Zone 3 Site MDD-R-Ck Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 1-3 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 103 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A1 ^A1 14 SL (13%) 10YR 3/1 SP ^A2 ^A2 32 SL (11%) 10YR 3/2 SP/BA ^A/Cg1 ^A/Cg1 51 SL (8%) 10YR 2/1 5% P 10YR 6/6 RELICT REDOX 10YR 6/2 BA ^A/Cg2 67 SL (11%) 10YR 3/2 10YR 6/2 BA ^A' 80 L (14%) 10YR 3/2 BA Ab 90 L (12%) 7.5YR 3/3 BA Bgb 103+ SL (14%) 10YR 5/2 10% P 7.5YR 5/6 Site MDD-R-Ck Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 4-3 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 106 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 4 MKY PT 10YR 2/2 SP A A 17 L (13%) 10YR 2/2 SP Ap Ap 33 SL (11%) 10YR 2/2 3% D 7.5YR 4/6 SP/BA Eg Eg 60 SL (9%) 2.5Y 6/1.5 BA Btg1 88 SCL (22%) 2.5Y 6/1 15% F 10YR 6/6 BA Btg2 106+ SL (12%) 2.5Y 6/1 Site MDD-R-Ck Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 7-3 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 108 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A/C ^A/C 16 SL (10%) 10YR 2/1 10YR 5/4 SP ^Cg/A ^Cg/A 36 SL (15%) 10YR 4/3 6% P 10YR 6/6 Platy structure 2.5Y 6/1 BA Ab Ab 74 L (12%) 10YR 2/1 BA Btgb 90 SL (17%) 2.5Y 5/1 10% P 10YR 4/6 BA BCgb 108+ S (2%) 2.5Y 6/1 3% P 10YR 6/8 136 MDT-R-Fr Zone 1 Site MDT-R-Fr Date 9/25/13 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 121 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^Ag Oa 11 2.5Y 4/2 SP ^Cg1 A 18 2.5Y 5/1 SP/BA ^Cg2 55 SiL (18%) 2.5Y 6/1 35% P Conc decrease to 5% by 47 cm BA 66 LS (4%) 5Y 6/1 BA 80 SiL (25%) 5Y 6/1 BA 98 SL (14%) 2.5Y 4/1 BA 121 S (2%) 2.5Y 7/1 Site MDT-R-Fr Date 9/25/13 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 168 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A ^Oa 6 2.5Y 3/2 SP ^Ag ^Ag 14 2.5Y 5/1 15% D SP ^Cg1 ^Btg 38 SiCL (28%) 2.5Y 5/1 SP/BA ^Cg2 ^Bt 56 SCL (32%) 10YR 4/6 10% P BA BE 85 LS (4%) 2.5Y 5/4 Intermixing BA Btg1 110 SL (11%) 5Y 6/1 25% D BA Btg2 154 SL (13%) 5Y 6/1 10% D BA CBg 168+ LS (3%) 5Y 6/1 15% P Site MDT-R-Fr Date 9/25/13 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 150 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^Ag Oa 15 2.5Y 4/2 SP ^Cg1 A 21 2.5Y 5/1 15% D SP/BA ^Cg2 49 5Y 6/1 30% P BA 62 SL (12%) 2.5Y 5/4 Intermixed BA 82 LS (5%) 2.5Y 5/4 Intermixed BA 92 SL (14%) 5Y 6/1 Intermixed BA 150+ S (2%) 2.5Y 6/2 20% F 137 MDT-R-Fr Zone 2 Site MDT-R-Fr Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 1-2 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 105 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^Ag ^Oa 7 MK 10YR 4/2 SP ^ACg ^Ag 19 SiL (12%) 10YR 5/2 25% P 7.5YR 5/8 SP ^Cg1 ^Cg1 33 C (45%) 2.5Y 6/1 30% P 7.5YR 5/8 SP/BA ^Cg2 ^Cg2 60 C (50%) 2.5Y 6/1 15% P 10YR 5/8 BA ^Cg3 ^Cg3 72 SiCL (32%) N7 10%P 10YR 4/6 8% D 5GY 5/1 BA Cb Cb 94 VGr LS (4%) 10YR 6/3 8% P 10YR 5/6 50% rounded gravel BA Cgb Cgb 105+ S (2%) 10YR 6/2 Site MDT-R-Fr Date 9/25/13 Plot Number 4-2 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 168 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist Site MDT-R-Fr Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 7-2 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 107 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A ^Oa 6 MK 10YR 5/3 SP ^ACg ^Ag1 35 SiL (13%) 2.5Y 5/1 35% P 7.5YR 5/6 SP/BA ^Cg ^Ag2 50 SiL (13%) 2.5Y 6/1 40% P 7.5YR 5/6 BA Btgb1 ^Cg1 73 SiCL (31%) 2.5Y 6/1 20% P 7.5YR 5/8 15% F 2.5Y 7/1 BA Btgb2 ^Cg2 91 SiCL (34%) 5Y 6/1 20% P 7.5YR 6/8 BA Btgb3 ^Cg3 107+ SiCL (32%) 5Y 6/1 15% P 10YR 6/6 138 MDT-R-Fr Zone 3 Site MDT-R-Fr Date 3/19/15 Plot Number 1-3 Describers CAP,JF,SM Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 100 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A A 15 SiL (16%) 10YR 4/3 2% F 10YR 5/6 SP BE Ap 38 SiL (13%) 10YR 5/3 10% D 7.5YR 5/8 6% D 10YR 6/1 BA Bt Bt 56 SiCL (32%) 2.5Y 5/4 30% P 10YR 6/8 15% D 10YR 6/1 BA Btg1 85 SiL (22%) 2.5Y 6/1 25% P 10YR 6/8 BA Btg2 100+ L (18%) 2.5Y 6/1 20% P 7.5YR 6/8 Site MDT-R-Fr Date 9/25/13 Plot Number 4-3 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 168 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist Site MDT-R-Fr Date 9/25/13 Plot Number 7-3 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 150 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist 139 MDC-N-JL Zone 1 Site MDC-N-JL Date 10/9/13 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,SE Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 143 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A1 Oe 11 10YR 2/1 SP A2 27 SiL (14%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA Eg 48 L (12%) 2.5Y 5/1 8% D BA 66 SCL (32%) 2.5Y 4/1 15% P BA 86 SC (44%) 2.5Y 5/1 40% P BA 109 SCL (24%) 5Y 6/1 15% D BA 143+ SL (10%) 5Y 6/1 30% D 2% gravel, inc in sand size Site MDC-N-JL Date 10/9/13 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,SE Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 160 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 16 5YR 2.5/2 SP A1 39 SL (12%) 10YR 2/1 BA A2 55 SL (13%) 10YR 3/1 BA 83 SL (6%) 2.5Y 5/1 25% P 3% gravel BA 105 S (2%) 2.5Y 6/2 10% P BA 126 LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/2 40% P 2% gravel BA 144 S (2%) 2.5Y 6/3 30% F 5% gravel BA 160+ Gr LCoS (3%) 2.5Y 6/2 15% F 15% gravel Site MDC-N-JL Date 10/9/13 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,SE Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 172 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 20 10YR 2/1 SP/BA A 47 SL (10%) 10YR 3/1 BA 67 SL (13%) 10YR 3/1 BA 94 SL (16%) 2.5Y 4/1 BA 113 SCL (25%) 10YR 4/1 25% P BA 138 SCL (22%) 2.5Y 6/1 30% P BA 172+ LS (6%) 2.5Y 6/1 10% D 140 MDC-N-JL Zone 2 Site MDC-N-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 1-2 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 106 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A1 Oa 13 MK 10YR 2/2 SP A2 A1 24 MKY SL (5%) 10YR 2/1 SP/BA A3 A2 48 SL (5%) 10YR 3/1 BA Bg 87 SL (6%) 2.5Y 6/2 2% subrounded gravels BA BCg 106+ LCoS (4%) 2.5Y 5/2 8% subrounded gravels Site MDC-N-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 4-2 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 96 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A1 Oa 14 MK 5YR 2.5/1 SP/BA A2 A 44 MKY LS (3%) 5YR 2.5/1 BA Bhsm 76 LS (3%) 5YR 2.5/2 Ortstein city! BA Bhs 96+ LS (3%) 5YR 2.5/2 Site MDC-N-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 7-2 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 101 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 11 MKY PT 5YR 2.5/2 SP A1 Oa 23 PT 10YR 2/1 SP/BA A2 A 56 MKY SL (4%) 10YR 2/1 BA Bg1 81 S (3%) 10YR 5/2 BA Bg2 101+ CoS (2%) 10YR 6/1 141 MDC-N-JL Zone 3 Site MDC-N-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 1-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 111 cm HS FI Obs Texture Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method (% Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 4 MKY PT 5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 15 SL (10%) 10YR 2/2 SP AB AB 27 SL (7%) 10YR 3/3 SP/BA Bw Bw 76 LS (5%) 2.5Y 5/4 3% F 10YR 5/6 BA BC1 96 S (4%) 2.5Y 6/3 20% P 10YR 4/6 BA BC2 111+ S (2%) 2.5Y 6/3 35% P 7.5YR 5/6 10% D 10YR 6/2 Site MDC-N-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 4-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 106 cm HS FI Obs Texture Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method (% Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 5 MKY PT 5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 38 SL (6%) 7.5YR 2.5/1 BA Bw1 Bw1 53 SL (5%) 10YR 4/4 10% P 5YR 3/3 BA Bw2 96 LS (3%) 10YR 4/4 15% P 5YR 3/4 BA BC 106+ S (2%) 5YR 3/4 Site MDC-N-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 7-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 108 cm HS FI Obs Texture Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method (% Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 5 MKY PT 2.5YR 2.5/2 SP A A 9 SL (6%) 5YR 2.5/1 SP BE AB 31 SL (5%) 10YR 4/4 SP/BA Bt1 65 SL (10%) 2.5Y 5/4 2% D 7.5YR 5/6 BA Bt2 80 SL (12%) 2.5Y 5/4 30% P 7.5YR 5/6 BA Btg 108+ SL (9%) 2.5Y 6/1 20% P 7.5YR 5/6 142 MDC-R-JL Zone 1 Site MDC-R-JL Date 10/9/13 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,SE Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, bucket augur to 172 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A 7 SiL (15%) 2.5Y 3/1 SP ^Ag 31 SiL (17%) 2.5Y 4/1 SP/BA ^A' 52 SiL (12%) 2.5Y 3/1 5% D BA 68 SiCL (37%) 2.5Y 4/1 40% P BA 86 C (48%) 2.5Y 5/1 30% P highly disturbed BA 102 C (54%) 2.5Y 6/1 30% P BA 128 C (68%) 5Y 5/1 15% P BA 172+ SiCL (33%) 2.5Y 5/1 18% P 2% gravel Site MDC-R-JL Date 10/9/13 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,SE Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, bucket augur to 179 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A1 21 SiL (17%) 2.5Y 2.5/1 SP/BA ^A2 54 SiL (22%) 2.5Y 3/1 BA ^A3 69 SiCL (28%) 2.5Y 3/1 64-78 cm intermixed BA 96 SiCL (34%) 5Y 6/1 40% P BA 132 SiCL (35%) 5Y 6/1 35% P BA 179+ C (45%) 2.5Y 4/1 3% gravel Site MDC-R-JL Date 9/13/13 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, bucket augur to 184 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A1 Oe 5 10YR 2/2 SP ^A2 A1 34 SiL (13%) 2.5Y 2.5/1 SP/BA ^A3 A2 48 SiL (15%) 2.5Y 2.5/1 BA BAg ABg 62 SiL (14%) 2.5Y 4/1 BA Btg1 Btg1 100 SiCL (28%) 5Y 5/1 45% P 10YR 5/6 2% P 10YR 3/6 BA Btg2 Btg2 127 SiL (24%) 5Y 6/1 5% P 7.5YR 4/6 10% D 10YR 6/6 BA BCg BCg 184+ SiL (12%) 5Y 6/1 10% D 10YR 6/6 143 MDC-R-JL Zone 2 Site MDC-R-JL Date 8/15/13 Plot Number 1-2 Describers CAP,MG Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 151 cm HS FI Obs Texture Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method (% Clay) Moist SP Oi Oi 8 SP Ap1 Ap1 20 SiL (12%) 10YR 2/1 BA Ap2 Ap2 40 SiL (14%) 10YR 3/1 BA BEg BEg 52 SiL (17%) 10YR 4/2 F/P 10YR 4/6 BA Bg1 Btg1 75 SiL (24%) 10YR 6/1 C/P 10YR 5/6 BA Bg2 Btg2 98 SiL (23%) 2.5Y 6/1 C/P 10YR 5/6 M/P 10YR 6/6 BA Cg1 Cg1 118 LS (3%) 2.5Y 6.5/1 C/P 10YR 6/6 3% subangular gravel BA Cg2 Cg2 127 L (23%) 2.5Y 5/1 F/P 10YR 6/6 BA Cg3 Cg3 138 LS (5%) 2.5Y 6/1 F/P 10YR 6/6 BA Cg4 Cg4 151+ SCL (21%) 2.5Y 7/1 5% subangular gravel Site MDC-R-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 4-2 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 106 cm HS FI Obs Texture Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method (% Clay) Moist SP ^A1 ^A1 12 SL (11%) 2.5Y 2.5/1 SP ^A2 ^A2 41 SL (12%) 2.5Y 2.5/1 BA Agb ^Cg 67 L (20%) 10YR 4/1 1% D 7.5YR 4/6 BA Btgb1 88 SiL (26%) 10YR 4/1 10% P 5YR 4/6 BA Btgb2 106 CL (28%) 10YR 6/1 20% P 7.5YR 6/6 Site MDC-R-JL Date 8/15/13 Plot Number 7-2 Describers CAP,MG Observation Method small pit to 44 cm, augered to 134 cm HS FI Obs Texture Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method (% Clay) Moist SP ^A1 Ap1 24 SiL (18%) 10YR 2/1 2 SBk, Fr SP ^A2 Ap2 44 SiL (16%) 10YR 2/1 C/F 7.5YR 3/4 2 SBk, Fi, 2% subangular gravel BA Btgb1 Btg1 68 CL (30%) 7.5YR 4/1 F/D 10YR 5/6 2% angular gravel BA Btgb2 Btg2 94 CL (28%) 10YR 5/1 C/P 5YR 3/4 C/F 10YR 7/1 M/P 7.5YR 4/4 C/P 10YR 6/4 BA BCgb BC 121 SCL (23%) 10YR 6/1 C/P 5YR 4/6 C/D 10YR6/4 BA CBgb CB 134+ SCL (21%) 10YR 6/1 C/P 10YR 5/6 144 MDC-R-JL Zone 3 Site MDC-R-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 1-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 100 cm HS FI Obs Texture Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method (% Clay) Moist SP ^A ^A1 4 LS (4%) 5YR 3/1 SP ^Ag ^A2 17 LS (2%) 10YR 4/2 SP ^C ^C S (2%) 10YR 5/3 8% D 10YR 5/6 10% P 10YR 7/1 34 SP/BA ^Cg/A ^Cg/A 56 S (3%) 10YR 5/2 9% P 5YR 4/6 10% D 10YR 2.5Y 4/1 6/1 7.5YR 2.5/1 BA Ab 73 SL (12%) 10YR 2/1 BA AEb 86 SL (9%) 10YR 3/1 BA Bwb 100+ S (3%) 2.5Y 5/1 Site MDC-R-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 4-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 106 cm HS FI Obs Texture Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method (% Clay) Moist SP A1 A1 10 SL (6%) 10YR 3/2 SP A2 A2 24 SL (6%) 10YR 3/2 SP/BA EB EB 51 SL (6%) 2.5Y 6/4 18% F 10YR 5/6 BA Bw1 68 SL (7%) 2.5Y 5/4 40% P 2.5YR 4/6 BA Bw2 85 SL (5%) 2.5Y 6/4 21% P 7.5YR 5/6 13% D 2.5Y 6/2 BA BC 106+ LS (3%) 2.5Y 6/3 30% D 2.5Y 7/2 Site MDC-R-JL Date 3/16/15 Plot Number 7-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 104 cm HS FI Obs Texture Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method (% Clay) Moist SP A1 A1 7 SL (12%) 7.5YR 3/1 SP A2 A2 20 SL (8%) 7.5YR 3/1 3% rounded gravel SP AE AE 31 SL (9%) 10YR 3/2 8% D 10YR 5/6 20% F 10YR 5/3 SP/BA EB 48 LS (5%) 2.5Y 5/4 1% P 7.5YR 6/6 BA Bw1 63 SL (6%) 2.5Y 5/4 12% P 7.5YR 5/8 BA Bw2 89 LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/4 20% P 7.5YR 5/6 20% P 10YR 7/1 BA BC 104+ S (4%) 2.5Y 6/4 10% P 7.5YR 5/6 30% D 10YR 7/1 145 DEK-R-Jr Zone 1 Site DEK-R-Jr Date 9/24/13 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 192 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A ^Oa 3 10YR 3/2 SP ^Ap ^Ap 17 10YR 3/1 SP ^Bg1 ^Bg1 38 SL (19%) 2.5Y 6/1 SP/BA ^Bg2 ^Bg2 74 SL (6%) 2.5Y 7/2 20% D BA ^Bg3 92 SL (16%) 2.5Y 6/2 BA ^Bg4 125 SL (15%) 2.5Y 6/2 30% P BA ^Bg5 153 SL (10%) 2.5Y 7/2 BA BC1 171 LS (3%) 2.5Y 6/3 BA BC2 192+ CoS (2%) 2.5Y 7/2 Site DEK-R-Jr Date 9/24/13 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 196 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A ^Oa 5 10YR 3/2 SP ^Ap ^A 19 10YR 3/1 SP ^Bg1 ^Bg1 33 SL (14%) 2.5Y 5/1 SP/BA ^Bg2 ^Bg2 45 SL (12%) 2.5Y 5/1 30% P BA ^Bg3 58 SL (18%) 2.5Y 5/1 20% D BA ^Bg4 83 SL (16%) 2.5Y 5/1 15% P BA ^Cg 100 C (45%) 5Y 6/1 25% sand BA Bg5 120 SCL (22%) 2.5Y 4/1 10% D BA Bg6 148 SL (19%) 2.5Y 7/2 5% F BA BC 172 LCoS (4%) 2.5Y 7/2 30% P BA CB 196+ FSL (10%) 2.5Y 7/2 5% P Site DEK-R-Jr Date 9/24/13 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 189 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A A 4 2.5Y 3/2 SP ^Ag Ap 25 2.5Y 4/1 15% D SP ^Bg1 ^Bg1 37 LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/2 35% F SP/BA ^Bg2 ^Bg2 49 SL (8%) 2.5Y 6/1 40% P BA ^Bg3 66 LS (3%) 2.5Y 6/1 20% P BA ^Bg4 77 SCL (22%) 2.5Y 5.5/1 5% F BA ^Bg5 91 SL (10%) 2.5Y 5.5/1.5 BA ^Bg6 118 SL (14%) 2.5Y 6/1 20% P BA ^Bg7 130 SL (19%) 2.5Y 6.5/1 BA BC1 154 LCoS (5%) 2.5Y 6/2 BA BC2 176 LS (4%) 2.5Y 6/2 15% F BA BC3 189+ LCoS (3%) 2.5Y 5/3 146 DEK-R-Jr Zone 2 Site DEK-R-Jr Date 3/18/15 Plot Number 1-2 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 104 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^Ag Ag1 9 L (7%) 2.5Y 5/1 SP ^ACg Ag2 23 L (11%) 2.5Y 4/1 3% D 10YR 5/6 REDOX IS RELICT SP/BA ^Cg Ag3 44 L (12%) 2.5Y 5.5/1 15% D 10YR 5/6 BA Bgb1 Bg1 67 LS (6%) 2.5Y 6/1 20% P 10YR 4/6 BA Bgb2 Bg2 89 LS (4%) 2.5Y 7/1 25% P 10YR 5/6 BA Bgb3 Bg3 104+ LS (4%) 2.5Y 7/1 30% D 10YR 6/6 Site DEK-R-Jr Date 3/18/15 Plot Number 4-2 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 104 cm HS FI Meets A11 - Depleted Below Dark Surface Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^A1 ^A1 4 MKY SL (7%) 10YR 3/1 SP ^A2 ^A2 30 L (14%) 10YR 3/2 2% D 10YR 5/6 3% D 10YR 6/2 RELICT REDOX SP/BA ^Cg ^Cg 48 SiL (19%) 10YR 5/1 20% P 7.5YR 5/6 BA Egb Egb 57 S (2%) 10YR 6/1 BA Btgb Btgb1 78 SCL (22%) 10YR 5/1 15% P 10YR 5/6 20% F 2.5Y 6/3 BA Btmgb Btgb2 94 SCL (25%) 2.5Y 7/2 5% D 10YR 5/6 Cemented! BA BCg BCg 104+ LS (5%) 10YR 5/1 Site DEK-R-Jr Date 3/18/15 Plot Number 7-2 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 111 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^Ag Ag1 14 L (8%) 2.5Y 5/1 SP ^ACg Ag2 28 L (12%) 2.5Y 4/1 SP/BA ^Cg Ag3 50 L (12%) 2.5Y 5/1 3% F 10YR 6/6 BA Bgb1 Bg1 70 LS (5%) 2.5Y 6/1 15% D 10YR 5/6 BA Bgb2 Bg2 86 LS (3%) 5Y 7/1 30% P 10YR 5/8 BA Bgb3 Bg3 111+ SL (6%) 5Y 7/1 5% D 10YR 6/6 147 DEK-R-Jr Zone 3 Site DEK-R-Jr Date 3/18/15 Plot Number 1-3 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 104 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP ^Ag ^Ag1 11 L (10%) 10YR 4/1 SP/BA ^A ^Ag2 59 L (15%) 10YR 3.5/1 BA ^AC ^Ag3 73 L (12%) 10YR 3.5/1.5 BA ^Cg1 ^BCg 87 L (7%) 10YR 4/1 BA ^Cg2 ^CBg 93 SL (7%) 10YR 6/1 BA ^Cg3 ^Cg 104+ SCL (21%) 10YR 6/1 25% P 7.5YR 6/6 Limiting clay layer Site DEK-R-Jr Date 3/18/15 Plot Number 4-3 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 113 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP ^A1 ^A1 8 L (10%) 10YR 3/1 SP/BA ^A2 ^A2 85 L (14%) 10YR 3/1 5% D 10YR 5/6 10% D 10YR 5/6 REDOX IS RELICT, Layer is intermixed with darker A material, large ant colony seems to prefer this material, potential krotovina BA Ab Ab 113+ MKY L (6%) 10YR 3/1 Site DEK-R-Jr Date 3/18/15 Plot Number 7-3 Describers CAP,CP,BW Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 121 cm HS FI Obs Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) Texture (% Clay) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Moist SP ^Ag ^A1 11 L (9%) 10YR 4/2 SP ^A ^A2 35 L (7%) 10YR 3/2 SP/BA ^ACg ^Bw1 66 L (16%) 10YR 4/1 10% D 10YR 6/6 5% F 10YR 6/2 ALL REDOX IS RELICT BA ^Cg2 ^Bw2 100 L (18%) 10YR 4/1 2% D 10YR 6/6 3% F 10YR 6/2 ALL REDOX IS RELICT BA ^Cg3 ^Bg 112 L (24%) 2.5Y 5/2 20% P 7.5YR 5/6 ALL REDOX IS RELICT BA Ab Ab 121+ MKY L (10%) 10YR 4/2 148 MDQA-R-Ss Zone 1 Site MDQA-R-Ss Date 9/9/13 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 30 cm, augered to 197 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 11 10YR 2/2 SP Ag Ag 30 SiL (14%) 10YR 5/1 8% P 5YR 5/8 BA Btg1 Btg1 68 SiL (25%) 2.5Y 5/1 22% P 7.5YR 6/6 BA Btg2 103 SiL (26%) 5Y 6/1 40% P 10YR 5/6 BA Btg3 119 SiL (16%) 5Y 6/1 35% P 7.5YR 5/6 BA 2Btg4 131 SCL (23%) 10YR 5/1 20% P 10YR 6/6 BA 2Btg5 159 L (26%) 2.5Y 6/1 25% P 2.5Y 5/6 BA 2BCg 197+ S (2%) 2.5Y 5/2 Site MDQA-R-Ss Date 9/9/13 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 30 cm, augered to 190 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 5 10YR 2/2 SP Ag1 Ag1 20 SiL (17%) 10YR 5/2 1% P 5YR 5/8 SP/BA Ag2 Ag2 38 SiL (20%) 10YR 5/1 1% D 10YR 5/6 BA BAg BAg 56 SiL (25%) 10YR 4/1 30% P 7.5YR 6/6 BA Btg1 106 SiCL (32%) 2.5Y 6/1 40% P 10YR 5/6 BA Btg2 152 SiL (26%) 2.5Y 6/1 35% P 7.5YR 4/6 BA BCg 190+ SiL (13%) 2.5Y 6/2 20% P 7.5YR 6/6 Site MDQA-R-Ss Date 9/9/13 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 30 cm, augered to 203 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP Oe Oe 4 2.5Y 3/2 SP Ag Ag 15 SiL (12%) 2.5Y 5/1 1% P 7.5YR 6/6 SP/BA Bg1 Bg1 35 SiL (24%) 2.5Y 6/1 15% P 10YR 5/6 BA Bg2 Bg2 57 SiCL (30%) 2.5Y 5/1 25% P 7.5YR 6/6 BA Bg3 141 SiL (25%) 2.5Y 6/1 35% P 7.5YR 6/6 BA 2BCg1 159 SL (10%) 10YR 6/1 40% P 10YR 5/6 BA 2BCg2 176 LS (5%) 10YR 6/2 BA 2CBg 191 LS (3%) 7.5YR 5/2 BA 2C 203+ S (2%) 10YR 5/6 45% P 2.5Y 6/2 149 MDQA-R-Ss Zone 2 Site MDQA-R-Ss Date 3/17/15 Plot Number 1-2 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 110 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^Ag1 ^Ag1 8 SiL (12%) 10YR 4/2 2% F 10YR 4/6 SP ^Ag2 ^Ag2 26 SiL 14%) 10YR 4/2 3% F 10YR 4/6 SP ^ACg1 ^Ag3 41 SiL (15%) 10YR 5/2 3% F 10YR 4/6 BA ^Cg2 ^Bg 62 SiL (10%) 10YR 4/1 3% D 10YR 4/6 BA Bgb1 Btgb1 90 SiL (24%) 10YR 5/1 20% P 7.5YR 5/6 BA Bgb2 Btgb2 110+ SiL (18%) 10YR 6/1 15% P 7.5YR 5/6 Site MDQA-R-Ss Date 3/17/15 Plot Number 4-2 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 106 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^Ag1 ^Ag1 11 SiL (10%) 10YR 4/2 SP ^Ag2 ^Ag2 40 SiL (16%) 10YR 4/2 BA ^ACg1 ^Bg1 62 SiL (22%) 10YR 5/1 15% D 7.5YR 5/6 BA ^ACg2 ^Bg2 73 SiL (25%) 10YR 6/1 20% D 10YR 6/6 BA BCgb1 BCg1 94 SiL (14%) 2.5Y 6/1 10% D 10YR 6/6 Bone dry - aquaclude? BA BCgb2 BCg2 106+ L (14%) 2.5Y 6/1 15% D 7.5YR 5/6 Bone dry - aquaclude? Site MDQA-R-Ss Date 3/17/15 Plot Number 7-2 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 110 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^Ag1 ^Ag1 12 SiL (6%) 10YR 4/2 SP ^Ag2 ^Ag2 28 SiL (18%) 10YR 4/2 8% D 7.5YR 5/6 SP/BA ^ACg ^Bg1 45 SiL (16%) 10YR 5/2 10% D 7.5YR 5/6 BA Agb ^Bg2 70 SiL (12%) 2.5Y 5/1 20% P 7.5YR 5/6 BA Bgb Btgb 97 SiCL (30%) 2.5Y 6/1 10% P 7.5Y 6/8 BA BCgb BCgb 110+ SiL (16%) 2.5Y 6/1 30% P 7.5YR 5/6 150 MDQA-R-Ss Zone 3 Site MDQA-R-Ss Date 3/17/15 Plot Number 1-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 106 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A1 A 4 L (15%) 10YR 4/3 SP BA BA 18 L (23%) 10YR 5/3 SP Bt1 Bt1 33 L (26%) 10YR 5/3 10% F 10YR 5/6 SP/BA Bt2 Bt2 56 L (23%) 10YR 5/3 20% D 7.5YR 6/6 8% D 10YR 6/3 BA Bt3 91 SCL (21%) 10YR 5/3 30% D 7.5YR 5/6 15% D 10YR 7/2 BA CB 106+ S (4%) 7.5YR 5/6 Site MDQA-R-Ss Date 3/17/15 Plot Number 4-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 102 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A1 A1 15 L (13%) 10YR 5/4 SP A2 A2 39 L (25%) 10YR 5/4 4% F 10YR 5/6 BA Bt1 Bt1 54 L (20%) 10YR 5/4 8% D 7.5YR 4/6 BA Bt2 77 L (16%) 10YR 5/4 15% F 7.5YR 6/6 10% D 10YR 6/2 BA BC1 94 L (10%) 2.5Y 6/3 20% D 7.5YR 4/6 5% F 2.5Y 6/2 BA BC2 102+ L (12%) 2.5Y 6/3 10% D 7.5YR 4/6 3% F 2.5Y 6/2 Site MDQA-R-Ss Date 3/17/15 Plot Number 7-3 Describers CAP,MG,CS Observation Method small pit to 40 cm, augered to 106 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A1 A1 7 SL (6%) 10YR 5/4 SP A2 A2 22 SL (10%) 10YR 4/4 SP/BA Bt1 Bt1 50 L (18%) 7.5YR 5/6 5% F 7.5YR 5/6 BA Bt2 70 SiL (20%) 10YR 5/4 10% D 7.5YR 5/6 10% P 10YR 6/2 BA Bt3 94 SiL (19%) 10YR 5/4 15% D 7.5YR 5/6 15% P 10YR 6/2 BA Btg 106+ SiL (17%) 10YR 6/2 20% P 7.5YR 6/6 151 MDQA-R-Ws Zone 1 Site MDQA-R-Ws Date 9/9/13 Plot Number 1-1 Describers CAP,JV Observation Method small pit to 30 cm, augered to 193 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP ^Oe ^Oe 5 10YR 2/2 SP/BA ^A ^A 38 L (15%) 10YR 4/3 3% D 7.5YR 5/6 BA ^Bg1 ^Bg1 71 L (25%) 10YR 5/1 25% P 7.5YR 4/6 10% D 2.5Y 6/1 BA ^Bg2 90 L (22%) 2.5Y 6/1 30% P 10YR 5/6 4% gravel BA ^BCg 127 LS (3%) 10YR 5.5/1 40% P 10YR 6/6 5% gravel BA Btg 138 SCL (24%) 2.5Y 4/1 25% P 7.5YR 4/6 BA Cg1 177 CoS (2%) 10YR 6/1 12% gravel BA Cg2 193+ CoS (3%) 2.5Y 6/2 8% D 10YR 5/6 Site MDQA-R-Ws Date 8/19/13 Plot Number 4-1 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 31 cm, augered to 191 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A Oe 5 SiL (8%) 2.5Y 2.5/1 C/D N2 SP Ag1 Ag1 15 SiL (6%) 10YR 5/2 1 SBk SP Ag2 Ag2 31 SiL (9%) 10YR 5/2 C/D N2 M/P 2 SBk 7.5 YR 3/4 BA Btg1 Btg1 51 CL (36%) 10YR 6/1 C/P 10YR 4/6 BA Btg2 66 L (22%) 2.5Y 6/1 M/P 10YR 4/6 BA BCg 92 SL (14%) 10YR 6/1 M/P 10YR 4/6 BA BC 109 SL (10%) 7.5YR 4/6 M/P 10YR 6/2 BA Cg1 118 SiL (12%) 2.5Y 7/1 C/D 10YR 5/6 BA Cg2 126 SL (4%) 2.5Y 5/2 F/P 10YR 5/6 BA C 135 SL (14%) 7.5YR 4/6 M/P 2.5Y 6/2 BA C'g1 146 L (13%) 2.5YR 6/1 C/P 7.5YR 4/6 BA C'g2 173 SiL (18%) 2.5Y 6/1 F/D 10YR 4/6 BA 2Cg 191+ LS (2%) 7.5YR 6/1 20% fluvial gravel Site MDQA-R-Ws Date 8/19/13 Plot Number 7-1 Describers CAP,NG Observation Method small pit to 36 cm, augered to 154 cm HS FI Obs Texture (% Matrix Color Horizon Field Horizon Depth (cm) RMF - Conc RMF - Dep Other Method Clay) Moist SP A Oe 4 2.5Y 3/2 SP Ag Ag1 18 SiL (12%) 2.5Y 5/2 C/D 7.5YR 3/4 10% fluvial gravel SP BAg Ag2 36 SiL (13%) 2.5Y 5/2 M/P 10YR 6/6 BA Btg1 Btg1 56 CL (30%) 2.5Y 6/1 M/P 10YR 4/6 10% fluvial gravel BA Btg2 69 CL (32%) 2.5Y 5/1 M/P 10YR 4/6 BA BCg 88 SCL (30%) 2.5Y 5/1 M/P 10YR 4/6 C/F 2.5Y 7/1 BA CB 117 SiL (25%) 2.5Y 5/3 C/P 7.5YR 4/6 C/D 2.5Y 6/1 BA Cg1 130 SL (15%) 2.5Y 6/2 C/D 10YR 6/6 F/P 5YR 3/4 BA Cg2 142 SL (17%) 2.5Y 6/2 C/P 7.5YR 5/8 20% fluvial gravel BA Cg3 154 SCL (21%) 2.5Y 7/1 C/P 10YR 6/8 25% fluvial gravel 152 Bibliography Ballantine, K. & Schneider, R. 2009. Fifty-five years of soil development in restored freshwater depressional wetlands. Ecological Applications, 19, 1467-1480. Bishel-Machung, L., Brooks, R. P., Yates, S. S. & Hoover, K. L. 1996. Soil properties of reference wetlands and wetland creation projects in Pennsylvania. Wetlands, 16, 532-541. Bourn, W. S. & Cottam, C. 1951. Some biological effects of ditching tidewater marshes. In., US Fish and Wildlife Service. Brady, N. C. & Weil, R. R. 2008. The nature and properties of soils, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. Bridgham, S. D., Megonigal, J. P., Keller, J. K., Bliss, N. B. & Trettin, C. 2006. The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands, 26, 889-916. Bridgham, S. D. & Richardson, C. J. 1993. Hydrology and nutrient gradients in North Carolina peatlands. Wetlands, 13, 207-218. Brinson, M. M. & Eckles, S. D. 2011. US Department of Agriculture conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services: a synthesis. Ecological Applications, 21, S116-S127. Bruland, G. L., Hanchey, M. F. & Richardson, C. J. 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. Bunn, S. E. & Arthington, A. H. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental management, 30, 492-507. Castenson, K. L. & Rabenhorst, M. C. 2006. Indicator of reduction in soil (IRIS): Evaluation of a new approach for assessing reduced conditions in soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70, 1222-1226. Collins, M. E. & Kuehl, R. J. 2001. Organic matter accumulation and organic soils. In: Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classificaion., CRC Press, Bocca Raton, FL, pp. 137-162. Compton, J. E. & Boone, R. D. 2000. Long-term impacts of agriculture on soil carbon and nitrogen in New England forests. Ecology, 81, 2314-2330. Corps & EPA 1990. Memorandum of Agreement Between The Department of the Army and The Environmental Protection Agency: The Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In., Washington, DC. Craft, C., Reader, J., Sacco, J. N. & Broome, S. W. 1999. Twenty-five years of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecological Applications, 9, 1405-1419. Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States, 1780's to 1980's. Report to the Congress. In., National Wetlands Inventory, St. Petersburg, FL (USA). Dahl, T. E., Johnson, C. E. & Frayer, W. 1991. Wetlands, status and trends in the conterminous United States mid-1970's to mid-1980's. In., US Fish and Wildlife Service. 153 De Steven, D. & Lowrance, R. 2011. Agricultural conservation practices and wetland ecosystem services in the wetland-rich Piedmont-Coastal Plain region. Ecological Applications, 21. Delineation., F. I. C. f. W. 1989. Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. In., US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service Washington, DC, USA. Denver, J. M., Ator, S. W., Lang, M. W., Fisher, T. R., Gustafson, A. B., Fox, R., Clune, J. W. & McCarty, G. W. 2014. Nitrate fate and transport through current and former depressional wetlands in an agricultural landscape, Choptank Watershed, Maryland, United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 69, 1-16. EPA 1980. Guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material. In., Federal Register, pp. 45:85336-85357. Feierabend, S. J. & Zelazny, J. M. 1987. Status Report on our Nation's Wetlands. In., National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., pp. 50. Fenstermacher, D., Rabenhorst, M., Lang, M., McCarty, G. & Needelman, B. 2014. Distribution, morphometry, and land use of Delmarva Bays. Wetlands, 34, 1219-1228. Fenstermacher, D., Rabenhorst, M., Lang, M., McCarty, G. & Needelman, B. 2016. Carbon in Natural, Cultivated, and Restored Depressional Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. Journal of environmental quality, 45, 743-750. Fenstermacher, D. E. 2012. Carbon storage and potential carbon sequestration in depressional wetlands of the Mid-Atlantic region. In., University of Maryland, College Park, pp. 247. Floyd, D. A. & Anderson, J. E. 1987. A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover. The Journal of Ecology, 221-228. Gedan, K. B., Silliman, B. & Bertness, M. 2009. Centuries of human-driven change in salt marsh ecosystems. Marine Science, 1. Goldman, M. A. & Needelman, B. A. 2015. Wetland Restoration and Creation for Nitrogen Removal: Challenges to Developing a Watershed-Scale Approach in the Chesapeake Bay Coastal Plain. In: Advances in Agronomy. (ed D. L. Sparks), pp. 1-38. Gosselink, J. G. & Maltby, E. 1993. Wetland losses and gains. In: Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape. (ed M. Williams), Blackwell Publishers pp. 296- 322 Hamilton, P. A., Denver, J. M., Phillips, P. J. & Shedlock, R. J. 1993. Water-quality assessment of the Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; effects of agricultural activities on, and distribution of, nitrate and other inorganic constituents in the surficial aquifer. In., US Geological Survey; Books and Open-file Reports Section [distributor]. Holden, J., Chapman, P. & Labadz, J. 2004. Artificial drainage of peatlands: hydrological and hydrochemical process and wetland restoration. Progress in Physical Geography, 28, 95-123. 154 Hough, P. & Robertson, M. 2009. Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: where it comes from, what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17, 15-33. Hummel, J. W., Ahmad, I. S., Newman, S. C., Sudduth, K. A. & Drummond, S. T. 2004. Simulatneous Soil Moisture and Cone Index Measurement. Transactions of the ASAE, 47, 607. Hunt, R. J. 1996. Do created wetlands replace the wetlands that are destroyed?, US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. Kumar, A., Chen, Y., Al-Amin Sadek, M. & Rahman, S. 2012. Soil cone index in relation to soil texture, moisture content, and bulk density for no-tillage and conventional tillage. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 14, 26-37. Laboratory, U. S. A. C. o. E. E. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. In., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Lal, R. 2004. Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Science, 304, 1623-1627. Leisnham, P. T. & Sandoval-Mohapatra, S. 2011. Mosquitoes associated with ditch-plugged and control tidal salt marshes on the Delmarva Peninsula. International journal of environmental research and public health, 8, 3099- 3113. Lilly, J. P. 1981. The blackland soils of North Carolina: their characteristics and management for agriculture. North Carolina. Agricultural Research Service. Tech. bull.(USA). Lin, H. 2010. Earth's Critical Zone and hydropedology: concepts, characteristics, and advances. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14, 25. Lipiec, J. & Hatano, R. 2003. Quantification of compaction effects on soil physical properties and crop growth. Geoderma, 116, 107-136. Matthews, J. 2003. Assessment of the floristic quality index for use in Illinois, USA, wetlands. Natural Areas Journal, 23, 53-60. Matthews, J. W. & Endress, A. G. 2008. Performance Criteria, Compliance Success, and Vegetation Development in Compensatory Mitigation Wetlands. Environmental Management, 41, 130-141. Maynard, D., Kalra, Y. & Crumbaugh, J. 2007. Nitrate and Exchangeable Ammonium Nitrogen. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 71. McFarland, E., Baldwin, A., Lang, M., Rabenhorst, M. & Whigham, D. 2015. Assessing Wetland Restoration on the Delmarva Peninsula Using Vegetation Characteristics. In: Environmental Science and Technology. University of Maryland, College Park, MD. McNeer, R. H. 1992. Nontidal Wetlands Protection in Maryland and Virginia. Md. L. Rev., 51, 105. Meek, B. D., MacKenzie, A. & Grass, L. 1968. Effects of organic matter, flooding time, and temperature on the dissolution of iron and manganese from soil in situ. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 32, 634-638. Mitsch, W. J. & Gosselink, J. G. 2007. Wetlands, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J. 155 Nelson, D. W. & Sommers, L. E. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. Novitzki, R. P. 1985. The effects of lakes and wetlands on flood flows and base flows in selected northern and eastern states. In: Wetlands of the Chesapeake. (ed H. A. Groman), Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C., pp. 143-154. NRC 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act, National Academies Press. NRCS 2008. Wetland Conservation Provisions (Swampbuster). In. Rabenhorst, M. C. 2008. Protocol for Using and Interpreting IRIS Tubes. Soil Survey Horizons, 49, 74-77. Rabenhorst, M. C. 2010. Visual Assessment of IRIS Tubes in Field Testing for Soil Reduction. Wetlands, 30, 847-852. Rabenhorst, M. C. & Burch, S. N. 2006. Synthetic iron oxides as an indicator of reduction in soils (IRIS). Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70, 1227- 1236. Raper, R. L. 2005. Agricultural traffic impacts on soil. 42, 259–280. Raupach, M. R., Marland, G., Ciais, P., Le Quere, C., Canadell, J. G., Klepper, G. & Field, C. B. 2007. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 10288-10293. Richardson, J. L. 2001. Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification. Schlesinger, W. H. 1999. Carbon sequestration in soils. Science, 284, 2095. Schoeneberger, P., Wysocki, D. & Benham, E. 2012a. Field book for describing and sampling soils, Version 3.0. Schoeneberger, P. J., Wysocki, D. A., Benham, E. C. & Staff, S. S. 2012b. Field book for describing and sampling soils, Version 3.0., Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. Soils, N. T. C. f. H. 2007. Technical Note 11: Technical Standards for Hydric Soils. In., USDA-NRCS, Washington, DC. Staff, S. S. 1999. Soil Taxonomy. Second Edition. U.S. Dept. Agric. Handbook No. 436, US Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC. Stolt, M. H., Genthner, M. H., Daniels, W. L., Groover, V. A., Nagle, S. & Haering, K. C. 2000. Comparison of soil and other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands. Wetlands, 20, 671-683. Streever, B. 1999. Examples of performance standards for wetland creation and restoration in Section 404 permits and an approach to developing performance standards. In., DTIC Document. Swink, F. & Wilhelm, G. 1994. Plants ofthe Chicago region. The Morton Arboretum. Lisle, Illinois. USDA 2016. Wetlands Reserve Program. In. 156 Vadas, P. A., Srinivasan, M. S., Kleinman, P. J. A., Schmidt, J. P. & Allen, A. L. 2007. Hydrology and groundwater nutrient concentrations in a ditch-drained agroecosystem. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 62, 178-188. Vepraskas, M. J., Richardson, J. L. & Tandarich, J. P. 2006. Dynamics of redoximorphic feature formation under controlled ponding in a created riverine wetland. Wetlands, 26, 486-496. Vepraskas, M. J., Richardson, J. L., Tandarich, J. P. & Teets, S. J. 1999. Dynamics of hydric soil formation across the edge of a created deep marsh. Wetlands, 19, 78-89. Wharton, C. H., Kitchens, W. M., Pendleton, E. C. & Sipe, T. W. 1982. The ecology of bottomland hardwood swamps of the southeast: a community profile. In., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program FWS/OBS- 81/37, pp. 133. Zedler, J. 1998. Replacing endangered species habitat: the acid test of wetland ecology. In: Conservation Biology. Springer, pp. 364-379. Zedler, J. B. 2000. Handbook for restoring tidal wetlands, CRC press. Zedler, J. B. & Callaway, J. C. 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology, 7, 69-73. Zedler, J. B. & Kercher, S. 2005. WETLAND RESOURCES: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and Restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 39-74. 157