DOCSLIB.ORG

Umi-Umd-5011.Pdf (13.45Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ABSTRACT Title of Document: PEDOGENESIS, INVENTORY, AND UTILIZATION OF SUBAQUEOUS SOILS IN CHINCOTEAGUE BAY, MARYLAND Danielle Marie Balduff, Ph.D., 2007 Directed By: Professor Martin C. Rabenhorst, Department of Environmental Science and Technology Chincoteague Bay is the largest (19,000 ha) of Maryland’s inland coastal bays bounded by Assateague Island to the east and the Maryland mainland to the west. It is connected to the Atlantic Ocean by the Ocean City inlet to the north and the Chincoteague inlet to the south. Water depth ranges mostly from 1.0 to 2.5 meters mean sea level (MSL). The objectives of this study were to identify the subaqueous landforms, evaluate the suitability of existing subaqueous soil-landscape models, develop a soils map, and demonstrate the usefulness of subaqueous soils information. Bathymetric data collected by the Maryland Geological Survey in 2003 were used to generate a digital elevation model (DEM) of Chincoteague Bay. The DEM was used, in conjunction with false color infrared photography to identify subaqueous landforms based on water depth, slope, landscape shape, depositional environment, and geographical setting (proximity to other landforms). The eight such landforms identified were barrier cove, lagoon bottom, mainland cove, paleo-flood tidal delta, shoal, storm-surge washover fan flat, storm-surge washover fan slope, and submerged headland. Previously established soil-landscape models were evaluated and utilized to create a soils map of the area. Soil profile descriptions were collected at 163 locations throughout Chincoteague Bay. Pedons representative of major landforms were characterized for a variety of chemical, physical and mineralogical properties. Initially classification using Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) identified the major soils as Typic Sulfaquents, Haplic Sulfaquents, Sulfic Hydraquents, and Thapto-Histic Sulfaquents. Using a proposed modification to Soil Taxonomy designed to better accommodate subaqueous soils with the new suborder of Wassents, soils of Chincoteague Bay were primarily classified as Fluvic Sulfiwassents, Haplic Sulfiwassents, Thapto-Histic Sulfiwassents, Sulfic Hydrowassents, and Sulfic Psammowassents. To illustrate the application of subaqueous soils information, the suitability of soils for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat was assessed, based upon past and current growth patterns in Chincoteague Bay and sediment properties known to affect SAV establishment and growth. The refined soil-landscape models and extensive soil characterization obtained in this study have advanced our understanding of subaqueous soils in coastal lagoon systems, and should prove valuable to coastal specialists managing these critical resources. PEDOGENESIS, INVENTORY, AND UTILIZATION OF SUBAQUEOUS SOILS IN CHINCOTEAGUE BAY, MARYLAND By Danielle Marie Balduff Dissertation 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 Doctor of Philosophy 2007 Advisory Committee: Professor Martin C. Rabenhorst, Chair Professor Bruce James Dr. Douglas Levin Dr. Roberta Marinelli Assistant Professor Brian Needelman Associate Professor Karen Prestegaard © Copyright by Danielle Marie Balduff 2007 Acknowledgements This research was funded through a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Thank you for your support. I sincerely thank all who have contributed to my success. Martin Rabenhorst, my advisor, who has passed on a great deal of knowledge and excitement for this field and who was an excellent and patient editor of this work, thank you for being a wonderful mentor. To my committee members, Bruce James, Doug Levin, Roberta Marinelli, Brian Needelman, and Karen Prestegaard, for teaching me concepts that have helped to make me a more well-rounded scientist and for your feedback and guidance on this work. I wish to thank Del Fanning for teaching me how to play bridge and for sharing his knowledge about pedology and mineralogy. I wish to express my appreciation to Richard Weismiller for allowing me to assist in teaching ENST 105 and for reminding me how much I like to teach and why I decided to pursue my Ph D in soil science. I wish to thank Susan Demas for providing me with a place to stay at her home during the summer of 2005, while I was doing my field work, thank you for your hospitality and your friendship. To Amanda Haase and Ross McAllen, my summer field assistants, who helped collect, describe, and sample the soils in Chincoteague Bay, thank you for having a great attitude and for your flexibility in dealing with boat engine problems, bad weather, and long days when the weather was perfect. To Cary Coppock for teaching me how to collect and describe subaqueous soils and to drive a boat and pull a trailer, thanks for all of your help. I wish to express my ii appreciation to Mark Stolt and Phil King teaching me how to describe and classify subaqueous soils, create subaqueous soil series, and in understanding landscape-soil relationships. I wish to thank Patrick Morton, Adam Gray, Rebecca Bourgault, Phil Zurheide, Karen Vaughan, John Wah, and Rosalynd Orr for your friendship, advice, and help in finishing my doctoral work. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents...............................................................................................................iv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures.................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 Background..................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................2 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................................................................................. 8 Barrier Islands and Coastal Lagoons .............................................................................. 8 Chincoteague Bay ..................................................................................................... 14 Sediment Mapping in the Coastal Bays.................................................................... 19 Limitations of Previous Approaches......................................................................... 26 Subaqueous Soils .......................................................................................................... 30 Pedogenic Paradigm Extended to Subaqueous Environments.................................. 36 State Factors of Subaqueous Soil Formation............................................................ 38 Research on Subaqueous Soils.................................................................................. 41 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements ............................................ 49 Chapter 3: Topographic Analysis and Subaqueous Landforms........................................ 63 Introduction................................................................................................................... 63 Materials and Methods.................................................................................................. 65 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 65 Bathymetric Data Collection..................................................................................... 68 Evaluation of Maryland Geologic Survey Data........................................................ 73 Landform Delineation............................................................................................... 73 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................. 74 Subaqueous Topographic Maps................................................................................ 74 Subaqueous Landforms............................................................................................. 79 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 86 Chapter 4: Characterization and Classification of Subaqueous Soils in Chincoteague Bay, MD .................................................................................................................................... 87 Introduction................................................................................................................... 87 Materials and Methods.................................................................................................. 92 Study Site.................................................................................................................. 92 Soil Sampling............................................................................................................ 92 Laboratory Analysis.................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Nichols Arboretum: Soil Types

    Nichols Arboretum: Soil Types

    Nichols Arboretum: Soil Types Not Present in Arboretum Boyer Sandy Loam 0-6% Slopes Fox Sandy Loam 6-12% Slopes Miami Loam 2-6% Slopes Miami Loam 6-12% Slopes Miami Loam 12-18% Slopes Miami Loam 18-25% Slopes Miami Loam 25-35% Slopes Sloan Silt Loam, Wet Water Wasepi Sandy Loam 0-4% Slopes Mary Hejna : September 2012 0 0.125 0.25 Miles Data from NRCS Soil Survey t Soil Series Descriptions BOYER SERIES The Boyer series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in USE AND VEGETATION sandy and loamy drift underlain by sand or gravelly sand outwash at Soils are cultivated in most areas. Principal crops are corn, small depths of 51 to 102 cm (20 to 40 inches). grain, soybeans, field beans, and alfalfa hay. A few areas remain in GEOGRAPHIC SETTING permanent pasture or forest. The dominant forest trees are oaks, hickories, and maples. Boyer soils are on outwash plains, valley trains, kames, beach ridges, river terraces, lake terraces, deltas, and moraines of Wisconsinan age. TYPICAL PEDON The slope gradients are dominantly 0 to 12 percent, but range from 0 Boyer loamy sand, on a 4 percent slope in a cultivated field. (Colors to 50 percent. Boyer soils formed in sandy and loamy drift underlain are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.) by sand or gravelly sand outwash at depths of 51 to 102 cm (20 to 40 inches). Quartz is the dominant mineral in the 3C horizon, which Ap--0 to 18 cm (7 inches); dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loamy contains, in addition, varying amounts of material from igneous and sand, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) dry; weak fine granular metamorphic rocks, limestone, and dolomite.
  • Soil Survey of Walworth County, Wisconsin

    Soil Survey of Walworth County, Wisconsin

    Issued February 1971 . SOIL SURVEY . .W alworthCounty I Wisconsin UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service In cooperation with -- .. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Soils Department, and Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station Major fieldwork for this soil survey was done in the period 1959-64. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 1966. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer- to conditions in the county in 1966. This survey was made cooperatively by the Soil Conservation Service and the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Soils Department, and the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wisconsin. It is part of the technical assistance furnished to the Walworth County Soil and Water Conservation District. The fieldwork that is the basis for this soil survey was partly financed. by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission; by a joint planning grant from the State Highway Commission of Wisconsin; by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads; and by the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the provisions of the Federal Aid to Highways legislation and section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended. Either enlarged or reduced copies of the soil map in this publication can be made by commercial photographers, or they can be purchased on individual order from the Cartographic Division, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250. HOW TO USE THIS SOIL SURVEY HIS SOIL SURVEY contains informa- an oved.ay over the soil map an? ?olo!,ed to Ttion that can be applied in managing farms sh?w ?(:nls that have ,bhe sal!le hm~tatIOn or .
  • Acid Sulfate Soils of the U.S

    Acid Sulfate Soils of the U.S

    ACID SULFATE SOILS OF THE U.S. MID-ATLANTIC/CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION Tour July 6-8, 2006 For 18th World Congress of Soil Science Overall Tour Leader: Delvin S. Fanning Emeritus Professor, University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-4452 [email protected] telephone: 301-405-1308 Table of Contents OVERALL INTRODUCTION, Page 3 Part 1 – Background Information SOME HISTORY OF THE RECOGNITION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION ABOUT ACID SULFATE SOILS INTERNATIONALLY, AND IN THE U.S. (ESPECIALLY IN MARYLAND AND NEARBY STATES), Delvin S. Fanning, Martin C. Rabenhorst, and Leigh A. Sullivan – Page 5 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CONCEPT OF SUBAQUEOUS PEDOGENESIS, Martin C. Rabenhorst – Page 24 FORMATION AND GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE MID-ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN, Charlie Hanner, Susan Davis, and James Brewer – Page 31 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CULTURAL HISTORY OF PENNSYLVANIA AND THE MID-ATLANTIC, John S. Wah and Jonathan A. Burns – Page 36 Part 2 – Stops Roadlog for tour – Page 43 Friday, July 7 Stop 1 -- Coastal Tidal Marsh Soils and Subaqueous Soils, Rehoboth Bay, DE – Page 47 Stop 2 -- Submerged Upland and Estuarine Tidal Marsh Soils in MD – Page 55 Stop 3 -- Upland Active Acid Sulfate Soil etc., Muddy Creek Rd. -- Page 63 Stop 4 -- Post-Active Acid Sulfate Soils at SERC – Page 68 Extra Stop – Potomac River Cliff Face at Loyola Retreat House – Page 80 Saturday, July 8 Extra Stop – Great Oaks Development, Fredericksbury, VA – Page 83 Stop 5 – Stafford County, VA, Regional Airport – Page 86 Stop 6 – Mine Road, Garrisonville, VA – Page 94 Stop 7 – Prince William Forest Park, VA – Page 100 Stop 8 – University of Maryland – Page 101 Extra Stop – Pyrite-Bearing Lignite exposure – Paint Branch Creek, College Park, MD – Page 102 Stop 9 – Active Sulfate Soil in Dredged Materials, Hawkin’s Point, Baltimore, MD – Page 103 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS – Page 110 2 OVERALL INTRODUCTION First, some comments on various items in the guidebook.
  • Custom Soil Resource Report for Miami-Dade County Area, Florida

    Custom Soil Resource Report for Miami-Dade County Area, Florida

    United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State Miami-Dade Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment County Area, Conservation Stations, and local Service participants Florida July 12, 2018 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
  • Morphology and Composition of Some Soils of the Miami Family and the Miami Catena

    Morphology and Composition of Some Soils of the Miami Family and the Miami Catena

    TECHJDacAi. BULLETIN NO. 834 • September 1942 Morphology and Composition of Some Soils of the Miami Family and the Miami Catena By IKVIN C. BROWN Associate Chemist Oivisii»! of Soil and Fertilizer Inyestigatioas and JAMES THORP Soil Scientist Division of Soil Survey Bureau of Plant Industry UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D. C. For sale by the Superintendent of Doeumeuts, Washiugton« D. C. • Priée 10 eents Technical Bulletin No. 834 • 1942 ¡■¡HilHt^^H^^^^Hlllill^^^^HMIIMSH Morphology and Composition of Some Soils of the Miami Family and the Miami Catena ' By IRVIN C. BROWN, associate chemist, Division of Soil and Fertilizer Investiga- tions, and JAMES THOEP, soil scientist, Division of Soil Survey, Bureau of Plant Industry CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Analytical results—Continued. Status of soil classification 2 Chemical analyses of the colloids 32 What is a soil family? 2 Organic matter 37 What is a soil catena? 4 Derived data 41 The relationships between soil fam- The clay minerals 44 ily and soil catena 0 General discussion __ 45 Collection of samples 10 The parent rock 45 Description of soils sampled 10 Climate and vegetation 46 Methods of examination 18 Lay of the land and natural drain- Analytical results : 19 age 46 Mechanical analyses of the soils 19 Summary 52 Chemical analyses of the soils 25 Literature cited 53 INTRODUCTION As several thousand soil types have been recognized in the United States, it is now possible to establish their systematic classification. Soils may be grouped in many different ways according to the ob- jectives sought in the classification, but for convenience two systems have been followed in the United States.
  • Late-Quarternary Stratigraphy, Pedology

    Late-Quarternary Stratigraphy, Pedology

    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Dustin White for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in Anthropology, Geology, and Anthropology presented on May 27, 1998. Title: Late-Quaternary Stratigraphy, Pedology and Paleoclimatic Reconstruction of the Cremer Site (24SW264), South-Central Montana: A Geoarchaeological Case Study. Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy Robson Bonnichsen This study utilizes a multidisciplinary research approach integrating the sciences of archaeology, geology, pedology and paleoclimatology. Deeply stratified and radiocarbon dated sedimentary sequences spanning the last 10,000 yr B.P. are reported for the Cremer site (24SW264), south-central Montana. Previous investigations at the site revealed an archaeological assemblage with Early Plains Archaic through Late Prehistoric period affiliations. Expanded testing of the site integrates the existing cultural record with new data pertaining to Holocene environmental changes at this northwestern Great Plains locality. Detailed pedological descriptions were made along three trenches excavated at the site. The combined soil-stratigraphic record indicates that distinct intervals of relative landscape stability and soil development occurred at the site at ca. 10,000 yr B.P., 7,500 yr B.P. and intermittently throughout the last ca. 6,000 yr B.P. Periods of significant landscape instability (upland erosion and valley deposition) occurred immediately following each of the early Holocene soil forming intervals identified above, and episodically throughout the middle to late Holocene. The impetus for early Holocene environmental instability is attributed to generally increased aridity on the northwestern Great Plains. Comparative analyses of site data with both regional environmental proxy records and numerical models of past climates (General Circulation and Archaeoclimatic models) are made to test the findings from the Cremer site.
  • Chapter 8 Section 2 Exhibit

    Chapter 8 Section 2 Exhibit

    Soil Series Characteristics Updated 6/25/2020 Water Pedological Pedalogical DGI Frost Index K Factor Drainage Hydrologic Bedrock Table Description Cross-Reference Name Symbol Factor Group Depth B C D B C D B C D Depth Abbaye Absco Absocta MI0082 - 2 - F-2 - 250 MW SANDY ALLUVIUM > 5 FEET THICK CAREYVILLE Ackmore IA0188 20 16 F-4 F-4 75 100 SP 24 B Silty clay loam, silt loam WASHTENAW Adder Adolph MN0188 14 14 F-3 F-3 125 125 P-VP WET SILTY CLAY AND SILT OVER TILL AUBURNDALE Adrian MI0028 Muck over sand PEAT Aftad Ahmeek MN0157 12 2 F-4 F-2 150 300 MW BOULDERY SAND WITH FINES SILTY ALLUVIUM OVER LAC. SLT & Akan WI0260 14 F-4 125 P-VP ORION CLY LOAMY DEPOSITS OVER SILT AND Alban WI0010 12 12 F-4 F-4 150 150 MW EAUPLEINE SAND Alcona MI0177 14 14 F-4 F-4 125 125 W LOAMY SOLA OVER SILT AND SAND BOHEMIAN Algansee MI0123 2 2 F-2 F-2 250 250 SP SANDY ALLUVIUM > 5 FEET THICK BREMS Allendale MI0185 12 12 F-3 F-4 150 150 SP 12 C Fine sandy loam over silty clay TUSTIN Allouez 4 0 F-2 F-0 250 300 W LOAMY GRAVELLY BEACH DEPOSITS PENCE SILT OVER SAND WITH COHERENT Almena WI0262 14 14 14 F-4 F-3 F-3 125 125 125 SP FINES Alpena MI0124 0 F-0 250 E - A Stratified extremely gravelly sand to sand Alstad WI0218 10 10 F-3 F-3 200 200 SP SILTY CLAY TILL Water Pedological Pedalogical DGI Frost Index K Factor Drainage Hydrologic Bedrock Table Description Cross-Reference Name Symbol Factor Group Depth B C D B C D B C D Depth WET SILTY CLAY AND SILT OVER Altdorf WI0031 14 14 F-3 F-3 125 125 P-VP RESIDUUM Altoona WI0263 12 0 F-3 F-0 155 300 SP LOAMY DEPOSIT OVER SANDSTONE
  • The Natural Soil Drainage Index: an Ordinal Estimate of Long-Term Soil Wetness

    The Natural Soil Drainage Index: an Ordinal Estimate of Long-Term Soil Wetness

    THE NATURAL SOIL DRAINAGE INDEX: AN ORDINAL ESTIMATE OF LONG-TERM SOIL WETNESS Randall J. Schaetzl Department of Geography 128 Geography Building Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1117 Frank J. Krist, Jr. GIS and Spatial Analysis, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team USDA Forest Service 2150 Centre Avenue Bldg. A, Suite 331 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1891 Kristine Stanley Department of Geography University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1491 Christina M. Hupy Department of Geography and Anthropology University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54702-4004 Abstract: Many important geomorphic and ecological attributes center on soil water content, especially over long timescales. In this paper we present an ordinally based index, intended to generally reflect the amount of water that a soil supplies to plants under natural conditions, over long timescales. The Natural Soil Drainage Index (DI) ranges from 0 for the driest soils (e.g., those shallow to bedrock in a desert) to 99 (open water). The DI is primarily derived from a soil’s taxonomic subgroup classification, which is a reflection of its long-term wetness. Because the DI assumes that soils in drier climates and with deeper water tables have less plant-useable water, taxonomic indicators such as soil mois- ture regime and natural drainage class figure prominently in the “base” DI formulation. Additional factors that can impact soil water content, quality, and/or availability (e.g., tex- ture), when also reflected in taxonomy, are quantified and added to or subtracted from the base DI to arrive at a final DI value. In GIS applications, map unit slope gradient can be added as an additional variable.
  • Soil and Water Relationships of Florida Ecological Communities

    Soil and Water Relationships of Florida Ecological Communities

    One of the documents mentioned in Rule 62-340, F.A.C. is Soil and Water Relationships of Florida’s Ecological Communities by the Florida’s Soil Survey Staff, USDA-NRCS. With their permission we have adapted the document for our website. SOIL AND WATER July, 1992 Adapted RELATIONSHIPS OF FLORIDA’S ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES Page 2 SOIL AND WATER July, 1992 Adapted RELATIONSHIPS OF FLORIDA’S ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES Contents Page Ecological Communities of Florida 1 Field Identification of Ecological Communities 3 Hydric Soils of Florida 9 Field Identification of Hydric Soils 10 Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicator and User Notes 12 Estimating the Seasonal High Water Table 20 References 22 Forward: This material has been produced and is provided by Florida Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Staff, G. Wade Hurt, State Soil Scientist, in consultation with soil scientists from other agencies as well as the private sector. The sections Field Identification of Hydric Soils, Hydric Soil Indicator, and Estimating the Seasonal High Water Table have been updated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources Coordination staff in accordance with the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. The purpose of this material is to present an understanding of soil and water relationships by soil scientists in Florida and to promote an appreciation and understanding of these soil and water relationships among others. The ecological community concept is used because only after a thorough understanding of natural systems such as ecological communities can we understand the implication of any soil attribute such as the water table to any proposed land use change.
  • Categorization of County Soil Survey Data Within the SFWMD Including Natural Soils Landscape Positions

    Categorization of County Soil Survey Data Within the SFWMD Including Natural Soils Landscape Positions

    Soil Classification Database: Categorization of County Soil Survey Data within the SFWMD Including Natural Soils Landscape Positions Technical Publication WS-06 by John Zahina, Ken Liudahl (NRCS), Tim Liebermann, Kurt Saari, Jerry Krenz, and Victor Mullen October 2001 South Florida Water Management District Soil Classification Database Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i List of Tables iii List of Figures v Abstract vii Acknowledgements ix Introduction 1 General Methods 3 Classification by Depth and Duration of the SHWT ...............................................3 Classification by Ecological Community Type.......................................................9 Classification by NSLP Type ................................................................................15 Use of the Soil Classifications 23 Summary 25 References 27 Glossary and List of Abbreviations 29 Appendix A: SHWT Classification Codes A-1 Appendix B: Ecological Community Category Definitions B-1 Appendix C: Landscape Classification Categories C-1 Appendix D: Selected Ecological Communities D-1 South Florida Coastal Strand .............................................................................. D-1 Sand Pine Scrub .................................................................................................. D-3 South Florida Flatwoods i Table of Contents Soil Classification Database Scrub Cypress ..................................................................................................... D-7 Cypress Swamp..................................................................................................
  • Comparing Chemical Properties of Subaqueous Soil Samples from Barnegat Bay, NJ: an Analysis of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus

    Comparing Chemical Properties of Subaqueous Soil Samples from Barnegat Bay, NJ: an Analysis of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus

    SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry Digital Commons @ ESF Honors Theses 5-2015 Comparing Chemical Properties of Subaqueous Soil Samples from Barnegat Bay, NJ: An Analysis of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Kristy Northrup Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.esf.edu/honors Part of the Chemistry Commons, and the Earth Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Northrup, Kristy, "Comparing Chemical Properties of Subaqueous Soil Samples from Barnegat Bay, NJ: An Analysis of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus" (2015). Honors Theses. 93. https://digitalcommons.esf.edu/honors/93 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ ESF. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ ESF. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Comparing Chemical Properties of Subaqueous Soil Samples from Barnegat Bay, NJ: An Analysis of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus by Kristy Northrup Candidate for Bachelor of Science Departments of Environmental Science and Chemistry With Honors May 2015 APPROVED Second Reader: ---A-..Q...1.:-!4.Do<.._..!..._..J.._...J..'.-l.'./_j_J,,l~---=:__-- Honors Director: (/4) ~ ~ William M. Shields, Ph.D. Date: --~~~/-=--K-+-j .:._[S"'__ _ Abstract Subaqueous soil science is considered one of the new subfields of Pedology. This recently developed idea defines subaqueous soils as sediments in shallow water environments that undergo soil-forming processes, are capable of supporting rooted plants, and form horizons in place. By surveying the subaqueous soils, soil scientists can provide insight for the management of submerged aquatic vegetation restoration and estuarine protection.

  • Drainage Calculations

    PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT PROJECT: Heritage Section 10 Franklin, Indiana DESIGN ENGINEER: Brian D. Fisher, P.E. The Schneider Corporation 8901 Otis Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46216-1037 317-826-7145 October 10, 2018 Historic Fort Harrison, 8901 Otis Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46216 Phone - 317.826.7100 Fax - 317.826.7200 www.schneidercorp.com [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Drainage Narrative 1-2 B. Site Maps Area Map 4 Soils Map 5-18 C. Existing Conditions Predeveloped Basins Exhibit 20 D. Developed Conditions Post Developed Basin Exhibit 22 Franklin Precipitation Data 23-25 HydroCAD Report 26-37 E. Storm Sewer Drainage Basins Exhibit 39 Storm Sewer Calculations 40 DRAINAGE NARRATIVE Project Background: This is a preliminary drainage study for Heritage Section 10 Subdivision consisting of approximately 14.95 acres west of Hurricane Road and directly south of Heritage Section 2. The purpose of the study is to identify the existing and proposed drainage basins and provide preliminary sizing of the detention basin to serve the subdivision. Terrain and existing ground condition: The project area is agricultural and consists of four (4) predeveloped watersheds ranging from 1.57 acres to 6.94 acres in size and varying in elevation from 741 in the southwest corner to 750 near the center of the parcel along the east edge. One (1) predeveloped watershed outlets to the northeast. The remaining three (3) predeveloped watersheds outlet to the south. Two (2) small offsite drainage areas drain unto the site from the south. Offsite area 1 consists of 0.21 acres and offsite area 2 consists of 0.09 acres.