ABSTRACT MORITZ, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL. Evaluating Mitigation

ABSTRACT

MORITZ, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL. Evaluating Mitigation Sites in Carolina Bay Wetlands that Were Previously Converted to Agriculture. (Under the direction of Dr. Michael Vepraskas and Dr. Matthew Ricker).

Restoring wetlands in the Southeastern United States Coastal Plain is extensive, however, methods for evaluating ecological success of the mitigation projects have not been established for Carolina Bay Wetlands (CBWs) that previously experienced agriculture. The objective of this research was to develop a Rapid Assessment Tool (RAT) that was based on C sequestration, which could be used to evaluate the quality of wetland restoration sites of different ages. The RAT needed to be quantitative, based on properties that were easily measured onsite, accounted for differences in hydrology and ages of the sites, and required no laboratory analyses.

The main study site was Juniper Bay (JB), a CBW that had been restored for 15yrs following its use for agriculture. Plots were placed where previous studies determined pre-restoration soil properties and post-restoration hydrology. Vegetation at JB was characterized by determining vegetation type, and tree basal area and height. Hydrology indicators were collected at each sample location. Plots were grouped by saturation duration that occurred within 30cm of the soil surface: <14, 14-50, 51-100, and 101-225 consecutive days during the growing season. Where saturation occurred for >101d, tree basal area and height decreased 40-69% compared to where saturation occurred for shorter periods. Areas that experienced saturation for <51d contained trees that were 10cm larger in diameter, had 97-98% more shrubs and vines, and contained 68-

96% less graminoids than areas that had saturation for 101- 225d. Results showed that the number of hydrology indicators increased 50% going from <14 to 101-225d of saturation.

Because plant species, as well as, abundance changed with hydrology across this restoration site, assessing vegetation at restoration sites must be done with regard to saturation durations that occur at the site. In addition, tree basal area and potential tree height were thought to be reliable indicators to use as part of the RAT to assess restoration quality.

Soil organic C (SOC) dynamics were also determined at JB at the same plots used to characterize vegetation. Hydric soil indicators (HSIs), litter layer thickness, and SOC to 75cm were determined. Sampling plots were grouped by soil type: mineral or organic. There was a significant (p<0.05) decrease in the number of HSIs in the organic soils and no differences in the mineral soils (p>0.1). The litter layer was 29% thicker in the organic soils when compared to the mineral soils. Soil OC decreased 49% (370 vs. 190 Mg C/ha) in the mineral soils and 24% (880 vs. 670 Mg C/ha) in the organic soils following restoration. Soil OC concentrations in the restored JB were not significantly different than those found in reference wetlands for both soil types. Litter thickness was proposed to measure as part of the RAT.

To develop the RAT, litter layer thickness, tree basal area, tree height, hydrology indicators, and general soil type were assessed from nine CBWs whose restoration ages ranged from 0-23yrs. In general, all variables were collected within a variable radius plot using a 10- factor prism. Plots were placed into the same Saturation Groups mentioned above. Groups 1 and 2 combined litter thickness, tree basal area, and tree height reached a peak at 15yrs (10cm,

36m2/ha, and 19m). Groups 3 and 4 combined litter thickness and tree height also appeared to reach a peak at 15yrs (15cm and 12m), however, tree basal area increased up to 23yrs and 21yrs

(34 and 14 m2/ha). Significant (p<0.05) correlations (R2=0.57-0.73) were found that could be used to estimate saturation based on hydrology indicators, litter thickness, tree height, and soil type. The proposed RAT consists of the chronosequences and saturation regressions to evaluate restoration success in CBWs that previously experienced agriculture.

Evaluating Mitigation Sites in Carolina Bay Wetlands that Were Previously Converted to Agriculture

by Christopher Michael Moritz

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Soil Science

Raleigh, North Carolina

2021

APPROVED BY:

______Dr. Michael J. Vepraskas Dr. Matthew C. Ricker Committee Co-Chair Committee Co-Chair

______Dr. John S. King

DEDICATION

I dedicate this degree to my parents. Thank you for the encouragement and continuous support throughout my academic career.

I also dedicate the work that comes from this thesis to people interested in dynamic soil properties, hydropedology, terrestrial carbon dynamics, and people working in wetland restoration.

BIOGRAPHY

Chris Moritz was born and raised in Hampton Roads, VA. He grew up in rural community spending most of his free time outdoors. His favorite childhood memories were traveling to Outer Banks in North Carolina and trout fishing in Virginia’s mountains. At an early age he enjoyed camping, fishing, hiking, kayaking, most ball sports, skateboarding, and snowboarding.

After graduating high school, he worked full-time and went to Community College for three semesters before he took a break from academics. Almost three years later, he re-enrolled in community college, and completed his Associate’s Degree in 2015.

In August 2015, Chris began his first semester at Virginia Tech as an Environmental

Science major with a focus on Land Restoration with a Wetland Science minor. Chris first gained interest in Soil Science and Wetlands while assisting Graduate Students and Professors at

Virginia Tech with their research. He eventually joined the Virginia Tech Soil Judging Team where he participated in three National and two Regional Soil Judging Contests. Chris’s last two summers as an undergraduate were spent in the Pacific Northwest working for the U.S. Forest

Service and USDA-NRCS as a Soil Science technician and Soil Science intern where his interest in soils and ecosystems continued to grow. After arriving in Raleigh in January 2019, his interest in soils and wetlands grew exponentially as he learned how to apply what he learned from his course work at Virginia Tech and North Carolina State to help contribute to make new discoveries in soil science and wetlands.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my advisor (Dr. M.J. Vepraskas) for his suggestions on methodology, showing me different ways to analyze the data, and his overall knowledge. He taught me to realize that just because something is not in a book does not mean the process is not occurring. You must always follow the data. He also provided support during difficult situations. I also thank the remainder of my committee for their suggestions and viewpoints regarding data analysis.

Appreciation is also extended to the USDA-NRCS for funding this research, their ideas for methodology, assisting with vegetation inventory, supplying tools and other materials, and providing transportation to and from research sites during the vegetation inventory.

I also acknowledge the NC Department of Environmental Quality, NC Department of

Transportation for allowing my access to their restoration sties.

I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Chris Niewoehner, for guiding the first tour at

Juniper Bay, making sure the four-wheeler was in good working order, and for helping me obtain essential field and lab supplies. I also acknowledge Mr. Rob Austin for teaching me new geospatial analyses and making sure I had a Trimble device to navigate within the research sites.

Last but not least, I would also like to acknowledge Reuben Wilson for assisting me sample a few of the most challenging places to navigate to in Juniper Bay, and for helping me obtain field and lab supplies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Jurisdictional Wetlands ...... 1 Wetland Mitigation ...... 1 Evaluating Restoration Sites ...... 2 Hydrogeomorphic Approach ...... 3 Ecological Assessments ...... 4 Ecological Sites and Ecological Site Descriptions ...... 5 State and Transition Models ...... 6 Carolina Bay Wetlands ...... 7 State and Transition Model for Carolina Bays ...... 11 Research Approach and Study Objectives ...... 14 Overview of Chapters ...... 14 References ...... 16

CHAPTER 2: HYDROLOGY AND VEGETATION RELATIONSHIPS IN A CAROLINA BAY WETLAND 15 YEARS AFTER RESTORATION ...... 22

Abstract ...... 22 Introduction ...... 23 Materials and Methods ...... 24 Site Description ...... 24 Hydrology Determination ...... 25 Assessing Vegetation ...... 26 Reference Carolina Bays...... 27 Statistical Analyses ...... 28 Results and Discussion ...... 28 Hydrology ...... 28 Vegetation ...... 31 Vegetation-Hydrology Relationships...... 33 Evaluation of Restoration Success ...... 35 Conclusions ...... 35 References ...... 37 Supplemental Information ...... 50

CHAPTER 3: SOIL ORGANIC CARBON DYNAMICS IN A CAROLINA BAY WETLAND 15 YEARS AFTER RESTORATION ...... 51

Abstract ...... 51 Introduction ...... 52

Materials and Methods ...... 54 Site Description ...... 54 Soil Sampling ...... 55 Laboratory Analyses ...... 56 Geospatial Analyses ...... 57 Hydrology Determination ...... 57 IRIS tubes...... 58 Soil Morphology ...... 58 Soil Organic Carbon ...... 59 Statistical Analyses ...... 59 Results ...... 60 Soil Hydrology ...... 60 Changes in Soil Organic C ...... 62 Discussion ...... 63 Litter accumulation ...... 63 Soil C and Hydric Soil Field Indicators ...... 64 Conclusions ...... 66 References ...... 67 Supplemental Information ...... 81

CHAPTER 4: A RAPID APPROACH FOR AN ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN CAROLINA BAY WETLANDS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY CONVERTED TO AGRICULTURE...... 83

Abstract ...... 83 Introduction ...... 84 Evaluating Restoration Sites ...... 84 Hydrogeomorphic Approach ...... 85 Ecological Assessments ...... 86 Carolina Bay Wetlands ...... 87 Objectives ...... 88 Methods...... 89 Study Locations ...... 89 Soil Sampling ...... 90 Anaerobic and Hydrologic Determination ...... 91 Laboratory Analyses ...... 92 Tree Assessments ...... 93 Reference Carolina Bays...... 93 Statistical Analyses ...... 94 Results ...... 95 Anaerobiosis and Hydrologic Determination ...... 95 Chronosequences ...... 97 Discussion ...... 98 Chronosequences ...... 98 Ecological Assessment ...... 99 Conclusions ...... 101

References ...... 103 Supplemental Information ...... 119

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 126

Jurisdictional Wetlands ...... 126 Goal of the Research ...... 126 Principal Findings ...... 128 Recommendations ...... 130 References ...... 132

APPENDICES ...... 135

A. Archived figures for chapter 2 ...... 136 B. Archived tables and figures for chapter 3 ...... 139 C. Archived tables and figures for chapter 4 ...... 152 D. Raw data...... 158 E. R and SAS code ...... 224 F. Site maps and photographs ...... 227 G. Pedon descriptions ...... 280

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Summary of hydrologic and soil properties found in plots sampled 15 years after restoration at Juniper Bay ...... 42

Table 2.2 Rainfall data for the 2019 and 2020 growing seasons ...... 43

Table 2.3 Summary of common and dominant plant genus and species found in each Hydrologic Group at Juniper Bay 15 years after restoration ...... 44

Table 2.4 Summary of vegetation data collected 15 years after restoration at Juniper Bay .... 45

Table 2.5 Regression equations that estimate the maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season ...... 46

Table 2.6 Potential site parameters for evaluating restoration success in Carolina Bay Wetlands 15 years after restoration...... 47

Table S2.1 Monthly rainfall data during the growing season for Lumberton, NC ...... 50

Table 3.1 Soil and hydrologic properties found 14-15 years after restoration at Juniper Bay in mineral (M) and organic (O) soils ...... 74

Table 3.2 Changes in soil properties for pre- and post-restoration periods ...... 75

Table S3.1 Soil bulk density in soil material below the litter layer (Oi and Oe horizons) in pre- and post-restoration soils from Juniper Bay, and from three reference Carolina Bays ...... 81

Table S3.2 Comparing SOC (%) at equivalent soil depths within organic soils from pre- and post-restoration periods at Juniper Bay ...... 82

Table 4.1 Site characteristics for nine Carolina Bay mitigation sites ...... 111

Table 4.2 Summary of hydrologic and soil properties found in plots where IRIS tubes were installed ...... 112

Table 4.3 Regressions that estimate the maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season...... 113

Table 4.4 Reference means and restored means found 23 years after restoration for major site parameters ...... 114

Table S4.1 Pedotransfer functions from nine Carolina Bay mitigation sites that measure SOC (%) from LOI (%) ...... 119

viii

Table S4.2 Short-term ANOVA and regression summary for each site parameter and associated Hydrologic Group ...... 120

Table S4.3 Within site and between site comparisons for litter layer thickness and variables related to above ground biomass ...... 121

Table S4.4 Dominant (> 19.4 % abundance across all plots within a given Group) and common trees found in restoration sites, and within-site and between site comparisons within a given Group for prevalence index ...... 122

Table 5.1 A recommended procedure that takes an ecological approach to evaluate restored Carolina Bay wetlands found inland within areas in the Southeastern United States Coastal Plain ...... 133

Table 5.2 Predicted values for indicators in restored Carolina Bay Wetlands that were previously converted to agriculture found in within the Southeastern United States Coastal Plain ...... 134

Table AB 1 Soil properties found at Juniper Bay 14 and 15 years after restoration...... 140

Table AB 2 Summary of litter thickness (cm) across four Hydrologic Groups and four general types of plant communities ...... 141

Table AB 3 Summary of general plant community abundance and litter thickness within each Hydrologic Group...... 142

Table AB 4 Summary of general plant community abundance and litter thickness within each soil class ...... 143

Table AB 5 Equivalent soil depths based on similar (p>0.1) soil masses between pre- and post-restoration periods ...... 144

Table AB 6 Changes in sapric muck thickness 14 years after restoring wetland hydrology in organic soils at Juniper Bay based off pedon descriptions ...... 145

Table AC 1 Within site (between Hydro. Groups) and between site comparisons (within Hydro. Groups) for vegetation variables not used in the RAT ...... 153

Table AC 2 Regressions that estimate the maximum consecutive days within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season ...... 154

Table AC 3 Pedotransfer functions that measure soil bulk density (g cm-3) from loss of ignition (%) from eight Carolina Bay mitigation sites that previously experienced agriculture ...... 155

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Aerial survey from 1930 showing examples of Carolina Bays near Myrtle Beach, SC ...... 8

Figure 1.2 Schematic diagram of an organic soil based Carolina Bay showing major soil types ...... 9

Figure 1.3 A cross-section of an organic soil based Carolina Bay wetland across a hydroseqence, or a catena of saturation, showing the dominate soil types within each hydrologic regime ...... 10

Figure 1.4 A State and Transition model proposed for organic soil based Carolina Bay Wetlands ...... 13

Figure 2.1 Map of Juniper Bay showing the drainage ditches, soil types, soil pits, wells used during the first five years after restoration, and vegetation plot locations ...... 48

Figure 2.2 Estimated hydrology across Juniper Bay ...... 49

Figure 3.1 Map of Juniper Bay showing the drainage ditches, soil types, soil pits, wells used during the first five years after restoration, and vegetation plot locations ...... 76

Figure 3.2 Relationship of total carbon to loss of ignition (LOI) ...... 77

Figure 3.3 Organic C concentrations down to 60 cm: A) pre-restoration, B) post-restoration, below pre-restoration soil surface plus C from the litter layer ...... 78

Figure 3.4 Cumulative SOC (Mg C ha-1) between pre- and post-restoration mineral soils are shown in A) and B) organic soils. Reference Carolina Bay and post- restoration C levels for mineral soils are shown in C) and D) organic soils ...... 79

Figure 3.5 a) The relationship between C levels (Mg C ha-1) down to 75 cm, in addition to, C stored in the litter layer and estimated consecutive days of ponding during the growing season. b) Regression between litter thickness (cm) and consecutive days of ponding during the growing season ...... 80

Figure 4.1 Locations of the Carolina Bay research sites in relation to Raleigh, NC ...... 115

Figure 4.2 Chronosequences for litter layer thickness (cm) ...... 116

Figure 4.3 Chronosequences for tree basal area (m2 ha-1) ...... 117

Figure 4.4 Chronosequences for potential tree height (m) ...... 118

Figure S4.1 Chronosequences for litter layer thickness (cm) across four Hydrologic Groups . 123

Figure S4.2 Chronosequences for tree basal area (m2 ha-1) across four Hydrologic Groups .... 124

Figure S4.3 Chronosequences for potential tree height (m) across four Hydrologic Groups .... 125

Figure 5.1 A State and Transition model proposed for organic soil based Carolina Bay wetlands ...... 127

Figure AA 1 Two-dimensional hydrology map of Juniper Bay overlayed with a general soil map ...... 137

Figure AA 2 Two-dimensional hydrology map of Juniper Bay overlayed with a general soil map and general plant communities ...... 138

Figure AB 1 Difference in IRIS tube Fe-oxide paint removal found in two Spodosols within Hydrologic Group 3 ...... 146

Figure AB 2 A) Soil map of Juniper Bay prior to restoration and B) soil map of Juniper Bay 14 years after restoration ...... 147

Figure AB 3 A) Total organic thickness (cm) at Juniper Bay prior to restoration and B) total organic thickness (cm) at Juniper Bay 14 years after restoration ...... 148

Figure AB 4 A) Total organic thickness (cm) since no major anthropogenic disturbance (yrs.) and B) sapric material thickness (cm) since no major anthropogenic disturbance (yrs.) ...... 149

Figure AB 5 Two-dimensional example of removing and restoring wetland hydrology in an organic soil dominated by sapric material ...... 150

Figure AB 6 Hypothetical example of restoring wetland hydrology in a saprist ...... 151

Figure AC 1 Chronosequences of bulk density in organic soils dominated by sapric material down to 30 cm below the Oi and Oe horizons ...... 156

Figure AC 2 Photographs of pedons and IRIS tubes from two soil pits ...... 157

Figure AF 1 Sample locations at Arabia Bay ...... 228

Figure AF 2 Sample locations at Barra Farms (Harrison Bay) ...... 234

Figure AF 3 Sample locations at Dover Bay ...... 239

Figure AF 4 Sample locations at Dowd Dairy ...... 244

Figure AF 5 Sample locations at Hillcrest Bay ...... 250

Figure AF 6 Sample locations at Juniper Bay ...... 254

Figure AF 7 Sample locations at Sliver Moon 1...... 267

Figure AF 8 Sample locations at Sliver Moon 2...... 271

Figure AF 9 Sample locations at Twin Bays ...... 277

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Jurisdictional Wetlands

Wetlands are recognized for performing functions that are essential for environmental health and water quality (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005), but they have been one of the most anthropogenically altered systems on Earth (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Two federal acts protect areas of land that contain a combination of hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and are connected to waters of the United States (Environmental

Laboratory 1987). The Clean Water Act (CWA), formerly known as the Federal Water Pollution and Control Act of 1972, stipulates that , “….the Secretary of the Army, acting through the

Chief of Engineers, must issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetland Conservation

Compliance provisions (Swampbuster), were introduced to the U.S. Farm Bill in 1985 (USDA-

NRCS 1985). Swampbuster states that “people who convert a wetland making a production of an agricultural commodity possible after November 28, 1990, will be ineligible for program benefits until the functions of the wetland that was converted is mitigated unless an exemption applies.”

Wetland Mitigation

Compensatory mitigation involves restoring, enhancing, creating, or preserving the functions that wetlands perform (USACOE 2002). Restoration involves manipulating an altered wetland to regain its original functions. Establishing or creating wetlands converts an upland area into a wetland by creating water-saturated conditions at the site. Enhancing wetlands improves functions in an existing wetland, while preserving wetlands removes or reduces common threats to wetlands (USACOE 2002). In 2008, the USACOE and the EPA required that

mitigation be done by “selecting the least damaging project type and spatial project type

(avoidance), managing the severity of a project’s impact on resources at a selected site

(minimization), and replacing or providing substitute resources for impacts after minimization and avoidance have been applied (compensatory mitigation).” Under section 404 of the CWA, compensatory mitigation can be carried out in three different ways by: 1) using mitigation banks,

2) in-lieu fee programs, or 3) permittee-responsible mitigation (EPA 2008). Mitigation banks are restored wetlands that sell compensatory mitigation credits to permittees who are responsible for carrying out compensatory mitigation that is authorized by the USACOE. The credits are transferred to the mitigation bank owner. In-lieu fee programs undergo compensatory mitigation through funds paid to a governmental or non-profit organization to satisfy mitigation requirements authorized by the USACOE permits. The receiving organization is then responsible for restoring a wetland elsewhere. Permittee-responsible mitigation occurs when the permittee takes full responsibility of the compensatory mitigation (EPA 2008).

Evaluating Restoration Sites

Wetland restoration projects can be complex, and failures are common (National

Research Council 1995, Erwin 1991, Wilson and Mitsch 1996). Wetland restoration projects frequently fail when restored wetland hydrology is not favorable for the vegetation that has been planted onsite to replace the original wetland vegetation (Dennison and Schmid 1997). To ensure that wetlands are successfully restored, an evaluation process should be used to verify that the wetland functions have been restored. Evaluating wetland hydrology on restored sites can be time-consuming and expensive using water table measurements, and faster less-expensive methods for evaluating restoration sites are needed. Soil-based biogeochemical indicators can be used to evaluate restored wetlands, because they are related to the wetland functions that are

valued by society (Reddy and DeLaune 2008). Such biogeochemical indicators include: soil C accumulation, duration of saturation and anaerobic conditions, and the reduction of nitrates and sulfates in the water that will remove these components to improve water quality.

Measuring selected soil characteristics in an altered system might be used to determine if the restored system is functioning comparable to a natural or reference system (Smith et al.

2013). Soil properties that are susceptible to change over short time periods (i.e., < 25 yrs.) are called dynamic soil properties (Soil Science Division 2017) and are often considered suitable measures for evaluating ecosystem functions (Stolt et al. 2000). Inherent soil properties do not regularly change in a short amount of time by natural processes (Soil Science Division 2017).

These properties should be measured as well because they can be altered through anthropogenic activity and impact wetland functions (Bruland et al. 2003). For example, changing soil texture by adding sandy fill to a site affects water holding capacity, and this can alter native microbial communities and the biogeochemical cycling of nutrients and C (Bruland and Richardson 2005).

Two methods are often used to evaluate restoration success: 1) Hydrogeomorphic approach (HGM) (Brinson 1993) and 2) the Ecological Approach (EA) (Moon and Wardrop

2013).

Hydrogeomorphic Approach

The HGM approach was developed to classify wetlands and relate a mitigated system to a reference system by a rating scheme (Brinson 1993,1996). The first step when using HGM is to classify the type of wetland. The geomorphic position, the hydrologic source, and hydrodynamics of a wetland are used to place a system into one of seven HGM groups: (1) riverine, (2) depressional, (3) slope, (4) mineral soil flats, (5) organic soil flats, (6) estuarine fringe, and (7) lacustrine fringe.

Once the geomorphic, hydrologic, and reference conditions for the wetland are known, the mitigated wetland can be evaluated on-site using a functional capacity index (FCI) (Brinson

1993, Smith et al. 2013). The FCI rates selected variables from 0 (not functioning) to 1 (fully functioning) in comparison to the reference standards usually based off measurements of site characteristics that may include properties such as flood frequency, litter thickness, A-horizon thickness, matrix color, and soil particle size class. The HGM system has not been widely used to evaluate wetland functions because it is time-consuming to utilize and may require on-site measurements of complex variables that are related to wetland functions.

Ecological Assessments

Ecological approaches often compare the mitigated wetland system to a reference site using a timeline, or chronosequence, to quantify the ecological integrity of the altered site (Moon and Wardrop 2013). Ecological integrity refers to, “the ability of an ecosystem to support and maintain its complexity and capacity for self-organization in terms of its physicochemical characteristics, species composition, and functional processes, in the absence of human disturbance” (Karr and Dudley 1981). Soil quality can be related to ecological integrity by using indicators of wetland functions (Fennessy and Wardrop 2016). Four steps are generally used to determine indicators of wetland functions: (1) Establish reference conditions, (2) Find indicators that reliably change with time, (3) Classify indicators based on the amounts of time and money that are needed to obtain the measurements, and (4) Determine which indicators reflect reference standards, versus a specific function (e.g. is the restored hydrologic regime comparable to reference conditions or is the hydrology restored to meet minimum jurisdictional requirements?)

(Fennessy and Wardrop 2016).

Many environmental conditions may interact with a given indicator (Hossler et al. 2011).

Choosing the appropriate indicator(s) to relate to specific wetland functions should be done for a specific type of wetland (Fennessy and Wardop 2016). Effective and reliable indicators: 1) are dynamic and correlate with age since the anthropogenic disturbance, 2) require a short amount of time and money to measure, 3) perform essential wetland functions, and 4) experience no seasonal or spatial variability (Fennessy et al. 2001; Schloter et al. 2003; Gil-Sotres et al. 2005).

Establishing appropriate reference conditions sets the standards or maximum values for the indicators of wetland performance (Rheinhardt et al. 2007; Wardrop et al. 2013).

Ecological assessment indicators follow a “three-tiered framework” (Wardrop et al.

2007). Reddy and DeLaune (2008) describe three levels of indicators based on sampling and analytical effort required for the analyses. The majority of the indicators are biological or chemical-based, however, there are a few physical indicators within the lower levels. Level 1 indicators are the least expensive to measure, because they tend to be stable over time. Level 2 and 3 indicators vary in time and space and cost more to measure (Reddy and DeLaune 2008).

Higher level indicators can be used to validate lower order indicators. For example, the level 3 indicator, C accretion rates using Cs-137 analyses, could be used to determine how much of the total C (level 1 indicator) has formed in recent years.

Ecological Sites and Ecological Site Descriptions

The USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) evaluates the soils in the U.S. to characterize their properties and distribution, and assess their ability to serve various uses such a crop production, waste disposal, road construction, forests, etc. (Soil Science

Division Staff 2017). Ecological sites are defined by the USDA-NRCS as, “ a distinctive kind of land with specific soil and physical characteristics that differ from other kinds of land in its

ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation and its ability to respond similarly to management actions and natural disturbances.” The abiotic and biotic factors that historically dominate(d) the landscape generally establish the framework for the reference conditions.

Abiotic factors refer to the soils, climate, hydrology, geology, and physiographic features. Biotic factors include the natural plant communities and the amount of annual biomass production, as well as, interactions between wildlife and vegetation (Soil Science Division Staff 2017).

Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) are summaries of the properties and locations of specific ecological sites (Soil Science Division Staff 2017). The ESDs are used to guide land managers in selecting the best ways to improve an ecological site’s ability to perform a given function such as growing crops. There are four main sections in every ESD, 1) abiotic factors, 2) biotic factors, 3) site interpretations that refer to, “management alternatives for the site and its related resources,” and 4) supporting information (i.e. published literature and/or recent data collection) (Soil Science Division Staff 2017).

State and Transition Models

There are a wide array of disturbances that can influence ecological sites such as natural fires or severe storm events (natural disturbances), and clearcutting the native vegetation to convert the site into an agronomic system (anthropogenic disturbances) (Soil Science Division

Staff 2017). State and transition models of ecological sites describe the different phases or

“states” and the processes responsible for the phase change “transitions” that a given ecological site could experience. The different states of an ecological site are generally stable until intensive management actions take place that transition the site into a new state (Soil Science

Division Staff 2017).

Ecological sites can undergo many states and transitions. A palustrine wetland that is drained and used for agriculture for a number of years, and is then restored back to a wetland can be used to illustrate states and transitions. State 1 is the natural wetland. It undergoes Transition

1 when it is drained, native vegetation is removed, and the land crowned to improve drainage to make it suitable for farming. The drained wetland now enters State 2 and becomes an agronomic system. In State 2, the land is seasonally plowed, fertilized and limed, and planted in a crop.

The land can be converted back to wetland through Transition 2 which restores wetland hydrology by plugging drainage ditches, and planting vegetation similar to reference plant communities. The restored site enters State 3 at the completion of Transition 2. The restored wetland does not become a natural wetland immediately, but must evolve through Transition 3 which allows the vegetation to grow through time, litter to accumulate, and soil C to reach reference levels. In time, the restored wetland may return to a semblance of State 1, or it may enter another state if it never reaches the original reference. Moon and Wardrop (2013) describe how restored sites that do not reach the original reference state can be evaluated.

Carolina Bay Wetlands

One unique type of wetland, or Ecological Site, found in the Southeastern United States

Coastal Plain is the Carolina Bay (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). The bays have an elliptical shape, are orientated Northwest to Southeast, have a depression landform, and contain a sand rim that is most noticeable on southeast portion of the bay(s) (Fig. 1.1). Carolina Bays are mostly found within the Carolinas, but do occur as far north as New Jersey and as far south as Northern

Florida (Prouty 1952). Prouty (1952) estimated that approximately 500,000 Carolina Bays exist, but more recent estimates put the number as ranging between 10,000 to 20,000 (Richardson and

Gibbons 1993). Carolina Bays range in size from about 90 m to 11 km along the major axis

(Prouty 1952).

1.9 km (1.2 mile)

Fig 1.1. Aerial survey from 1930 showing examples of Carolina Bays near Myrtle Beach, SC

(Fairchild Aerial Surveys 1930). The light area on the perimeter of the bays is the sand rim.

The oval-shaped, depressional landform geomorphology is similar in all Carolina Bays, however, differences in soil types, and plant communities can exist within and among the bays

(Fig. 1.2) (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). As shown in Fig. 1.3, a wetness gradient is found from the sand rim to the center of the bays, as soils become progressively wetter, and the soils and plants within the bay change accordingly. Carolina Bays also differ in their amounts of organic soils. Organic soil based Carolina Bays are more common in the Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion where plant communities of nonriverine swamp forest, pocosin, pond pine woodland, and bay forest dominate the Carolina Bays (Griffith et al. 2002; Shafale and Weakley 1990; Dimick et al.

2010). Clay based Carolina Bays are more common in the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains ecoregion of North and South Carolina where plants communities of pond cypress ponds, pond cypress savannas, and depression meadows dominate the bays (Shafale and Weakley 1990;

Richardson and Gibbons 1993; Griffith et al. 2002).

Fig 1.2. Schematic diagram of an organic soil based Carolina Bay showing major soil types.

Orange shaded areas (sand rim) dominate soil types are Entisols and Spodosols. Yellow

shaded areas contain Inceptisols, Spodosols, and Ultisols. Brown shaded areas contain

Histosols dominated by sapric soil material.

Fig 1.3. A cross-section of an organic soil based Carolina Bay wetland across a hydrosequence, or a catena of saturation, showing the dominate soil types within each hydrologic regime. Saturation duration refers to the maximum consecutive days within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season in five years out of ten.

Over the past 300 years, Carolina Bays have been burned by Native Americans (Wells and Boyce 1953), converted to various forms of agriculture, and have been disturbed from different forms of development (Kirkman and Sharitz 1994). Carolina Bays are converted into row-crop agriculture through a three-step process (Ewing et al. 2005). First, the native vegetation is removed. Drainage ditches are then dug and fields “crowned” to remove wetland hydrology. Chemical fertilizers and lime are normally applied to the fields to increase the amounts of plant nutrients needed for economical crop yields. Primary and secondary land subsidence occurs once the land is drained by removing the historical water table, C oxidation, and wind erosion (Ewing et al. 2006). A Carolina Bay in Robeson County, NC experienced agriculture for up to 30 years and the land subsided almost 1 m within the organic soils. Soil also eroded off the crowns and gradually refilled drainage ditches. To accommodate for land subsidence and infilling of the ditches, landowners periodically deepen the ditches to maintain desired water table depths. Soil or spoil from ditch maintenance is usually placed adjacent to the ditches which further alters soil properties (Ewing et al. 2012). Soil properties often differ between the ditch edge and on the field crests.

State and Transition Model for Carolina Bays

Carolina Bays can be considered one type of ecological site for USDA land management purposes (Soil Science Division 2017). A State and Transition Model for Carolina Bays has been proposed in Fig. 1.4. There are three main states for this model that are shown in the gray boxes: 1) Natural Wetland with four sub-states, 2) Agricultural Field, and 3) Restored Wetland.

Transitions (labeled T1, T2, and T3) are the processes that convert one state into another as described previously. The natural wetland has at least four different hydrology and soil groups that occur from the wetland edge to the center. In going from Hydrologic Groups 1 to 4, the

soils are saturated for longer periods of time, ponded for increasingly longer periods, and grade from mineral soils to organic soils. In addition, the wetter soil conditions allow for increases in soil organic C in going from Groups 1 to 4.

Transition T1 converts a natural wetland into an agricultural field by harvesting trees, installing drainage ditches, adjusting soil fertility and pH with chemical additions, and then planting crops. Transition T2 converts the agricultural field into a restored wetland by plugging drainage ditches, grading surface topography to remove field crowns, and then planting vegetation (e.g., trees) that are found in the natural Carolina Bays. Transitions T1 and T2 depend on human activity and occur relatively quickly. On the other hand, Transition T3 relies on natural processes that change the restored site back toward a natural wetland. The time period required for this transition is not known, but probably requires > 50 yrs. as the trees at the site have to mature, litter on the soil must accumulate, and changes on soil C have to occur to resemble those in the natural wetland.

For this State and Transition model to be useful, evaluation criteria must be established for Transition T3 in order to assess a restored wetland’s performance. The performance criteria will probably vary with the age of the restoration site as trees have to have time to mature, and litter and soil organic C have to have time to accumulate. In addition to time, separate criteria have to be established to evaluate whether the areas in a restored Carolina Bay are transitioning toward one of the four sub-categories in the natural wetland that are defined by the hydrologic groups.

Fig 1.4. A State and Transition model proposed for organic soil based Carolina Bay wetlands.

The model contains three states: 1) Natural wetland, 2) agricultural field, and 3) restored wetland that can transition from one to another. The natural wetland contains four “sub-states” that differ in hydrology and soil characteristics. The transition processes (T1-T3) are shown.

Transition T3 occurs over a long time period as the restored wetland changes toward a natural wetland.

Research Approach and Study Objectives

The principal goal of this research was to develop a tool for USDA field personnel to use to evaluate a restored Carolina Bay wetlands as they go through Transition 3 of Fig. 1.4. The

Rapid Assessment Tool (RAT) was requested by the USDA-NRCS which funded this work. The

RAT will be included in an Ecological Site Description for Carolina Bays. The objectives of this were research were to: 1) define the hydrologic groups and vegetation relationships found across a restored Carolina Bay wetland, 2) identify changes in soil organic C concentrations in an organic soil based Carolina Bay wetland that had been restored for 15 yr., and 3) evaluate changes in selected soil and vegetation properties in restored Carolina Bay wetlands that ranged in time since restoration from 0 to 23 years. Objectives 1 and 2 were evaluated at one restored

Carolina Bay wetland and three natural Carolina Bay wetlands to determine the properties that are needed to be used for the RAT. Objective 3 developed the RAT by evaluating nine Carolina

Bay wetlands that ranged in restoration age in order to identify changes in plant and soil properties over time in wetlands that had been successfully restored.

Overview of Chapters

The second chapter of this thesis reports on the results for objective 1 which established the vegetation and hydrologic relationships in a restored organic soil based Carolina Bay 15 years after restoration. Site parameters related to aboveground biomass that significantly changed under different saturation regimes and were thought to reliably change with time, were chosen to be regressed across a chronosequence in a following chapter. Hydrologic and vegetation variables that significantly changed under different saturation regimes were proposed as easy ways to estimate saturation durations.

The third chapter focused on objective 2 by measuring the solid phase soil organic carbon

(SOC) dynamics in the same Carolina Bay wetland studied in the chapter 2. The SOC concentrations were compared in the restored bay to the levels measured prior to restoration, as well as those in the natural bays.

The fourth chapter reports on the findings for objective 3. It regresses the indicators found in chapters 2 and 3 across a chronosequence developed from eight other restored Carolina

Bay wetland sites. In addition, chapter 4 also developed a statistical approach for estimating the maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface that could be used for identifying Hydrologic Groups in the RAT. The eight other locations contained a wide population of Carolina Bay wetlands that are typical of inland areas of the Southeastern Coastal

Plain.

The fifth chapter of the thesis is a summary with conclusions and recommendations for future work. A methodology for evaluating restored Carolina Bay wetlands that are typical in inland areas of the Southeastern United States is also proposed. The proposed methodology uses an ecological approach for evaluating restoration sites that contain no well data.

REFERENCES

Brinson M (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4,

Waterways Experiment Station, Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

Brinson M (1996) Assessing wetland functions using HGM. National Wetlands Newsletter.

18(1): 10-16.

Bruland GL, Hanchey M, Richardson C (2003) Effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on

hydrology, soils, and water quality of a Carolina bay complex. Wetlands Ecology

Management 11:141-156.

Bruland G, Richardson C (2006) Comparison of soil organic matter in created, restored and

paired natural wetlands in North Carolina. Wetlands Ecology Management. 14(3): 245-

251.

Dennison, M. S., and J. A. Schmid (1997) Wetland mitigation: mitigation banking and other

strategies for development and compliance. Rockville, Md..: Government Institutes, Inc.

Dimick, B. P., Stucky J, Wall W, Vepraskas M, Wentworth T, Arellana C (2010) Plant‐soil‐

hydrology relationships in three Carolina bays in Bladen County, North Carolina, USA.

Castanaea 75(4): 407‐420.

Environmental Laboratory (1987) Corps of engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical

Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Erwin, K (1991) An evaluation of wetland mitigation in the Southeast. In: Kusler, J.A.,Kentula,

M.E. (Eds.), Wetland creation and restoration. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 233–

265.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M (2006) Estimating primary and secondary subsidence in an organic soil

15, 20, and 30 years after drainage. Wetlands 26(1): 119‐130.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M, White J, Broome S (2012) Changes in wetland soil morphological and

chemical properties after 15, 20, and 30 years of agricultural production. Geoderma 179-

180:73-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M, Zanner C (2005) Using historical records of land use to improve wetland

mitigation. Southeastern Geographer 45:25-43.

Fairchild Aerial Surveys (1930) 1930 Aerial survey for the ocean forest company.

https://www.scientificpsychic.com/pubs/CB-history/carolina-bays-research.html.

Accessed 5 April 2021.

Fennessy M, Gernes J, Mack J, Wardrop D (2001) Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition:

Using Vegetation to Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands. EPA-822-R-02-020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, USA.

Fennessy M, Wardrop D (2016) Approaches to assessing the ecological condition of wetlands

using soil indicators. In: Vepraskas M and Craft C (eds.) Wetland soils: genesis,

hydrology, landscapes and classification. 2 edn. Boca Raton, Florida. pp 425-442.

Gil-Sotres F, Trasar-Cepeda C, Leiros M, Seoane S (2005) Different approaches to evaluating

soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Biology Biogeochemistry. 37:877-887.

Griffith, G, Omernik J, Comstock J, Schafale M, McNab W, Lenat D, MacPherson T (2002)

Ecoregions of North Carolina. United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Corvallis, Oregon.

Hossler K, Bouchard V, Fennessy M, Fry S, Anemaet E, Herbert E (2011) No-net-loss not met

for nutrient function: Recommendations for wetland mitigation policies. Ecospheres 2:1-

36.

Karr J, Dudley D (1981) Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental

Management 5: 55-68.

Kirkman L, Sharitz R (1994) Vegetation disturbance and maintenance of diversity in

intermittently flooded Carolina bays in South Carolina. Ecological Applications 4:177-

188.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and

Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

Mitsch, W, Gosselink J (2007) Wetlands. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Moon J, Wardrop D (2013) Linking landscapes to wetland condition. In R. Brooks, and D.

Wardrop (Eds.). Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Advances in Wetlands Science,

Management, Policy, and Practice. Springer Publishing, New York, NY, pp.61-108.

National Research Council (1995) Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. Nat. Acad Press,

Washington, D.C.

Prouty W (1952) Carolina bays and their origin. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63:167–

224.

Reddy, K, Delaune R (2008) Biogeochemistry of wetlands: science and applications. CRC Press,

Boca Raton. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9780203491454.

Rheinhardt R, Brinson M, Brooks R, Mckenney-Easterling M, Rubbo J, Hite J, Armstrong B

(2007) Development of a reference-based method for identifying and scoring indicators

of condition for coastal plain riparian reaches. Ecological Indicators 7:339-361.

Richardson C, Gibbons J (1993) Pocosins, Carolina bays, and mountain bogs. p. 257–310. In:

Martin W, Boyce S, and Echternacht A (eds.). Biodiversity of the southeastern United

States –Lowland terrestrial communities. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

Schafale, M, Weakley A (1990) Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department

of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Schloter M, O’Dilly C, Munch J (2003) Indicators for evaluating soil quality. Agriculture

Ecosystems Environment 98:255-262.

Sharitz R, Gibbons J (1982) The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina

bays: a community profile. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Smith R, Noble C, Berowitz J (2013) Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland

Functions: Guidelines for Developing Guidebooks (Version 2). ERDC/EL TR-13-11.

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Soil Science Division Staff (2017) Soil survey manual. Ditzler C, Scheffe K, Monger H (eds.).

USDA Handbook 18. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Stolt M, Genthner M, Daniels W, Groover V, Nagle S, Haering K (2000) Comparison of soil and

other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands.

Wetlands 20(4): 671-683.

USDA (2002) Wetland reserve program: restoring America's wetlands. Washington, D.C. USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

United States Department of Agriculture: Natural Resource Conservation Service (1985)

Wetland conservation provisions (swampbuster).

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/water/wetlands/?cid=stelpr

db1043554 Accessed 5 April 2021.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Background about Compensatory

Mitigation Requirements under CWA Section 404. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-

404/background-about-compensatory-mitigation-requirements-under-cwa-section-404

Accessed 5 April 2021.

Wardrop D, Kentula M, Brooks R, Fennessy M, Chamberlain S, Havens K, Hershner C (2013)

Monitoring and assessment of wetlands: Concepts, case-studies, and lessons learned. In

R. Brooks, and D. Wardrop (Eds.). Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Advances in

Wetlands Science, Management, Policy, and Practice. Springer Publishing, New York,

NY, pp. 381-420.

Wardrop D, Kentula M, Stevens Jr. D, Jensen S, Brooks R (2007) Regional assessments of

wetland condition: An example from the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA.

Wetlands 27: 416-431.

Wells B, Boyce S (1953) Carolina bays: additional data on their origin, age and history. Journal

of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 69: 119-141.

Wilson, K, Mitsch, W (1996) Functional assessment of five wetlands constructed to mitigate

wetland loss in Ohio, USA. Wetlands 16:436–451.

CHAPTER 2: HYDROLOGY AND VEGETATION RELATIONSHIPS IN A CAROLINA

BAY WETLAND 15 YEARS AFTER RESTORATION

Abstract: Restoring wetlands is expensive and evaluation criteria are needed to establish when restorations are successful. The objective of this study was to compare the hydrology and vegetation of a Carolina Bay Wetland (CBW) restored for 15yrs to that found in natural bays.

The study site was Juniper Bay in Robeson County, NC, a CBW that had been restored for 15yrs following its use for agriculture. Plots were placed where previous studies described post- restoration hydrology and soil properties. Vegetation at each plot was characterized by determining vegetation type, and tree basal area and height. Hydrology indicators were collected at each sample location. Plots were grouped by saturation duration that occurred within 30 cm of the soil surface: <14, 14-50, 51-100, and 101-225 consecutive days during the growing season.

The number of hydrology indicators increased 50% going from <14 to 101-225d of saturation.

Dominant tree species 15yrs after restoration were similar to those found in the three reference

CBWs. Where saturation occurred for 101+ days, tree basal area and height decreased 40-69% compared to where saturation occurred for shorter periods. Areas that experienced saturation for

<51d contained trees that were 10cm larger in diameter, had 97-98% more shrubs and vines, and contain 68-96% less areal cover of graminoids compared to areas that had saturation for 101-

225d . Because plant species composition, as well as abundance, changed with hydrology across this restoration site, assessing vegetation at restoration sites must be done with regard to any hydrologic gradients that occur.

INTRODUCTION

Creation of new wetlands, enhancement of existing wetlands, and restoration of previously converted wetlands are used to replace lost wetland acreage through mitigation

(USACOE 2002). Wetland mitigation is often conducted when natural wetlands are impacted by various forms of development and agriculture (National Research Council 1995, USDA 1994).

Restoring wetlands that were converted to agriculture involves plugging drainage ditches or drain lines, and planting vegetation similar to reference wetland communities that resemble the original wetland (Ewing et al. 2005). Site restoration is expensive with costs reaching $3000/ha

(USDA 2002). In NC, over $500 million have been spent on restoring wetlands since 2003 (NC

DEQ, 2013).

Returning wetland hydrology to its original condition is considered the most critical and difficult facet of the restoration process (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Hydrology controls many wetland processes such as carbon (C) sequestration (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007) and plant community type (DeSteven and Lowrance 2011). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has defined wetland hydrology as saturation, flooding or ponding occurring within 30 cm of the surface for at least 14 consecutive days during the growing season, in 5 or more years out of 10 (USACE 2005).

Planting wetland vegetation that is similar to the original species composition is also a requirement for sites to be successfully restored.

Carolina Bays are a unique type of wetland found in the Southeastern United States Coastal

Plain (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). The bays have an elliptical shape, are orientated northwest to southeast, have a depressional landform, and contain a sand rim that is most noticeable on southeast portion of the bays (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). Carolina Bays are concentrated within the Carolinas, but extend as far north as New Jersey and as far south as northern Florida (Prouty

1952). Many bays were drained and put into agricultural production in the 1970s (Ewing et al.

2005). In more recent years many wetlands in the Southeast have been restored back to a wetland condition (Ewing et al. 2005).

The objective of this study was to examine and relate the hydrology and vegetation characteristics across a Carolina Bay wetland that had been successfully restored for 15 years, and to compare these parameters to those found in three reference bays. The results of the study would be used to identify site parameters that could be used to evaluate restoration success.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Site Description

Juniper Bay is a Carolina Bay located in Robeson County, NC, approximately 10 km southeast of Lumberton (34° 30’23.38” N, 79° 01’16.96” W). Average annual precipitation for the area is 120 cm, and average annual temperature is 17 °C. The 256 ha bay was logged, drained, and put into agricultural production in three stages from 1971 to 1986 (Ewing et al.

2005). The drainage network installed in the Bay is shown in Fig. 2.1. The farmer annually applied dolomitic limestone, nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium by following test recommendations from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture’s Agronomic Consumer

Services Division. The site was tilled down to 15 to 30 cm with chisel plows, moldboard plows, disks, and subsoilers. Soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr,) corn (Zea mays L.), tobacco

(Nicotiana tabacum L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), oats (Avena sativa L.), and wheat

(Triticum aestivum L.) were grown at Juniper Bay (Ewing et al. 2012). Agricultural production ceased in 1999 in all sections of the bay.

In 2005, Juniper Bay was restored to wetland by plugging ditches and planting trees similar to reference plant communities (Environmental Services, Inc. 2006). A perimeter ditch

was left open to avoid ponding at the bay. The perimeter ditch drained toward one outlet (Fig.

2.1), it was the only ditch draining water from the bay after restoration. Forty-three wells were installed in the bay following restoration to monitor hydrology from 2006 to 2010 (Fig. 2.1).

Vegetation plots were created 15 years after restoration at the original soil pit locations (sampled by Ewing et al. 2012), well locations, and one additional location was chosen based on site characteristics to supply additional data (Fig. 2.1).

The soils of Juniper Bay consisted of mineral soils around the perimeter with organic soils (Histosols) in the interior and mineral soils with a histic epipedon (thick organic surface) between the other two (Fig. 2.1). The predominant mineral soil series was Leon fine sand

(sandy, siliceous, thermic Aeric Alaquods) (McCachren 1978). The organic soils were Ponzer muck (loamy, mixed, dysic, thermic Terric Haplosaprists) with organic soil material extending to depths > 40 cm.

Hydrology Determination

Water table measurements for the growing season were obtained from the NC

Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ): Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) database. Five years of records were available (2006-2010) from 43 automated groundwater gauges across the site (Fig. 2.1) (Environmental Services, Inc., 2006-2010). The daily hydrology data were summarized by determining the maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season (50% probability or 5 years out of 10 years) for each well location. These data from the individual gauges were geo-interpolated in ArcMap using spline analysis to estimate the hydrology across the mitigation site (Esri 2016). It was necessary for the analysis that “zero points” be used to define a boundary condition along the perimeter ditch for areas that were thought to experience no saturation within 30 cm of the soil

surface during the growing season. The raster layer from the spline analysis was then incorporated into a sample extraction tool to estimate the hydrology for the 25 soil pits.

United States Army Corps of Engineer (USACOE) primary and secondary wetland hydrology field indicators were determined at the 25-soil pit locations, and selected well locations that were also used as vegetation plots shown in Fig. 2.1 (USACOE 2010). One primary indicator or two secondary hydrology indicators are needed for a given location to meet wetland hydrology. Plot boundaries were based on techniques described in the vegetation methods section.

Ponding occurrence during the growing season was estimated near the original soil pit locations using visual assessments made over the course of 2019 and 2020. Ponding occurrence was simply noted without measuring depth of inundation. Rainfall data were collected for the years 2019 and 2020 from the nearest available weather station in Lumberton, NC, located approximately 14 km from the site (NOAA 2020). The WETS table for the weather station was used to assess whether the rainfall was normal, wetter than normal, or drier than normal (NOAA

2020).

Assessing Vegetation

Vegetation was assessed by determining plant species, prevalence index, tree basal area, area of snags, potential tree height, diameter at breast height (DBH), saplings and seedlings, shrubs and vines, graminoids, and coarse woody debris (CWD). Basal area and the basal area of dead trees, snags, were determined in a variable radius plot using a 10-factor prism on trees with a DBH > 5 cm. The DBH was measured on all trees within the variable radius plot and the values were placed into 5 cm diameter classes. The average DBH within a given class for a given group is reported in Table 2.4. Fixed radius plots with a radius of 5.64 m (1/100 ha) were

used to estimate percent cover of graminoids, shrubs and vines. The number of stems per hectare for saplings and seedlings (DBH < 5 cm) were also estimated using fixed radius plots. Tree species were recorded from the variable radius plot and the remaining plant species were determined from the fixed plots. Species were considered dominant within a given group if the presence across all plots within a group was > 20%. Wetland plant indicator status developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was used to quantify prevalence index based on trees for each plot (Reed 1988). Indicator status for plants was found using the USDA-NRCS

PLANTS database search engine (USDA-NRCS 2020). Prevalence index for each plot was computed based on the methods of Wentworth et al. (1988). The volume of coarse woody debris

(CWD) was estimated on woody debris > 5 cm in diameter using a line intercept 10 m long transect starting from plot center and measured in all four cardinal directions. The volume of

CWD from the four transects within a plot were averaged to obtain the volume of CWD per area.

Potential tree height was determined for a healthy tree within the plot of interest by taking one- half of the sum of the slope (in percent) from eye level to the top of the tree and from the base of the tree at a point 15 m from the tree (DeYoung 2018). A healthy tree was chosen based on representative tree species of the plot, the tree did not have a broken top, the crown was not forked, and the tree was straight. Percent slope was quantified using a clinometer. Vegetation was inventoried at all 25 soil pit locations, 17 well locations, and one location near the bay’s edge (Fig. 2.1).

Reference Carolina Bays

Three organic soil Carolina Bays located in Bladen County, NC that had not burned or been logged for at least 65 years were used as reference sites. Previous work characterized the hydrology (Caldwell et al. 2011), soils (Ewing et al. 2012), and vegetation (Dimick et al. 2010).

The Bays were named Charlie Long – Millpond Bay (34°46’04.96” N, 78°33’36.24” W), Tatum

Millpond Bay, (34°43’00.09” N, 78°33’05.95” W), and Causeway Bay (34°39’41.92” N,

78°25’45.13” W).

Statistical Analyses

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) along with Tukey Kramer multiple comparisons procedure were conducted in SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) relating differences in hydrologic regimes to the vegetation variables mentioned above, number of hydrology indicators, estimated days of ponding, and saturation levels from well data . The PROC GLM function with LSMEANS was used because the data were not balanced. Two-tail T-Tests were also conducted in SAS using the PROC-TTEST function to compare differences in the number of primary and secondary hydrology field indicators found within a given Hydrologic Group.

Regression analysis was conducted in R Studio using the (lm) function to estimate consecutive days of saturation during the growing season based on hydrology field indicators and variables related to vegetation (R Studio PBC 2017).

All comparisons were made at the 0.05 level unless noted otherwise.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Hydrology

The hydrology data were summarized by Hydrologic Group as shown in Fig. 2. These results were based on well data obtained for years 2006 to 2010 (Environmental Services, Inc.,

2006-2010). According to climatic data from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration,

about 29% of the months during the growing season for the first five years after restoration experienced normal rainfall conditions at Juniper Bay (Table S2.1, NOAA 2020). Wetter than normal rainfall conditions occurred for approximately 40% of the months and drier than normal rainfall conditions occurred for about 31% of the months during the growing season for the first five years after restoration. Using well data, a Hydrologic Group was based on the maximum average time the soils were saturated within 30 cm of the surface during the growing season per year. Hydrologic Group 1 was defined as having saturation periods that occurred for an average of 13 days or less. These durations were too short to meet the requirements of wetland hydrology (USACOE 2005). Hydrologic Groups 2, 3, and 4 were saturated for increasing consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the surface during the growing season: Group 2

(14-50 days), Group 3 (51-100 days), and Group 4 (101-225 days). Divisions between Groups 2,

3, and 4 were set arbitrarily.

In general, the drier soils (Hydrologic Group 1) were found around the edge of the bay and wetter soils (Hydrologic Group 4) in the center (Fig. 2.2). This is a typical pattern for

Carolina Bay wetlands (Caldwell et al. 2011) and was also found in the reference bays. An exception to this pattern occurred in the northeastern side of the bay where a smaller area of wet soils in Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4 was also found. This area appeared to be a smaller Carolina

Bay that had merged with the larger one. Soils in Hydrologic Group 1 occupied 13% of Juniper

Bay, while soils in Hydrologic Groups 2, 3, and 4 occupied 24, 28, and 35% of the bay, respectively. The distribution of the Hydrologic Groups was related to the distribution of soils found in the bay (Fig. 2.1). In general, organic soils were found in Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4 and mineral soils in the other two groups. Organic soils can form under long-term saturated conditions (Collins and Kuehl 2001).

Mean values for saturation durations below the surface for each Hydrologic Group determined in 2006 to 2010 are compared to mean durations of ponding and hydrology field indicators observed for the 2019 and 2020 (Table 2.1). Mean saturation durations were significantly (p < 0.05) different among the Hydrologic Groups. Ponding durations increased from Hydrologic Groups 1 to 4 along with the mean periods of saturation, with those in Group 4 being significantly longer than in the other Groups. The correlation coefficient between ponding duration and mean saturation was 0.99 indicating ponding occurred when water tables were high, and not from single, high-rainfall events. Previous work by Ewing and Vepraskas (2006) at

Juniper Bay estimated the organic soils in Groups 3 and 4 had subsided during their time in agriculture by an average of 121 cm. Such a reduction in elevation would make the soils susceptible to ponding after restoration of wetland hydrology.

Wetland hydrology field indicators were also found in all Hydrologic Groups in 2019 and

2020, indicating that saturation was still occurring (Table 2.1). The number of primary hydrology field indicators increased 60% (2 to 5 indicators) and secondary hydrology field indicators increased 50% (2 to 4 indicators) going from Group 1 to Group 4, respectively. There were significantly (p < 0.05) more primary hydrology indicators (3 to 5 indicators) than secondary hydrology indicators (2 to 4 indicators) found in Groups 2-4. Visible evidence of saturation (A3), a high-water table (A2), and ponding (A1) was found in all Hydrologic Groups.

These results suggest that the number of hydrology field indicators may be just as important as the type of indicator to characterize saturation durations when wetland hydrology is present.

Rainfall data were examined for the growing season months in 2019 and 2020 to determine if the hydrologic field indicators and ponding observations found at Juniper Bay occurred during normal, wetter than normal, or drier than normal conditions (Table 2.2). For the

2-year period examined for the growing season, 8 months had normal rainfall (amounts between the 30th and 70th percentiles of the WETS Table, Table 2.2), 7 months were wetter than normal, and 2 months were drier than normal. This suggests that some of the wetland hydrology field indicators may have developed during wet periods in 2019 and 2020. However, the long ponding durations observed in Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4 extended beyond one month, over 4 months for Group 4, and are probably not due solely to rainfall during a wet period. In summary, the hydrologic ranges shown in Fig 2.2 are close to what Juniper Bay experienced 15 years after restoration.

Vegetation

Data for vegetation coverage are shown in Table 2.3. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L., facultative) was a dominant tree species found across the site in all Hydrologic Groups. Pond pine (Pinus serotina L., facultative-wet) was common (present on 17% cover) in Group 1. Pond pine, in addition to, loblolly pine was dominant in Group 2. Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4 were dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum L., obligate) and pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens L., obligate), in addition to loblolly pine. Red maple (Acer rubrum L., facultative) was common (present on 12% cover) in Group 4. These results are similar to what was found at the driest areas of the reference Carolina Bays by Dimick et al. (2010) and Caldwell et al (2011) and described by Shafale and Weakley (1990).

Red maple was a dominant sapling and/or seedling found across all Groups. Sweet gum

(Liquidambar styraciflua L., facultative), in addition to loblolly pine, was dominant and southern red oak (Quercus falcata L., upland) was common (present on 13% cover) in Group 1. Loblolly pine was common (present on 10% cover) in Hydrologic Group 2. The dominant shrub species found was wax myrtle (Morella cerifera L., facultative), however, blackberry (Rubus argutus L.,

facultative) was also common (present on 18% cover) in Hydrologic Group 3. Dominant graminoid genera observed include: sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and cattails

(Typha spp.)

Vegetation prevalence index, along with size and abundance data are shown in Table 4.

Prevalence index decreased as saturation increased, and was significantly (p < 0.05) lower in

Hydrologic Group 4 (1.8) than in Groups 1 and 2 (3.0 and 2.8). Group 3 prevalence index (2.0) was significantly lower than Group 1 (3.0) at the 90% confidence level (p = 0.09). Tree basal area tended to decrease as saturation duration increased and was significantly (p < 0.05) lower in

Hydrologic Group 4 (11 m2 ha-1) than in Groups 1-3 (35-24 m2 ha-1). Potential tree height showed a progressive decline from Hydrologic Group 1 through 4. Potential tree height in

Group 4 (9 m) was significantly (p < 0.05) shorter than that in Groups 1-3 (19-15 m). The DBH decreased from Group 1 to 4. The DBH in Hydrologic Group 4 (18 cm) was significantly

(p<0.05) smaller than in Groups 1 and 2 (28 cm).

In general, tree basal area, height, and DBH were the largest (35 m2 ha-1, 19 m, 28 cm) in drier mineral soil areas when compared to areas that experience longer saturation periods (11 m2 ha-1, 9 m, 18 cm). Most of these properties are similar to what has been found in natural

Carolina Bays of the region (12 m2 ha-1, 18m - dry; 8 m2 ha-1, 10 m - wet) (Otte 1982; Hall and

Penfound 1939; Dimick et al. 2010).

Percent cover of shrubs and vines also showed a decline from Hydrologic Groups 1 to 4.

Group 4 was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (1 %) than groups 1 and 2 (49 and 30 %). Percent cover of shrubs and vines in Group 3was significantly (p < 0.10) lower (9 %) than in Group 1 and 2 (49 and 30 %).

Percent cover of graminoids increased from Hydrologic Groups 1 to 4 (Table 2.4). Areas that experienced saturation durations > 50 consecutive days during the growing season contained significantly (p < 0.05) more (47 and 50 %) graminoids than where saturation occurred for shorter periods (2 and 17 %). No significant (p > 0.05) differences were observed across

Hydrologic Groups in metrics of snags, saplings and seedlings, or coarse woody debris.

Vegetation-Hydrology Relationships

Determining hydrology at restoration sites can be difficult unless long-term water table data are available. When such data are not at hand, hydrologic field indicators may be used to suggest when wetland hydrology is present. However, these field indicators provide no data on specific durations of saturation unless correlated with well data. Table 2.5 shows regression relationships for wetland hydrology field indicator number (primary plus secondary) and saturation duration. For this study, the R2 was equal to 0.64 . A moderate, negative relationship

(R2 = 0.62 ), exists between potential tree height and saturation duration. However, when both numbers of field indicators and potential tree height were used to estimate saturation duration, the R2 increased to 0.73 . These results are not site specific because the interaction between both numbers of field indicators and tree height was significant (p = 0.053) at the 0.10 level.

These data suggest that saturation duration might be estimated by using a combination of the number of hydrology field indicators and by measuring potential tree height. Other variables related to vegetation may also be useful to increase confidence in estimating saturation duration. Considering primary and secondary indicators separately in regression equations did not improve the R2 over that found for combining the indicators into a single group.

Table 2.6 shows the general trends that were observed across Juniper Bay in terms of hydrology, soils, and vegetation. Vegetation data are described in general terms, because they

are site specific, but changes can be seen across the Hydrologic Groups. The area in Hydrologic

Group 1 was at the near the edge of the bay. The area was saturated for < 13 days during the growing season, and was ponded 2% (4 days) during the growing season. A few hydrology field indicators were identified (4 indicators) none-the-less. The soils were mineral. Only facultative trees (FAC) were dominant, which covered a large basal area (35 m2 ha-1), were the tallest on the site (19 m), and had large diameter (28 cm). This Hydrologic Group also had many shrubs and vines (49 % cover), but almost no graminoids (2 % cover).

The area in Hydrologic Group 2 was saturated for longer periods than Group 1, with ponding occurring for about 8% (18 days) of the growing season (Table 2.1). More hydrologic field indicators were present (5 indicators) than in Group 1 as would be expected. The soils were still mineral. Dominant tree species changed as compared to Group 1 with facultative-wet plants being dominant, but no obligates. Trees were generally shorter (18 m) with greater basal area

(36 m2 ha-1) and contained the same diameters (28 cm) when compared to Group 1. Shrubs and vines were less abundant (30 % cover) than in Group 1, and more graminoids (17 % cover) were present.

The area in Hydrologic Group 3 was ponded for approximately 22% (49 days) of the growing season, and contained more hydrology field indicators (7 indicators) than found for the previous Groups (Table 2.1). The soils were a mix of both mineral and organic. Obligate tree species were observed with what is termed here as medium basal area (24 m2 ha-1), medium height (15 m), and medium diameter (23 cm). Shrubs and vines were not as plentiful (9 % cover) as in the previous groups, and graminoids became abundant (47 % cover).

The area in Hydrologic Group 4 was near the center of the bay and was the wettest on the site. It was saturated for long periods with ponding observed for 65% (147 days) of the growing

season. A relatively large number of hydrology field indicators (9 indicators) were identified.

As with Group 3, soils were both mineral and organic, with the organic soils becoming more abundant. Obligate wetland trees were observed which covered a small basal area (11 m2 ha-1), were relatively short in height (9 m), and had a small diameter (18 cm) as compared to trees in the other Groups. Few shrubs and vines (1 % cover) were observed. Graminoids dominated the area (53 % cover) and were most abundant in this group than the others.

Evaluation of Restoration Success

The range in saturation durations estimated for the restored Juniper Bay are similar to those found for natural bays and other restored Carolina Bays (Bruland et al. 2003 and Caldwell et al. 2011). Caldwell et al. (2011) studied reference Carolina Bay hydrology for different plant communities. Total consecutive days of inundation per year was measured for each of the four plant communities so it can be expected the reported values are larger than values only for the growing season. In reference bays, Pond Pine Woodland areas (similar to our Hydrologic Group

2) were inundated for an average of 52 days during an entire year. The Non-Riverine Swamp

Forest which contained bald cypress trees, and was similar to our Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4, were saturated for 271 days consecutive days of inundation throughout the year (Caldwell et al.

2011). In summary, the restored Juniper Bay has the hydrology and vegetation characteristics that would be expected in a successfully restored Carolina Bay wetland.

CONCLUSIONS

Fifteen years following restoration, Juniper Bay has the hydrology and vegetation expected for a Carolina Bay as compared to natural reference bays. Gradients in saturation duration, ponding duration, and vegetation existed from the drier edge to the wetter center of the restored bay as was found in natural bays. Saturation occurring within 30 cm of the surface

ranged from < 13 up to 225 days during the growing season from the edge of the bay to the center. Ponding was estimated for periods of 0 to 147 days during the growing season. Field indicators of wetland hydrology (primary plus secondary) found with a 50% probability increased 50% going from the edge of the bay to the center. Vegetation changes occurred from the edge of the bay to the center which corresponded to changes in hydrology. Loblolly pine was found across the bay but became less abundant from the drier edge to the wetter center of the bay, where cypress species began to dominate. Tree basal area and height, as well as, dominant tree species changed along a gradient from the bay edge to center. These parameters could be used to establish acceptable ranges in vegetation properties to evaluate restoration success.

Saturation durations could be predicted with an interactive relationship that combined the number of hydrology indicators with potential tree height (R2 = 0.73). Data from this study suggest that Juniper Bay was successfully restored for 15 years, however, the vegetation parameters used to evaluate restoration success will change with the age of the restoration.

Therefore, additional future studies of restoration bays across a wide range of ages would be beneficial to better understand temporal changes in vegetation-hydrology relationships.

REFERENCES

Bruland GL, Hanchey M, Richardson C (2003) Effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on

hydrology, soils, and water quality of a Carolina bay complex. Wetlands Ecology

Management 11:141-156.

Caldwell PV, Vepraskas M, Gregory J, Skaggs R, Huffman R (2011) Linking plant ecology and

long-term hydrology to improve wetland restoration success. Advances in Forest

Hydrology 54:2129-2137.

Collins M, Kuehl R (2001) Organic matter accumulation and organic soils. In: Richardson J and

Vepraskas M (ed.) Wetland soils: genesis, hydrology, landscapes, and classification.

Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL, pp 137-162.

De Steven D, Lowrance R (2011) Agricultural conservation practices and wetland ecosystem

services in the wetland‐rich Piedmont‐Coastal Plain region. Ecology Applications 21: S3‐

S17.

DeYoung J (2018) Forest measurements: an applied approach. In: DeYoung J (ed) Field

technique tips for measuring tree height, 1st edn. Morrisville, NC, pp 55-61.

Dimick, B. P., Stucky J, Wall W, Vepraskas M, Wentworth T, Arellana C (2010) Plant‐soil‐

hydrology relationships in three Carolina bays in Bladen County, North Carolina, USA.

Castanaea 75(4): 407‐420.

Environmental Services, Inc (2006-2010) Juniper Bay Wetland Mitigation Site. NC DEQ: DMS

Project Documents. https://deq.nc.gov/es/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-

projects. Accessed 1 February 2019.

Esri (2016) Arcmap version 10.4. Esri Products, Redlands, CA.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M (2006) Estimating primary and secondary subsidence in an organic soil

15, 20, and 30 years after drainage. Wetlands 26(1): 119‐130.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M, White J, Broome S (2012) Changes in wetland soil morphological and

chemical properties after 15, 20, and 30 years of agricultural production. Geoderma 179-

180:73-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M, Zanner C (2005) Using historical records of land use to improve wetland

mitigation. Southeastern Geographer 45:25-43.

Hall T, Penfound W (1939) A phytosociological study of a Nyssa biflora consocies in

southeastern Louisiana. American Midland Naturalist 22:369‐375.

Kusler J, Kentula M (1990) Executive summary. In: wetland creation and restoration: The status

of the science. Island Press, Washington, DC. pp xvii–xxv.

McCachren C (1978) Soil survey of Robeson county, North Carolina. United States Department

of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.

Mitsch, W, Gosselink J (2007) Wetlands. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2020) NRCS field office technical guide:

climate data for Lumberton, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/.

Accessed 10 November 2020.

National Research Council (1995) Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. National Academy

Press, Washington, D.C.

NC Department of Environmental Quality (2013) NC ecosystem enhancement program

celebrates a decade of conserving and restoring streams and wetlands.

https://deq.nc.gov/press-release/nc-ecosystem-enhancement-program-celebrates-decade-

conserving-and-restoring-streams. Accessed 3 August 2020.

Otte L (1982) Origin, development, and maintenance of the pocosin wetlands of North Carolina.

Raleigh, N.C.

Prouty W (1952) Carolina bays and their origin. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63:167–

224.

Reed, P (1988) National list of plant species that occur in wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Washington, D.C.

R Studio PBC (2017) R version 3.6.1. The r foundation for statistical computing, Boston, MA.

SAS Institute (2013) SAS version 9.4. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

Schafale M, Weakley A (1990) Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina:

third approximation. Raleigh, NC.

Sharitz R, Gibbons J (1982) The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina

bays: a community profile. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Trimble (2020) Models: nomad and geoxt. Trimble Global Headquarters, Sunnyvale, CA.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (2002) Regulatory guidance letter no. 02-2.

http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/mitigation/map-rgl/rgl_02-2.pdf.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (2005) Technical standard for water-table monitoring of

potential wetland sites. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, ERDC TN-WRAP-05-

2:12.

U.S Army Corps of Engineers (2010) Regional supplement to the corps of engineers wetland

delineation manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.

Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. U.S. Army Engineer

Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.

United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-

NRCS) (1994) National food security act manual, third edition (as amended).

Washington, D.C.

USDA (2002) Wetland reserve program: restoring America's wetlands. Washington, D.C. USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

USDA-NRCS (2020) Plant Database Search Engine. https://plants.usda.gov/java/. Accessed July

2020.

Wentworth T, Johnson G, Kologiski R (1988) Designation of wetlands by weighted averages of

vegetation data: a preliminary evaluation. Water Resources Bulletin 24:389-396.

Table 2.1. Summary of hydrologic and soil properties found in plots sampled 15 years after restoration at Juniper Bay. Data were collected during 2019 and 2020 growing season. Data for saturation means were extracted from environmental monitoring reports created by Environmental

Services, Inc (2006-2010). Values shown are 95% confidence intervals.

No. of No. of Primary Secondary Hydro. Saturation Estimated Hydro. Hydro. Hydro. Field Group Ponding Field Field Indicators Indicators Indicators (Greater than 50% ----Consecutive Days----- Probability)

1 8 + 15a 4 + 19a† 2 + 1aA†† 2 + 1aA A2, A3, D2, D5

2 35 + 5b 18 + 32a 3 + 1bA 2 + 0aB A1, A2, A3, D2, D5

A1, A2 A3, B9, C2, D2, 3 63 + 6c 49 + 29a 4 + 0cA 3 + 1b*B D5

A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C2, 4 138 + 12d 147 + 36b 5 + 0d*A 4 + 1bB D2, D5 †Values shown within a column followed by the same lower-case letter were not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

††The number of primary vs. secondary hydrology indicators within a given Group followed by the same upper-case letters were not significantly different at the 0.05 level

*Significant difference occurs at the 90% level (p = 0.06) between Group 4 and Group 3 for the number primary field indicators and between Group 3 and Group 2 (p = 0.09) for the number of secondary field indicators.

Primary hydrology indicators (one needed): A1-surface water, A2-high water table, A3- saturation, B9-water stained leaves, B13-aquatic fauna.

Secondary hydrology indicators (two needed): C2-dry-season water table, D2 – Geomorphic position, D5-FAC neutral test.

Table 2.2. Rainfall data for the 2019 and 2020 growing seasons. Rainfall condition was based

on the “Normal Range” from the USDA’s WETS Data Table for Lumberton, NC (NOAA 2020).

Normal rainfall conditions occur when the total rainfall for a month lies in between the 30th and

70th percentiles for that month. Wetter months have rainfall amounts greater than the 70th

percentile, while drier months have rainfall amounts less than the 30th percentile.

WETS Normal Range (1989-2019) Measured Rainfall Month During 30th Percentile 70th Percentile 2019 2020 Growing Season ------cm------March 5.92 10.4 7.21 10.3 April 5.66 10.5 14.0* 10.0 May 7.44 11.8 2.03** 28.1* June 8.64 16.0 12.4 23.7* July 10.5 16.0 6.35** 12.5 August 10.8 18.1 26.4* 22.4* September 7.39 18.6 12.3 28.0* October 4.52 9.55 10.4* 5.64 November 4.83 9.60 9.45 N/A Single asterisks (*) represent months that experienced wetter than normal conditions.

Double asterisks (**) represent months that experienced drier than normal conditions.

Table 2.3. Summary of common and dominant plant genus and species found in each

Hydrologic Group at Juniper Bay 15 years after restoration. Vegetation was considered common if the average abundance across all plots within a given Group was in between 10-19.4%. Plants were considered dominant if the average abundance was > 20% across all plots within a given

Group.

Hydro No. Plots Trees Saplings/ Shrubs/ Graminoids* Group Sampled Seedlings Vines

------Genus Species------

Acer rubrum, Pinus taeda, Liquidambar Pinus styraciflua, Quercus Morella Carex spp., 1 7 serotina† falcata† cerifera Juncus spp.

Pinus taeda, Pinus Acer rubrum, Morella Carex spp., 2 11 serotina Pinus taeda† cerifera Juncus spp.

Morella Pinus taeda, cerifera, Taxodium Acer Rubus Carex spp., 3 11 spp. Rubrum argutus† Juncus spp.

Pinus taeda, Taxodium Carex spp., spp., Acer Acer Morella†† Juncus spp., 4 21 rubrum† rubrum cer ifera Typha spp. †Common species.

††Group 4 shrubs/vines were only dominant in plots that contained shrubs/vines (not across all plots).

*Graminoid geneses were estimated based off on-site observations.

Table 2.4. Summary of vegetation data collected 15 years after restoration at Juniper Bay. Values shown are 95% confidence intervals. No. Basal Coarse Hydro. Plots Prevalence Basal Area of Tree Average Saplings/ Shrubs/ Woody Group Sampled Index Area Snags Height DBH Seedlings Vines Graminoids Debris

-----m2 ha-1------(m) (cm) (stems ha-1) ------% cover------(m3 ha-1)

3.0 + 35 + 2.0 + 19 + 28 + 2,186 + 49 + 2.0 + 9.0 + 1 7 0.3a† 17a 2.0a 3.0a 2.5a 1,436a 32a 2.0a 10a

2.8 + 36 + 6.0 + 18 + 28 + 2,646 + 30 + 17 + 13 + 2 11 0.4ab 7.0a 5.0a 2.0ab 2.5a 1,798a 19a 11a 15a

2.0 + 24 + 10 + 15 + 23 + 4,691 + 9.0 + 47 + 8.0 + 3 11 0.5bc* 10a 6.0a 2.0b* 2.5ab 2,777a 8.0b* 20b 7.0a

1.8 + 11 + 7.0 + 9.0 + 18 + 2,976 + 1.0 + 53 + 3.0 + 4 21 0.5c 6.0b 4.0a 2.0c 2.5b 1,209a 2.0b 15b 3.0a †Values shown within a column followed by the same lower-case letter were not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

*Significant differences at the 0.10 level.

Table 2.5. Regression equations that estimate the maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season.

No. Equation R2 p < α†

1 Saturation = -14(Total No. Hyd. Ind.) + 0.64 p < 0.01 3.5(Total No. Hyd. Ind.)2 + 16

2 Saturation = -11(Tree Height) + 237 0.62 p < 0.001

3 0.73 p < 0.10†† Saturation = 39(Total No. Hyd. Ind.) + 3.9(Tree Height) - 1.5(TTL No. Hyd. Ind. * Tree Height) - 93 †All predictors are significant within the equation at alpha.

††Significance level of the interaction term (p = 0.053).

Table 2.6. Potential site parameters for evaluating restoration success in Carolina Bay Wetlands 15 years after restoration. Vegetation characterizations are based on data presented in earlier tables.

Potential Hydro. Ponding No. of Soil Wetland Tree Basal Tree Shrubs/ Group Durations Hydro. Ind* Type Vegetation Area Height DBH Vines Graminoids

(% (Mineral Growing (> 50% or Season) Probability) Organic) ------

1 0 < 4 M FAC† only Large Tall Large Many Few-None

2 7 5 M FACW " " " " Medium Medium- 3 20 7 M,O OBL Medium Medium Medium Few Many

4 60 8 M,O OBL Small Short Small Few-None Dominant *Some indicators can only be found certain times of the year.

†FAC + facultative, FACW = Facultative wet, OBL = Obligate wetland plants. FAC plants found in all hydrologic groups. Plant species may be site dependent, so trends are emphasized (USDA-NRCS 2020).

Fig 2.1. Map of Juniper Bay showing the drainage ditches, soil types, soil pits, wells used during the first five years after restoration, and vegetation plot locations. Soil pit locations, soil types, and ditches were geo-referenced from Ewing et al. (2012) in ArcMap. Well locations were geo-referenced from Environmental Services, Inc (2006) in ArcMap.

Fig 2.2. Estimated hydrology across Juniper Bay. Water table data were measured daily from 2006-2010. The data were then extrapolated around the bay. Data were grouped into four categories: 0-13 days (does not meet wetland hydrology), > 13-50 days (meets wetland hydrology but short periods of ponding), > 50-100 days, and > 100- 225 days which differed in ponding durations as shown in Table 2.1. The Hydrologic Groups generally followed distribution of soil types as shown in Fig 2.1.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Table S2.1. Monthly rainfall data during the growing season for Lumberton, NC. Highlighted cells represent drier (brown) or wetter (blue) than normal rainfall conditions based off a WETS table generated from climatic data from (1975-2005) in Lumberton, NC. Rainfall data is in centimeters.

Month During Growing Season Year Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2006 2.67 6.55 9.91 30 11.4 5.53 12.8 6.48 20 2007 3.96 10.7 9.96 10.5 8.31 21.1 4.32 10.7 0.64 2008 6.91 16.6 5.84 5.81 17.5 27.9 19.9 3.28 9.75 2009 13.8 6.65 18.3 8.89 11.3 17.6 1.75 5.51 16.3 2010 9.37 1.42 12.4 18.3 18.1 2.11 15.5 1.37 3.15 Link to source: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=37155

CHAPTER THREE: SOIL ORGANIC CARBON DYNAMICS IN A CAROLINA BAY

WETLAND 15 YEARS AFTER RESTORATION

Abstract: Over $500 million have been spent restoring wetlands in North Carolina, yet no agreed-upon methods exist to determine restoration success. The study objective was to quantify the amount of soil organic C (SOC) in a restored Carolina Bay wetland (CBW) to identify changes in C pools that might be used to evaluate restoration success. The main study site was

Juniper Bay in Robeson County, NC, a CBW that had been restored for 15 years following its use for agriculture. Sampling plots were placed where previous studies determined pre- restoration SOC, and post-restoration hydrology. Saturation occurrence was monitored with

Indicator of Reduction in Soils (IRIS) tubes. Soil morphology, litter layer thickness, and SOC to

75 cm were determined. Sampling plots were grouped by soil type: mineral or organic. The

IRIS tube measurements confirmed that saturation and anaerobiosis occurred in all plots. There were significant (p<0.05) differences in soil morphological features in the organic soils and no differences in the mineral soils (p>0.1). Where saturation occurred for >77 days, litter thickness increased 29% compared to where saturation occurred for shorter periods. Soil OC decreased

49% (370 vs. 190 Mg/ha) in the mineral soils and 24% (880 vs. 670 Mg/ha) in the organic soils following restoration relative to the agricultural field. Soil OC concentrations in the restored areas were not significantly different than those found in reference wetlands. Soil OC changes following restoration should be compared to reference wetlands and not pre-restoration soils.

We propose measuring litter thickness as an easy measure of success.

INTRODUCTION

Creation of new wetlands, enhancement of existing wetlands, and restoration of previously converted wetlands are used to replace lost wetland acreage through mitigation

(USACOE 2002). Wetland mitigation is often conducted when natural wetlands are impacted by various forms of development and agriculture (National Research Council 1995; USDA 1994).

Restoring wetlands that were converted to agriculture involves plugging drainage ditches or drain lines, and planting vegetation similar to reference wetland communities that resemble the original wetland (Ewing et al. 2005) Restoring wetlands is expensive with costs reaching

$3000/ha (USDA 2002). In NC, over $500 million have been spent on restoring wetlands since

2003 (NC DEQ 2013).

Increases in SOC could be used as one measure of restoration success. Storing C in a terrestrial environment is essential for lessening greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Jandl et al.

2007). Leaf litter accumulating on the soil surface and soil organic C (SOC) below the pre- restoration surface are two terrestrial pools of C. Wetland restoration has been shown to sequester SOC in some cases, but not others. Sequestering 5 cm of SOC could take up to 300 years in created non-tidal, depressional wetlands (Hossler and Bouchard 2010). Bruland et al.

(2003) studied a 2-year old restored wetland in Cumberland County, NC with a paired reference site and another paired site experiencing agriculture. The restored wetland contained approximately 36% less SOC than the agricultural land within the upper 40 cm, while the reference site contained the most C down to a depth of 100 cm. On the other hand, Berkowitz

(2013) found that C stored in A and O horizons increased over time in a restored Bottomland

Hardwood Forests up to the point of canopy closure at 20 yr.

Richter et al. (1999) found that most C in aggrading forests was being stored in O-horizons during the first 40 years of afforestation. Compton and Boone (2000) found in 90 to 120-year-old forests recovering from agriculture in New England that SOC down to 15 cm contained similar C levels in the disturbed soils when compared to the reference soils. However, O-horizons were sequestering C at higher rates 0.23 to 0.68 Mg C ha-1 year-1 in the soils that were recovering from agriculture.

Carolina Bays are a unique type of wetland found in the Southeastern United States Coastal

Plain (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). The bays have an elliptical shape, are orientated northwest to southeast, have a depression landform with a rim that is most noticeable on the southeast portion of the bays (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). In the United States, Carolina Bays are concentrated within the Carolinas, but extend as far north as New Jersey and as far south as Northern Florida

(Prouty 1952). Many bays were drained and put into agricultural production in the 1970s (Ewing et al., 2005). In more recent years, many have been restored back to a wetland condition.

I hypothesized that a Carolina Bay wetland that has successfully restored hydrology for 15 years would show changes in SOC concentrations moving toward those of reference Carolina

Bays, which may result in SOC concentrations either increasing or decreasing over time. The objective of this study was to measure changes in organic C in a Carolina Bay wetland 15 years after restoration and compare them to reference wetland levels. Organic C was examined in the litter layer and in the soil. The results of the study would be useful for identifying site parameters that change following restoration and that could be used to develop criteria for evaluating restoration success.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Site Description

Juniper Bay is an organic soil based Carolina Bay located in Robeson County, NC, approximately 10 km southeast of Lumberton (34°30’23.38”N, 79°01’16.96”W). Average annual precipitation for the area is 120 cm, and average annual temperature is 17 °C. The 256 ha bay was logged, drained, and put into agricultural production in three stages from 1971 to 1986 (Ewing et al. 2005). The drainage network installed in the Bay is shown in Fig. 3.1. Agricultural production ceased in 1999 in all sections of the bay. At that time, soils were sampled to determine pre- restoration soil morphological, chemical, and physical properties (Ewing et al. 2012). Locations of the 25 soil pits used for pre-restoration sampling are shown in Fig 3.1. Three reference Carolina

Bay’s in Bladen County, NC were also sampled during the same time period (Ewing et al, 2012;

Caldwell 2007). The three organic soil based Bays were named Charlie Long – Millpond Bay

(34°46’04.96” N, 78°33’36.24” W), Tatum Millpond Bay (34°43’00.09” N, 78°33’05.95” W), and

Causeway Bay (34°39’41.92” N, 78°25’45.13” W).

In 2005, Juniper Bay was restored back into a wetland by plugging drainage ditches and planting vegetation similar to reference plant communities (Environmental Services, Inc. 2006).

The perimeter ditch was left open to avoid extreme inundation at the bay center. The perimeter ditch drained toward one outlet as shown in Fig. 3.1. It was the only ditch draining water from the bay. Forty-three wells were installed in the bay following restoration to monitor hydrology from

2006 to 2010 (Fig. 3.1). Plots were created 15 years after restoration at the original soil pit locations, selected well locations that were used as vegetation plots (Chapter 2), and one location was chosen based on site characteristics. The pre-restoration soil plots were selected by placing

an equilateral triangle grid over a map of Juniper Bay. Sample locations were chosen to contain enough replicates within each soil type to make representative inferences.

The soils of Juniper Bay consisted of mineral soils around the perimeter with organic soils in the interior (Fig. 3.1). The predominant mineral soil series was Leon fine sand (sandy, siliceous, thermic Aeric Alaquods) (McCachren 1978). The organic soils were Ponzer muck (loamy, mixed, dysic, thermic Terric Haplosaprists) with organic soil material extending to depths > 40 cm. The soils at Juniper Bay will be referred to as either mineral or organic soils for this study.

Soil Sampling

In 2019 and 2020, Juniper Bay soils were re-sampled at the same locations used for the pre-restoration soil characterization. Sampling points were located in the field using a global navigation satellite system with a Trimble: Nomad and a Trimble: GeoXT (Trimble Inc. 2020).

For sampling sites that were not ponded, two to three soil pits were dug (30 cm wide and 30 cm deep) 1 m apart with a spade. An open bucket auger was used to dig an additional 50 cm into the solum for most of the soil pits. Saturated organic soils were sampled with a McCauley and/or a open bucket auger where necessary.

Soil profiles were described by master horizon on vertical sections removed from the pits and from soil carefully removed from the augers. Litter thickness was measured on an exposed wall of each soil pit. For sampling sites that were ponded, two to three pedons were sampled 1 m apart with an open bucket auger and/or a McCauley auger down to 75 cm. Soil materials were described after careful removal from the auger and placed on a floating raft near the sample point.

Litter thickness was measured underwater by estimating the top of the litter layer by hand and measuring down to the original soil surface. Litter layer thickness was also measured at the vegetation plot locations shown in Fig. 3.1.

Bulk samples (3.78 L) were collected for soil characterization from each horizon described.

Undisturbed cores (5 cm diam. x 2.5 or 5 cm in length, or 2.5 cm diam. x 5.0 cm in length) were also collected in duplicate from each horizon 30 cm below the soil surface with a bulk density sliding hammer and/or a McCauley auger. Some core values collected extend beyond 30 cm due to the depth of the master horizon. This mainly occurred in saturated organic soils because the volumetric samples were taken with a McCauley auger (50 cm half cores). A few collected organic soils bulk densities extend beyond 50 cm. Where undisturbed samples could not be collected due to ponded conditions, bulk density values were assumed based on the average bulk density for a given textural class at a given depth found at other locations for soils of the same type (i.e. mineral or organic soils). For horizons below a depth of 30 cm where cores were not collected, bulk density values collected prior to restoration were used for paired horizons at a given soil pit (Ewing et al.

2012). Partially decomposed litter layers were assumed to have a bulk density of (0.10 g cm-3) and moderately decomposed litter layers were assumed to have a bulk density of (0.15 g cm-3)

(Lynn et al. 1974). Reference soil data from three Carolina Bays collected prior to restoration were also used in our analyses (Ewing et al. 2012; Caldwell 2007).

Laboratory Analyses

Bulk density was determined by the core method of Grossman and Reinsch (2002). Bulk soil samples were air dried (25 °C), oven dried (105 °C) for 24 – 48 hours, and crushed with a mortar and pestle to pass through a 2-mm-mesh sieve. Litter samples were oven dried (105 °C) and crushed by hand and with a mortar and pestle. Soil pH and base saturation were determined for six of the 25 soil plots by the NC Division of Agronomic Services. The plots selected for chemical analysis extend from the edge of the bay to the center. Base saturation was determined

by the methods of (Mehlich 1976). The pH was determined by glass electrode using a 1:1 soil to

DI water ratio.

Total C (%) was determined on 30 samples containing a wide range of carbon values through dry combustion with a Perkin-Elmer PE2400 CHN Elemental Analyzer (Culmo 1988).

Total C is equal to organic C because no carbonates were present in these acid soils. Loss on ignition (LOI) (%), or soil organic matter (SOM) (%), was estimated for these samples by heating in a muffle furnace at 400° C for 16 hours (Hurt 2009). A regression relationship was then developed between total C and LOI for the samples (Fig. 3.2). Total C was then estimated for all remaining samples based on LOI.

Geospatial Analyses

Cumulative SOC data from pre- and post-restoration periods were geo-interpolated in

ArcMap using spline analysis at equivalent soil depths that were determined from statistically

(p>0.1) similar soil masses. Post – restoration SOC included C stored in the litter layer. The litter layer was absent during the pre-restoration study due to agricultural activity (Ewing et al. 2012).

A soil that contained the lowest cumulative SOC was used as the boundary condition for each time period. The interpolated soil C values were grouped into 5 classes: 1) 0 – 220, 2) 221 – 540, 3)

541-890, 4) 891 – 1,088, and 5) 1,089 – 1,340 (Mg C ha-1). The percent change in area between soil C classes was estimated in ArcMap.

Hydrology Determination

Five years of water table records were available (2006-2010) from 43 automated groundwater gauges across the site (Fig. 3.1) (Environmental Services, Inc., 2006-2010). The well data were interpolated in ArcMap in Chapter 2 and extrapolated to the 25 soil pit locations using a sample extraction tool. Ponding occurrence during the growing season was estimated near the

original soil pit locations using visual assessments made over the course of 2019 and 2020.

Ponding occurrence was simply noted without measuring depth of inundation.

IRIS Tubes

Indicator of Reduction in Soil (IRIS) tubes were installed at 10 of the 25 soil pit locations in groups containing five tubes each. Six groups of tubes were installed in soils that were not hydric, two groups of tubes were installed in mineral soils that were hydric, and the last two groups of tubes were installed in organic soils. Tubes were inserted into the soil over an area that was <2 m in diameter (Berkowitz 2009). Most IRIS tubes were 50 cm long and were installed mid-

October 2019 and removed mid-June 2020. The Hydric soil Technical Standard (TS) established by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) requires three of the five tubes to contain at least 30% Fe paint removal within the upper 30 cm, in a 15 cm section of the soil to confirm saturated and anaerobic conditions for hydric soil determination (Berkowitz et al. 2021).

Percent of Fe paint removal down to 30 cm was estimated by eye. The average Fe paint removal down to 30 cm for a given nest was used in my analyses.

Soil Morphology

Soil horizon depth, horizon type, texture class, matrix color, redoximorphic features and areas of clean sand grains, and organic coatings were estimated onsite. Weighted soil texture class from (0-15 cm) below the litter layer (Oi and Oe horizons) was verified using paired soil particle size data from Ewing et al. (2012). Soil descriptions were used to identify USDA hydric soil field indicators (HSIs) at each plot (USDA 2018). Definition 1b (organic soil material 20 cm - 40 cm thick) was used to identify HSI (A2), histic epipedon (Soil Survey Staff 2014). Post-restoration hydric soil field indicators account for the new Oi and Oe horizons, also known as the litter layer.

Mineral soil material with chroma < 2 or less was assumed to be lower in the profile if not found

during all site visits so a soil could meet a given indicator. Hydric soil indicators that were dominant across 36 % of the plots within a given soil type and the total number of indicators within a given soil type were of interest for this study.

Soil Organic Carbon

Below-ground soil C for every soil horizon was converted to a mass basis (i.e. Mg C ha-1) using measured soil bulk density values from pre- and post-restoration periods. Weighted averages of SOC were determined for 15 cm thick layers down to 75 cm for pre- and post-restoration soils.

The 15 cm depth increments were converted to soil mass (i.e. Mg soil ha-1) by multiplying the 15 cm weighted soil bulk density (Table S3.1) by 15 cm. Equivalent soil depths between pre- and post-restoration periods were determined at depths of soil that contained similar soil masses between the two periods. Reference SOC data were compared to post-restoration SOC levels with the litter layer included at similar soil masses. Analyzing SOC at fixed depths verses similar soil masses in systems that are subject to volumetric changes could lead to false interpretations about the changes in C that have occurred since the change in land use (Wendt and Hauser 2013).

Statistical Analyses

Two sample t-tests were conducted in SAS Version 9.4 using PROC TTEST relating differences in post-restoration soil types to saturation, ponding, IRIS tube Fe paint removal, litter layer thickness, soil pH, and base saturation (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The total number of HSIs,

Munsell values, Munsell chromas and cumulative below-ground C down to the deepest sampled equivalent soil depth, from pre- and post-restoration periods, within a given soil type were analyzed using two sample t-tests in SAS using PROC TTEST. Post-restoration and pre- restoration soil classes were based on the post-restoration soil type. The corresponding pre- restoration soil was placed in the same class.

Post-restoration cumulative SOC was also compared to reference Carolina Bay’s within a given soil type, at similar soil masses using two tail t-tests in SAS. Soils were considered mineral or organic based on the soil material at the actual surface, this included the litter layer in all cases.

Pre-restoration soil data were compared to the reference sites by Ewing et al. (2012).

Regression analyses were also conducted in SAS using the PROC GLM function to relate post-restoration cumulative below ground SOC down to 75 cm with C stored in the litter layer to the estimated maximum consecutive days of ponding during the growing season (Fig 3.5) (SAS

Institute, Cary, NC).

Folded F-tests, the residuals were plotted against the fitted values, and/or Q-Q plots were assessed to see if the data contained a constant variance and to see if the data were normal. If the data were not normal, normality was assumed. One log-transformation was used to help stabilize the variance within one regression. All datapoints were included within the analyses. All comparisons were made at the 0.05 level unless noted otherwise.

RESULTS

Soil Hydrology

Hydrology and soil data are summarized in Table 3.1. Mineral soils occupied the majority of the bay and were saturated on average for 77 maximum consecutive days within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season. Organic soils occurred at the center of the bay and were saturated on average for 138 maximum consecutive days within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season. Ponding durations were similar to saturation periods in each of the soil groups.

The saturation data were collected in 2006-2010 while ponding data were collected in 2019-2020, but the similarity of the two indicated that the hydrology remained relatively constant during the

restoration period. The IRIS tube data showed iron removal of over 70% of the tubes in both soil groups, indicating the occurrence of anaerobic conditions across the site.

Soil texture, and general chemical properties are also shown in Table 3.1 for soil material below the litter layer. Mineral soils contained mucky sandy loam textures within the upper 15 cm and organic soils contained sapric muck in the upper 15 cm. The organic soil group contained significantly (p < 0.05) thicker litter layers (mean 17 cm) than in the mineral soils (mean 12 cm)

(Table 1). Vegetation producing the litter was characterized in Chapter 2. In summary, the organic soils were dominated by graminoids, which occupied approximately 56% of the area. Tree species were primarily Taxodium spp. with an average basal area of 15 m2 ha-1. Mineral soils were dominated by trees (Pinus taeda L.) having an average basal area of 26 m2 ha-1. Mean soil pH was

5.1 within the mineral soils and 4.7 in the organic soils, respectively. Base saturation was 49% within the mineral soils and 59% in the organic soils.

Changes in HSI’s related to the accumulation of C are shown in Table 3.2. The hydric soil field indicators were characterized by the average number found at a soil pit, as well as, the indicator type, for both pre- and post-restoration periods. The total number of HSIs found 15 years after restoration tended to decrease from pre- to post-restoration periods, but differences were only significant (p < 0.05) for organic soils. In general, the same type of indicators were found in at least 36% of the pre- and post-restoration soil pits within each type of soil. All field indicators were based on the accumulation of organic C. Mineral soils primarily contained HSI A7 (5 cm mucky mineral material). However, a fraction of the minerals soils 15 years after restoration did not meet any HSI. Organic soils contained similar organic-based field indicators for both time periods. Munsell values and chromas were similar (p > 0.1) for pre- and post-restoration soils

down to 30 cm below the Oi and Oe horizons. Average, rounded Munsell values ranged from (2-

3) and chromas ranged from (0-1) in both soil types, between pre- and post-restoration periods.

Changes in Soil Organic C

Distribution of organic C in the soils across the bay is shown in Fig. 3.3 for both pre- restoration and post-restoration periods. In general, there was an apparent decrease in SOC (Fig.

3.3b). In addition, the area of organic soils 15 years after restoration (Fig. 3a,b) decreased by 15% when compared to the corresponding level of pre-restoration C. Changes in soil C were compared between pre- and post-restoration periods for Juniper bay, and the reference bays are shown in Fig

3.4. The equivalent soil depths for similar soil masses are 60 cm below the litter layer for mineral soils between pre- and post-restoration periods. Equivalent organic soil depths between both periods was 60 cm for pre-restoration and 75 cm for post-restoration. There were significant (p <

0.05) losses in SOC 15 years after restoration in the mineral (370 Mg C ha-1 vs. 190 Mg C ha-1) and organic soils (880 Mg C ha-1 vs. 670 Mg C ha-1) (Fig. 4a,b). The mineral soils litter layer contained 66 Mg C ha-1 and the organic soils litter contained 78 Mg C ha-1, respectively. This suggested that little, if any of the C accumulating as litter on the surface was being incorporated into the soil beneath the litter layer. The equivalent soil depth for similar soil masses between the reference and post-restoration mineral soils was 75 cm below the litter layer. Equivalent organic soil depths between reference and post-restoration soils varied from pit to pit. Equivalent soil depths between reference and post-restoration organic soils were found from 30 cm to 110 cm below the litter layer in the reference soils and ranged from 30 cm to 75 cm below the litter layer in the post-restoration soils. Including the C stored in the litter layer, there were no significant (p

> 0.1) differences in the amount of SOC between reference and post-restoration mineral (250 Mg

C ha-1 vs. 280 Mg C ha-1) and organic soils (630 Mg C ha-1 vs. 590 Mg C ha-1) (Fig. 4c,d). This

indicated that the amount of solid phase SOC in soils 15 years after restoration at Juniper Bay are typical of those in natural wetlands. Bulk density values used to compute masses of SOC are reported in Table S3.1.

The amounts of C, as well as, litter thickness in post-restoration soils were both related to hydrology across the site (Fig. 3.5). As shown in Fig. 5a, soil C increased with ponding duration up to approximately 100 d and decreased thereafter. In general, mineral soils were ponded for a maximum of 74 consecutive days during the growing season. Organic soils were found where there were longer durations of ponding (an average of 116 maximum consecutive days during the growing season). The maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season followed similar trends. A moderately strong, positive linear relationship (R2 = 0.62, p < 0.001) was found between litter layer thickness and duration of ponding. Trees were the dominant plant type for ponding durations less 135 days, with graminoids occurring where there were longer ponding durations.

DISCUSSION

Litter Accumulation

The accumulation of new C added to the soil since restoration was most evident in the litter layer. The litter layer consisted of Oi and Oe horizons lying on top of the pre-restoration soil surface. Thickness of the litter layer increased with the duration of ponding (Table 3.1, Fig.

3.5b), probably because surface ponding enabled anaerobic conditions to develop within the litter which restricted its decomposition. This was verified by the IRIS tube data (Table 3.1). The thickest litter layer occurred in the organic soils, which were ponded for an estimated average of

116 d during the year of observation. Dimick et al. (2010) and Ewing et al. (2012) found similar

trends in reference Carolina Bays. In drier areas of Juniper Bay, surface organic horizons are thinner compared to areas that experience longer saturation periods (center of depression).

Litter thickness is also thought to be affected by species type, which influences its rate of decomposition (Richardson and Stolt, 2013). In 2013, Richardson and Stolt showed that coniferous forests sequestered more C in O-horizons than deciduous forests. Coniferous forest litter contains low amounts of nutrients and contains recalcitrant phenolic substances that reduce decomposition rates (Shaetzl and Thompson 2015; Kevan 1968). At Juniper Bay, areas that experienced saturation durations of > 138 consecutive days during the growing season (organic soils) were dominated by Taxodium spp. and contained significantly (p < 0.05) thicker litter layers than the mineral soils (saturation < 138 d) that were dominated by Pinus taeda. While ponding duration was correlated with litter thickness, the relationship may reflect changes in vegetation, as well as, hydrology (Fig. 5).

Soil C and Hydric Soil Field Indicators

The decrease in post-restoration SOC below the litter layer down to 60 cm in the mineral soils and down to 60 cm (pre-restoration equivalent depth) in the organic soils was not expected.

It was due in part to the litter material not being incorporated into the soil. However, the SOC levels matched those of the reference sites indicating that Juniper Bay was adjusting to reference conditions. The loss of SOC could occur from a number of processes including: 1) solid phase

SOC decomposition which transforms the C into CO2, methane, or dissolved organic C, and 2) physical disturbance that occurred during the restoration process which removed soil from some areas to fill ditches (Vepraskas and Craft 2016; Vepraskas et al. 2005; and Environmental

Services, Inc 2006). As shown in Fig. 3.5, the concentrations of SOC are now related to hydrology, along with litter, and form trends that would be expected in natural wetlands.

Restoration of the plant communities, hydrology, litter layer, and concentrations of SOC indicate the system is transitioning back into a reference like state and which would be expected for a successful restoration.

A loss of SOC following wetland restoration of agricultural fields has been noted before.

Bruland et al. (2003) found that soils in an agricultural field contained more SOC than the soils in an adjacent restored wetland. However, additions of manure and conservation tillage have been found to increase SOC in agronomic systems (Buyanovsky and Wagner 1998; Schlesinger

1999). Mechanical incorporation of crop residue into the solum could also increase SOC. Soils with high C concentrations may become hydrophobic and form strong aggregates when drained.

Hydrophobic forces have been found to protect soils from losing solid phase SOC (Piccolo et al.

1999).

The concept that solid phase SOC accreting over time in mitigation sites was established in created wetlands (Bishel-Machung et al. 1996; Shaffer and Ernst 1999; Stolt et al. 2000).

Despite the loss of C in restored depressional wetlands, other types of restoration sites have shown to sequester SOC over pre-restoration levels. Berkowitz (2013) found in a chronosequence of bottomland hardwood forests that A-horizons increased C concentrations on a mass basis likely due to the sites receiving C from allochthonous sources and autochthonous sources. Periodic flooding, native vegetation, and the litter layer are the main sources for C in bottomland hardwood forests. Carolina Bay hydrology is dominantly driven by evapotranspiration and precipitation in the central parts of the bay (Caldwell et al. 2007).

Hydrology on the perimeter of the bay is influenced from groundwater, in addition to, rainfall and evapotranspiration. Our results suggest if a restoration sites does not receive any allochthonous C sources, a site may not sequester below-ground C in the solid phase.

Hydric soil field indicators found at Juniper Bay in both pre- and post-restoration soils were formed by the accumulation of SOC (Table 3.2). The loss of SOC in the post-restoration soils probably prevented new hydric soil field indicators from forming. Despite the loss in C,

Munsell value and chroma did not significantly change 15 years after restoration likely due to

SOC being “sorbed” onto soil colloids or thick coats of SOC masking silt and sand grains.

While organic soils lost SOC, the losses were not sufficient to transform most of them from organic soil material into mineral soil material.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in organic carbon were evaluated in the soil and litter layer at Juniper Bay 15 years after restoration. Soil OC was compared to soils studied prior to restoration. The litter layer pool of C developed following restoration and was examined across mineral and organic soils. Litter layer thickness increased with increasing duration of saturation and ponding.

However, cumulative SOC below the original surface down the 60 cm was significantly lower in the post-restoration organic soils when compared to the soils sampled prior to restoration.

Despite the loss in C after restoration, the soils had transitioned back into a reference state which also had lower soil C concentrations than the pre-restoration soils which were used for agriculture production.

The sum of organic C in the litter and soil increased with increasing ponding duration up to approximately 100 days, and decreased with longer durations of ponding. The C occurring in the litter and soil corresponded to a reduction in trees and an increase in graminoids. Assessing changes of terrestrial pools of C related to soil in restored wetlands is most easily and reliably done by measuring litter layer thickness. Litter layer thickness varied with duration of saturation and ponding, but was not clearly related to vegetation type.

REFERENCES

Berkowitz J (2009) Using IRIS tubes to monitor reduced conditions in soils - project design.

Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program 9:1-10.

Berkowitz J (2013) Development of restoration trajectory metrics in reforested bottomland

hardwood forests applying a rapid assessment approach. Ecological Indicators 34:600-

606.

Berkowitz J, Vepraskas M, Vaughan K, Vasilas (2021) Development and application of the

hydric soil technical standard. Soil Science Society of America 1:1-50.

Bishel-Machung L, Brooks R, Yates S, Hoover K (1996) Soil properties of reference wetlands

and wetland creation projects in Pennsylvania. Wetlands 16: 532-541.

Bruland GL, Hanchey M, Richardson C (2003) Effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on

hydrology, soils, and water quality of a Carolina bay complex. Wetlands Ecology

Management 11:141-156.

Buyanovsky G, Wagner G (1998) Changing role of cultivated land in the global carbon cycle.

Biology and Fertility of Soils. 27: 242-245.

Caldwell P, Vepraskas M, Gregory J (2007) Physical properties of natural organic soils in

carolina bays of the southeastern united states. Soil Science Society of America 71:1051-

1057.

Caldwell P, Vepraskas M, Skaggs R, Gregory J (2007) Simulating the water budgets of natural

Carolina bay wetlands. Wetlands 27:1112-1123.

Compton, J.E., and R.D. Boone. 2000. Long-term impacts of agriculture on soil carbon and

nitrogen in New England forests. Ecology 81:2314–2330. doi:10.1890/0012-

9658(2000)081[2314:LTIOAO]2.0.CO2.

Culmo, RF (1988) Principle of operation — The Perkin-Elmer pe 2400 CHN elemental analyzer.

Perkin Elmer Corp, Norwalk, CT.

Dimick, B. P., Stucky J, Wall W, Vepraskas M, Wentworth T, Arellana C (2010) Plant‐soil‐

hydrology relationships in three Carolina bays in Bladen County, North Carolina, USA.

Castanaea 75(4): 407‐420.

Environmental Services, Inc (2006-2010) Juniper Bay Wetland Mitigation Site. NC DEQ: DMS

Project Documents. https://deq.nc.gov/es/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-

projects. Accessed 1 February 2019.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M, White J, Broome S (2012) Changes in wetland soil morphological and

chemical properties after 15, 20, and 30 years of agricultural production. Geoderma 179-

180:73-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.02.018.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M, Zanner C (2005) Using historical records of land use to improve wetland

mitigation. Southeastern Geographer 45:25-43.

Grossman R, Reinsch T (2002) Bulk density and linear extensibility. In: J.H. Dane and G.C.

Topp (eds.) Methods of soil analysis, part 4 physical methods. Soil Science Society of

America. Madison, Wisconsin. pp 201-228.

Hossler K, Bouchard V (2010) Soil development and establishment of carbon-based properties in

created freshwater marshes. Ecol. Applic. 20: 539-553. doi:10.1890/08-1330.1.

Hurt R (2009) Soil survey field and laboratory methods manual: mineral content. United States

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Soil Survey

Center. Lincoln, Nebraska. pp 250 – 251.

Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdal L, Bauwens B, Baritz R, Hagedorn F, Johnson D, Minkkinen K,

Byrne K (2007) How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon

sequestration? Geoderma 137:253–268. https://doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.09.003.

Kevan, D (1968) Soil fauna and humus formation. Trans. 9th Intl. Cong. Soil Science 2:1-10.

Lynn W, McKenzie W, Grossman R (1974) Field laboratory tests for characterization of

Histosols. In: Stelly M (ed) Histosols, their classification and use, Soil Science Society of

America 6:11-20.

McCachren C (1978) Soil survey of Robeson county, North Carolina. United States Department

of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.

Mehlich A (1976) New buffer method for rapid estimation of exchangeable acidity and lime

requirement. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 7:637–652.

National Research Council (1995) Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. National Academy

Press, Washington, D.C.

NC Department of Environmental Quality (2013) NC ecosystem enhancement program

celebrates a decade of conserving and restoring streams and wetlands.

https://deq.nc.gov/press-release/nc-ecosystem-enhancement-program-celebrates-decade-

conserving-and-restoring-streams. Accessed 3 August 2020.

Piccolo A, Spaccini R, Haberhauer G, Gerzabek M (1999) Increased sequestration of organic

carbon in soil by hydrophobic protection. Naturwissenschaften 86: 496-499.

Prouty W (1952) Carolina bays and their origin. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63:167–

224.

R Studio PBC (2017) R version 3.6.1. The r foundation for statistical computing, Boston, MA.

Richardson M, Stolt M (2013) Measuring soil organic carbon sequestration in aggrading

temperate forests. Soil Science Society of American Journal 77:2164-2172.

https://doi:10.2136/sssaj2012.0411.

Richter D, Markewitz D, Trumbore S, Wells C (1999) Rapid accumulation and turnover of soil

carbon in a re-establishing forest. Nature 400:56–58. doi:10.1038/21867.

SAS Institute (2013) SAS version 9.4. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

Schaetzl R, and Thompson M (2015) Soils: genesis and geomorphology. In: Schaetzl R and

Thompson M (ed) Basic concepts: soil horizonation…the alphabet of soils, 2nd edn. New

York, New York, pp 29-49.

Schlesinger W (1999) Carbon sequestration in soils. Nature 284: 2095.

Shaffer P, Ernst T (1999) Distribution of soil organic matter in freshwater emergent/open water

wetlands in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Wetlands 19: 505-516.

Sharitz R, Gibbons J (1982) The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina

bays: a community profile. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy. 12th edition. USDA-NRCS. Washington, DC,

pp 8.

Sollins P, Greg J (2017) Soil organic matter accumulation in relation to changing soil volume,

mass, and structure: concepts and calculations. Geoderma 300:60-71.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.04.013.

Stolt M, Genthner M, Daniels W, Groover V, Nagle S, Haering (2000) Comparison of soil and

other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands.

Wetlands 20: 671-683.

Trimble (2020) Models: nomad and geoxt. Trimble Global Headquarters, Sunnyvale, CA.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (2002) Regulatory guidance letter no. 02-2.

http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/mitigation/map-rgl/rgl_02-2.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation (1994) National food

security act manual, third edition (as amended). Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation (2018) Field

Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt,

and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA - NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical

Committee for Hydric Soils.

United States Department of Agriculture (2002) Wetland reserve program: restoring america's

wetlands. Washington, DC.

Vepraskas M, Craft C (2016) Wetland soils: genesis, hydrology, landscapes and classification.

In: Keller J and Medvedeff C (eds.) Soil organic matter, 2 edn. Boca Raton, Florida. pp

165 – 182.

Vepraskas M, White J, Huffman R, Fernandez G, Skaggs R, Lees B, Zanner C, Stucky J,

Gregory J, Broome W, Ewing J, Szuch R, Luginbhul S, Kreiser G (2005) Methodology to

assess soil, hydrologic, and site parameters that affect wetland restoration. The center for

transportation and the environment, Raleigh, NC.

Wendt J, Hauser S (2013) An equivalent soil mass procedure for monitoring soil organic carbon

in multiple soil layers. EJSS. 64:58-65. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12002.

Table 3.1. Soil and hydrologic properties found 14-15 years after restoration at Juniper Bay in mineral (M) and organic (O) soils.

Hydrologic and litter layer thickness data are 95% confidence intervals. Soil properties are averages with standard deviations.

No. Soil of Areal IRIS Tube Litter Soil Base Type Pits Extent Saturation Ponding Fe Paint Thickness Texture pH Sat.

(Min. or (Max. Consec. ------(0-15cm)------(n) (% cover) (% removal (cm) Org.) Days During Grow. Seas.) to 30cm) (%)

77 + 74 + 73 + 12 + Mucky Sandy 5.1 + 49 + M 14 60 26a† 50a 21a 2a Loam 0.1a 11a

138 + 116 + 96 + 17 + Sapric 4.7 + 59 + O 11 40 26b 34a 4a 4b Muck 0.5a 9a †Values shown within a column followed by a different lower superscript are significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Saturation data was measured from 2006 – 2010 by Environmental Services, Inc.

Ponding durations were estimated from 2019-2020.

Table 3.2. Changes in soil properties for pre- and post-restoration periods. The number of HSI are shown as 95% confidence intervals. The number of HSI within organic soils are not rounded to show the significant (p < 0.05) difference that occurs between both time periods.

No. of Hydric Soil Field Post Restoration Munsell Color⁋ Hydric Indicators†† Soil (> 36% Soil Field Indicators† Probability) 0-15 cm 15-30 cm Type Pre Post Pre Post Value Chroma Value Chroma

2 + 1 + NIM, Mineral 1a 1a A7 A7 2.5a 0a 3a 1a

3.3 + 2.6 + A1*, A1*, A2*, Organic 0.6a 0.5b A2*, A9* A9 2.5a 1a 2a 1a †Values shown between pre- and post-restoration periods followed by the same lower superscript were not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

†† A1-Histosol, A2-Histic Epipedon (definition 1b – 20cm – 40cm organic soil material), A7 – 5 cm Mucky Mineral, A9-1cm Muck, and NIM represents no hydric soil indicator is met.

*Indicators found with > 50% probability.

⁋Munsell values were weighted into 15 cm depth ranges starting from the original soil surface, below the litter layer. The average value was rounded to the nearest possible value found within a Munsell soil color book.

Fig 3.1. Map of Juniper Bay showing the drainage ditches, soil types, soil pits, wells used during the first five years after restoration, and vegetation plot locations. Soil pit locations, soil types, and ditches were geo-referenced from Ewing et al. (2012) in ArcMap. Well locations were geo-referenced from Environmental Services, Inc (2006) in ArcMap.

R2 = 0.96

p < 0.001

Fig 3.2. Relationship of total carbon to loss on ignition (LOI). The strong, positive correlation allowed C (%) to be measured indirectly from LOI (%) saving time and hundreds of dollars.

Fig 3.3. Organic C concentrations down to 60 cm: A) pre-restoration (Ewing et al. 2012), B) post-restoration, below pre-restoration soil surface plus C from the litter layer (Oi and Oe horizons). Post- Restoration organic soils go down to 75 cm to account for similar soil masses between both time periods.

Fig 3.4. Cumulative SOC (Mg C ha-1) between pre- and post-restoration mineral soils from

Juniper Bay are shown in A) and B) organic soils. Reference Carolina Bay and post-restoration

C levels for mineral soils are shown in C) and D) organic soils. Sections C) and D) include C stored in the litter layer plus below ground C. Reference and pre-restoration data were extracted from Ewing et al. (2012) and Caldwell et al. (2007). Values shown are averages with standard deviation bars. Different letters represent significant (p < 0.05) differences between pre- and post-restoration periods, and between reference and post-restoration periods, within the same soil type.

Fig 3.5. a) The relationship between C levels (Mg C ha-1) down to 75 cm, in addition to, C stored in the litter layer and estimated maximum consecutive days of ponding during the growing season. b) Regression between litter thickness (cm) and maximum consecutive days of ponding during the growing season.

SUPPLMENTAL INFORMATION

Table S3.1. Soil bulk density in soil material below the litter layer (Oi and Oe horizons) in pre- and post- restoration soils from Juniper Bay, and from three reference* Carolina Bays. Values shown are 95% confidence intervals. Soil No. Soil Bulk Age Type Pits Depth Density (cm) (g cm-3)

Deep Organic 3 15 0.16 + 0.03A

30 0.16 + 0.03a

Reference Shallow Organic 3 15 0.21 + 0.45A

30 0.47 + 31a

Mineral 3 15 1.01 + 0.87A 30 1.47 + 0.07a Organic 11 15 0.69 + 0.06A 30 0.55 + 0.09a Pre-Restoration

Mineral 10 15 1.02 + 0.19A 30 1.01 + 0.37a Organic 11 15 0.47 + 0.07B 30 0.42 + 0.08b

Deep Organic 7 15 0.43 + 0.07B

30 0.39 + 0.07b Post-Restoration

Shallow Organic 4 15 0.54 + 0.17B

30 0.49 + 0.26a

† Mineral 10 15 0.75 + 0.19B †† 30 0.89 + 0.27a Upper-case letters were used to make comparisons at 15 cm within a given soil type between reference and post-restoration soils, and between pre-restoration and post-restoration soils at the 0.05 level.

Lower-case letters were used to make comparisons at 30 cm within a given soil type between reference and post-restoration soils, and between pre- and post-restoration soils at the 0.05 level.

† Post-restoration and reference soils were not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

†† Post-restoration and reference soils are significantly different at the 0.05 level.

*Two shallow organic soils from the reference sites included bulk density from fibric and/or hemic material. All other organic soil material was sapric muck.

Table S3.2. Comparing SOC (%) at equivalent soil depths within organic soils from pre- and post-restoration periods at Juniper Bay. Values shown are means.

Soil Eq. Type Depth SOC (cm) ------(%)------Pre-Post Pre Post 30-45 37.15a† 23.95b

Organic 45-60 30.42a 19.86b

60-75 17.09a 10.68b

Mineral 45-45 4.35a 3.98a

60-60 1.46a 1.78a †Values followed by a different lower superscript are significant at the 0.05 level.

CHAPTER 4: A RAPID APPROACH FOR AN ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN

CAROLINA BAY WETLANDS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY CONVERTED TO

AGRICULTURE

Abstract: Restoring wetlands in the Southeastern United States Coastal Plain is extensive, however, methods for ecological assessments (EAs) of restoration projects have not been established for Carolina Bay Wetlands (CBWs) that previously experienced agriculture. The objectives of this study were to 1) develop chronosequences for litter layer thickness, tree basal area, and potential tree height and 2) create an empirical method to estimate saturation levels with no well data. The results would be used to create a rapid assessment tool in CBWs. Data were collected from nine restored CBWs whose restoration ages ranged from 0-23y. Plots were grouped into four Groups: 1) 0-13, 2) 14-50, 3) 51-100, and 4) 101+ consecutive days of saturation within 30cm of the soil surface during the growing season. Litter thickness, tree basal area, and potential tree height were collected within a variable radius plot using a 10-factor prism. Groups 1 and 2 combined litter thickness, tree basal area, and tree height appeared to reach a peak at 15y (10cm, 36m2*ha-1, and 19m). Groups 3 and 4 combined litter thickness and tree height also appeared to reach a peak at 15y (15cm and 12m), however, tree basal area increased linearly to 23y and 21y (34 and 14 m2*ha-1, respectively). Significant (p<0.05) correlations (R2=0.57-0.73) were found that could be used to estimate saturation based on hydrology indicators, litter thickness, tree height, and soil type. These data suggest the chronosequences and saturation regressions developed will be useful in assessing restoration success in CBWs that previously experienced agriculture.

INTRODUCTION

Creation of new wetlands, enhancement of existing wetlands, and restoration of previously converted wetlands are all ways to mitigate wetlands (USACOE 2002). Wetland mitigation is used when natural wetlands are impacted by various forms of development and agriculture (National Research Council 1995, USDA 1994). Restoring wetlands that were converted to agriculture involves plugging drainage ditches and planting vegetation similar to reference wetland communities (Ewing et al. 2005).

Restoring wetlands is expensive. The USDA reported that restoring one hectare of a wetland costs approximately $3000 (USDA 2002). In NC, over $500 million have been spent restoring wetlands since 2003 (NC DEQ 2013). The success of restoration projects can be evaluated for ecological or jurisdictional purposes (SER 2004), but the criteria for determining whether a restoration is successful have not been defined for all wetlands (National Research

Council 1995). It is generally agreed that returning hydrology to its original levels is the most critical facet of the wetland restoration process (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Hydrology controls many wetland processes such as C sequestration (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007) and plant community type (De Steven and Lowrance 2011). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has defined wetland hydrology as: saturation, flooding or ponding occurring within 30 cm of the surface for at least 14 consecutive days during the growing season in 5 or more years out of 10

(USACE 2005). Planting wetland vegetation that is similar to the original vegetation is also a requirement for sites to be successfully restored.

Evaluating Restoration Sites

Soil-based biogeochemical indicators related to wetland functions are useful properties to consider when evaluating wetlands (Reddy and DeLaune 2008). Carbon sequestration is a

biogeochemical indicator that might be used to evaluate restoration success. Carbon can accumulate in several ‘pools’ in a restoration project and can be measured as soil organic C, litter layer thickness, and above-ground biomass. Results from Chapters two and three suggest that these pools of C change with age of the wetland under different saturation regimes. The success rate of wetland mitigation projects related to carbon (C) sequestration could be improved if specific variables can be identified that are known to change over short (< 25 yr) time periods in successful restoration projects.

Hydrogeomorphic Approach

Two methods are often used to evaluate restoration success: 1) the Hydrogeomorphic approach (HGM) (Brinson 1996) and 2) the Ecological Approach (EA) (Moon and Wardrop

2013). The HGM approach was developed to classify wetlands and to compare a mitigated system to a reference system (Brinson 1993,1996). The first step when using HGM is to classify the wetland by its geomorphic position, hydrologic source, and hydrodynamics. Seven HGM categories have been recognized: (1) riverine, (2) depressional, (3) slope, (4) mineral soil flats,

(5) organic soil flats, (6) estuarine fringe, and (7) lacustrine fringe.

Once the geomorphic, hydrologic, and reference conditions for the wetland are known, a list of wetland functions is assembled for the HGM assessment process (Brinson 1993,1996).

The functions are defined as equations that compute a functional capacity index (FCI). The FCI equation for a given function consists of one or more variables that need to be assessed onsite.

Each variable is given a rating from 0 to 1 based on how close it is to the same variable in a reference (natural) wetland. Once the FCI functions and variable rating requirements are defined, one can rate the mitigated system (Brinson 1993, Smith et al. 2013). The functional capacity index (FCI) for each function also ranges from 0 (not functioning) to 1 (fully

functioning) in comparison to the reference standards. Hydrogeomorphic assessments work well for comparing a mitigated wetland to a reference wetland. However, the HGM ratings assessed onsite do not change with age of the wetland, and so the HGM approach works best for wetlands whose conditions and functions are not expected to change with age. As a result, the HGM approach is not well suited for evaluating young mitigated wetlands whose conditions, such as the amount of C sequestered, are expected to change with time as the wetland approaches the reference condition. Evaluating wetland functions or conditions that change with time is better done with an ecological assessment (Moon and Wardrop 2013).

Ecological Assessments

Ecological approaches compare the mitigated system to a reference site using a timeline, or chronosequence, to quantify the ecological integrity (i.e., wetland functions and properties) of the altered site (Moon and Wardrop 2013). Ecological integrity refers to “the ability of an ecosystem to support and maintain its complexity and capacity for self-organization in terms of its physicochemical characteristics, species composition, and functional processes, in the absence of human disturbance” (Karr and Dudley 1981). Ecological assessments are based on indicators or wetland processes that can change over time (Fennessy et al. 2007 ). Four steps are generally used in indicator development: (1) establish reference conditions, (2) find indicators that reliably change with time and (3) classify indicators based on the amount of time and money that is needed to obtain the measurements (Fennessy and Wardrop 2016).

Establishing appropriate reference conditions sets a standard for a given parameter that one can measure against time since anthropogenic disturbance (Rheinhardt et al. 2007; Wardrop et al. 2013). Depending on the site parameter, the relationship with time might be linear or nonlinear. Many environmental conditions may interact with a given indicator, or site parameter

(Hossler et al. 2011). Choosing the appropriate indicator(s) for specific wetland functions should be done for specific types of wetlands, as is done in the HGM approach (Fennessy and Wardrop

2016). Effective and reliable indicators are dynamic and correlate with age since anthropogenic disturbance, require a short amount of time and money to measure, perform essential wetland functions, and experience no seasonal or spatial variability (Fennessy et al. 2001; Schloter et al.

2003; Gil-Sotres et al. 2005).

Carolina Bay Wetlands

Carolina Bays are a unique type of wetland found in the Southeastern United States

Coastal Plain (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). The bays have an elliptical shape, are orientated northwest to southeast, have a depressional landform, and contain a sand rim that is most noticeable on southeast portion of the bays. Most Carolina Bays in the Southeastern United

States are found within North and South Carolina, but they do occur as far north as New Jersey and as far south as northern Florida (Prouty 1952).

While all Carolina Bays have a similar shape and orientation, individual bays differ in the soil types and plant communities within them (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). Clay based Carolina

Bays are more common in the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains Ecoregion of North and South

Carolina where plant communities of pond cypress ponds, pond cypress savannas, and depression meadows dominate (Shafale and Weakley 1990; Richardson and Gibbons 1993;

Griffith et al. 2002). Organic soil based Carolina Bays are more common in the Carolina

Flatwoods Ecoregion where plant communities of nonriverine swamp forest, pocosin, pond pine woodland, and bay forest dominate the Carolina Bays (Griffith et al. 2002; Shafale and Weakley

1990; Dimick et al. 2010).

It was shown in Chapter 3 that an organic soil based Carolina Bay that was restored for

15 years had the original surface of the organic soils rise or “swell” an average of 1 cm yr-1.

There were, in addition, significant (p < 0.05) losses of soil organic C (SOC) down to 60 cm in mineral soils and down to a pre-restoration equivalent depth of 60 cm (75 cm post-restoration) in the organic soils as described in Chapter 3. The processes responsible for the apparent loss of the SOC were not determined, but appeared to be related to significant volumetric changes in the organic soils, as well as, possible mineralization of the SOC. Litter layer thickness significantly changed with hydrology, soil type, and general plant community type. Litter layer thickness is a variable related to C sequestration that requires little training to measure and increases with age of the system (Shaetzl 1994), but its thickness can vary somewhat throughout the year (Nielson and Hole 1964). It was also found in Chapter 2 that changes in tree basal area, height, and diameter at breast height (DBH) significantly differed across different saturation regimes.

Results from Chapters 2 and 3 suggested that measurements of litter layer thickness, and tree basal area and height could be used to assess the wetland function of C sequestration across restored wetlands of different ages. Changes in a property with time will be referred to as a chronosequence.

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to: 1) develop chronosequences for litter layer thickness, and tree basal area and height in restored Carolina Bays that were previously converted to agriculture, and 2) develop an empirical method to estimate saturation periods during the growing season based on field measurements for sites that contain no well data. The results of the study would be used to create a rapid assessment tool (RAT) related to C sequestration to evaluate restored Carolina Bays using an ecological approach. The RAT must

use properties that are easily measured on site, require no laboratory analyses, can be collected during a single site visit, are quantitative, and the values must change with hydrology and age of the restored wetland.

METHODS

Study Locations

Nine Carolina Bays that were previously converted to agriculture were used in this study

(Fig. 4.1, Table 4.1). These mitigation sites had been restored for 0 (not yet restored) to 23 years. Three natural organic soil based Carolina Bays were used as reference sites (Fig. 4.1).

These were previously characterized by Caldwell et al. (2011), Dimick et al. (2010), and Ewing et al. (2012). This population of bays included both mineral and organic soils (Table 4.1).

Restoration sites closer to the North Carolina Sandhills region contained clay-based bays that had a fragipan, which is a dense and brittle soil layer that could restrict water movement and cause near-surface saturation to occur (Soil Survey Staff 2014). Sites further East contained highly decomposed organic soils, and mineral soils with loamy and sandy textures.

As shown in Table 4.1, the bay landform varied across sites. Some sites contained confined sand rims with small surface water outlets. Other locations contained a highly decomposed bay landform with low-order streams. Some of these locations can only be identified as a Carolina Bay when Lidar elevation data are interpreted in ArcMap. Bays are constantly infilling with peat and sediment, and stream excision has caused most of the original lakes to naturally disappear (Schalles et al. 1989).

Four Hydrologic Groups defined in Chapter 2 were used to categorize sample plots prior to soil sampling. The hydrologic unit used to define the Groups was the average maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of soil surface during the growing season in 5 years

out of 10 (50% probability). In most cases, the average period of saturation was obtained from 5 years of well data obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,

Department of Mitigation Services website database (NCDEQ 2020). However, some sites only consisted of three years of well data (i.e. Barra Farms - Harrison Bay, Dowd Dairy, Hillcrest

Bay, and Twin Bays). Saturation periods for the Groups were: 1) < 14 (non-wetland areas), 2)

14-50, 3) 51-100, and 4) 101+ days of saturation.

Soil Sampling

The study sites were sampled in 2019 and 2020. Sampling points were georeferenced in

ArcMap from site maps found within the NCDEQ:DMS mitigation reports and from Ewing et al.

(2012). The plots were navigated to in the field using a global navigation satellite system with a

Trimble: Nomad and a Trimble: GeoXT (Trimble Inc. Sunnyvale, CA). In general, five locations within each Hydrologic Group were sampled at each site location. For locations that did not contain any well data, hydrologic regimes were estimated based on on-site conditions or a 2-D spline analysis was conducted in ArcMap to increase the number of sample plots based on the techniques used in Chapter 2.

For sampling sites that were not ponded, two to three soil pits were dug (30 cm wide and

30 cm deep) 1 m apart with a spade. Saturated organic and/or mineral soils, which could not be sampled by spade, were sampled with a McCauley auger and/or an open bucket auger. Soil profiles were described by soil horizon on vertical sections removed from the pits and/or from soil carefully removed from the augers. Profile descriptions included horizon depth, Munsell color of the matrix, soil texture, and redoximorphic features.

Litter thickness was measured at each pit location before it was dug. In general, sites that had been restored for < 9 years had not reached tree crown closure, as a result, the litter layer did

not fully cover the ground. Litter thickness in these areas was generally measured at 1/3 the length to the full length of the lowest main branch on the nearest tree, located near the center of the plot. Site microtopography, and disturbance within the plot also determined where the litter layer was measured.

For sampling sites that were ponded, two to three pedons were sampled 1 m apart with an open bucket auger and/or a McCauley auger down to 30 cm. Soils were removed from the auger, placed on a floating raft near the excavation, and were then described. Litter thickness was measured underwater by estimating the top of the litter layer by hand and measuring down the original soil surface.

Bulk samples (3.78 L) were collected for soil characterization from each horizon described. Undisturbed cores (5 cm diam. x 2.5 or 5 cm in length, or 2.5 cm diam. x 5.0 cm in length) were also collected in duplicate from each horizon 30 cm below the soil surface with a bulk density sliding hammer and/or a McCauley auger where the sliding hammer could not be used.

Anaerobic and Hydrologic Determination

United States Army Corps of Engineers wetland hydrology field indicators were identified at the plots at time of sampling (USACOE 2010). The total number of all hydrology indicators found, as well as, the specific indicators that were found in at least 50% of the plots within a given Hydrologic Group were used in our analyses.

Indicator of reduction in soils (IRIS) tubes were installed with a push probe at selected plots within each Group at the restored sites to confirm that saturation and anaerobic conditions occurred at the sites. Five IRIS tubes were inserted into the soil over an area that was < 2 m in diameter and near the sampling plots (Berkowitz 2009). The average area of Fe-oxide paint

removed was estimated by eye to a depth of 30 cm. In general, the IRIS tubes were left in the ground for about 8 months at Juniper Bay. The remaining six sites that were restored (Table 4.1) had tubes left in the ground for about 6 months

Laboratory Analyses

Bulk density was determined by the core method of Grossman and Reinsch (2002). Bulk soil samples were air dried (25 °C), oven dried (105 °C) for 24 – 48 hours and crushed with a mortar and pestle to pass through a 2-mm-mesh sieve. Total C (%) was determined through dry combustion with a Perkin-Elmer PE2400 CHN Elemental Analyzer (Culmo 1988). This work was performed in part at the Environmental and Agricultural Testing Service laboratory (EATS),

Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, at North Carolina State University. Thirty samples were selected for C analysis at Juniper Bay. Six to nine samples were selected for C measurement at the remainder of the sites listed in Table 4.1. We assumed total C consisted of organic C, because no carbonates or shells were present in these acid soils.

Loss of ignition (LOI) (%), or soil organic matter (SOM) (%), was estimated for these samples by heating in a muffle furnace at 400° C for 16 hours (Hurt 2009). A regression relationship was then developed between total C and LOI for the samples (Table S4.1). Total C was estimated for all remaining samples by LOI.

Below ground soil C for every soil horizon was converted to a mass basis (i.e. Mg C ha-1) using measured soil bulk density values. Soil horizons below the litter layer were then subdivided into 15 cm weighted averages down to 30 cm. Average SOC (%) and cumulative below ground SOC mass values down to 30 cm from plots where IRIS tubes were installed were used in our analyses.

Tree Assessments

Five sample plots in each Hydrologic Group were used to assess vegetation and measure litter thickness. Basal area was determined in a variable radius plot using a 10-factor prism on trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) > 5 cm. Tree species were identified on all trees within the variable radius plot. Trees that were dominant (> 19.4% abundance across all plots) within each site and Group are also reported in Table S4.4. Fixed radius plots with a radius of

5.64 m (1/100 ha) were used to determine species for shrubs, vines, saplings, and seedlings that were needed to confirm wetland hydrology field indicator (D5), FAC-Neutral test (USACOE

2010). Graminoids were also noted and were dominantly Carex spp., Juncus spp., and Typha spp.. Indicator statuses for plants were determined using the USDA-NRCS PLANTS database search engine (USDA-NRCS 2020). Prevalence index for each plot was computed based on the methods of Wentworth et al. (1988) (Table S4.4). Potential tree height was determined for a healthy tree within the plot of interest by taking one-half of the sum of the slope (in percent) from eye level to the top of the tree and from the base of the tree at a point 15 m from the tree

(DeYoung 2018). A healthy tree was chosen based on it representing a dominant tree species in the plot, the tree did not have a broken top, the crown was not forked, and the tree was straight.

Percent slope was quantified using a clinometer. Variables related to aboveground biomass and litter layer thickness were measured at all plots, not selected plots described above.

Reference Carolina Bays

Three organic soil based Carolina Bays located in Bladen County, NC that had not burned or been logged for at least 65 years were used as reference sites (Dimick et al. 2010).

Previous work characterized the hydrology (Caldwell et al. 2011), soils (Ewing et al. 2012), and vegetation (Dimick et al. 2010). The Bays were named Charlie Long – Millpond Bay

(34°46’04.96” N, 78°33’36.24” W), Tatum Millpond Bay (34°43’00.09” N, 78°33’05.95” W), , and Causeway Bay (34°39’41.92” N, 78°25’45.13” W) (Fig. 4.1).

Statistical Analyses

The total number of hydrology indicators, the average below ground SOC (%) to 30 cm, cumulative below ground SOC to 30 cm, and IRIS tube Fe-oxide paint removal were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) in SAS 9.4 using the PROC GLM function with Tukey

Kramer’s multiple comparison procedure to test pairwise differences between the Hydrologic

Groups (SAS Institute 2013, Cary, NC). Least-square means (LSMEANS) were used because the data were not balanced. Cumulative SOC on a mass basis (i.e. Mg C ha-1) down to 30 cm was used as a covariate in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) predicting Fe-oxide paint removal with the PROC GLM function with Tukey Kramer’s multiple comparison procedure to test pairwise differences between the Hydrologic Groups. Within site comparisons between

Hydrologic Groups and between site comparisons within a given Group with C-based variables were also analyzed using ANOVA with Tukey Kramer’s multiple comparison procedure using

LSMEANS. Within site comparisons at Hillcrest Bay were analyzed with two tail t-tests in SAS using PROC TTEST (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Litter layer thickness, and tree basal area and height were regressed across short-term chronosequences (0-23 years) for each Hydrologic Group using the PROC GLM function in SAS

(SAS Institute 2013, Cary, NC). Measured variables were transformed by taking the square-root of the measured value to help stabilize the variance and/or increase the accuracy of the model.

All regressions were fixed to zero to mimic natural conditions at the time of restoration.

Multiple zero points (data from sites that have not been restored, 24 data points) were not inserted into the model(s) to avoid high leverage from the zero points. Predicted values for ages

1 to 25 yrs from each short-term chronosequence, for a given variable, from each Group, were also analyzed through ANOVA using the PROC GLM function in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute 2013,

Cary, NC). Hydrologic Groups were used a class. Tukey Kramer’s multiple comparison procedure was used to compare LSMEANS between the Groups to see if the regression slopes between the Hydrologic Groups were significantly different.

Regressions to estimate the maximum consecutive days of saturation during the growing season were created using PROC GLM in SAS (SAS Institute 2013, Cary NC). The total number of hydrology indicators, age of restoration, litter layer thickness, tree basal area, potential tree height, and the presence of organic soils and/or soils with a histic epipedon based on definition 1b (surface organic thickness ranges from 20 cm to 40 cm, Soil Survey Staff 2014) were used as predictors in the regressions.

Folded F-tests, the residuals were plotted against the fitted values, and/or Q-Q plots were assessed to see if the data contained a constant variance and to see if the data were normal. If the data were not normal, normality was assumed. Square-root transformations were used to help stabilize the variance within the chronosequences. Bad samples and one unrepresentative tree height were not used in my analyses. All comparisons were made at the 0.05 level unless noted otherwise.

RESULTS

Anaerobiosis and Hydrologic Determination

Hydrologic and soil properties are summarized in Table 4.2. The number of hydrology field indicators increased in going from Hydrologic Group 1 (3 indicators) to Hydrologic Group

4 (8 indicators). Hydrology indicators A3 (saturation), D2 (geomorphic position), and D5 (FAC-

Neutral test) were found in at least 50% of the plots in all Hydrologic Groups. Saturation refers

to saturated soil within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season. Geomorphic position was determined from mitigation reports and digital elevation models in ArcMap. The

FAC Neutral test was determined from plant species inventory conducted within the plots. As soils became progressively wetter, indicators that were observed included: A1 (surface water),

A2 (high water table observed within 30 cm), B9 (water stained leaves), C2 (dry season water table), and D8 (sphagnum moss).

Hydrology indicator B8 (sparsely vegetated concave surface) was not used often, because the slopes within the sites were so low that concave surfaces were often not noticed unless standing directly on top of the sand rim (typically Hydrologic Group 1, non-wetland areas).

Without observing elevation data, the bays appeared to be a wet flat. Higher quality aerial imagery could have increased the use of indictors B7 (inundation visible on aerial imagery) and

C9 (saturation visible on aerial imagery).

The average below-ground SOC (%) to 30 cm and the cumulative below ground SOC

(Mg C ha-1) to 30 cm also showed a progressive increase going from Hydrologic Group 1 to

Group 4 (Table 4.2). Group 4 had significantly higher SOC (11.6%) than Groups 1 and 2 < 51 days (3.54 and 4.47%). There were no significant (p > 0.1) differences in the amount of the cumulative SOC on a mass basis down to 30 cm among the Groups (96 – 190 Mg C ha-1).

Cumulative SOC down to 30 cm was a significant (p < 0.1) covariate in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

In general, areas that experienced saturation durations for > 100 days contained more

SOC, and significantly (p < 0.05) more Fe oxide paint was removed (94 % removal) off the IRIS tubes than areas that experience saturation periods < 51 days (32 and 50 % removal).

Hydrologic Group 3 experienced significantly (p < 0.05) more Fe oxide paint removal (74 % removal) than Group 1 (32 % removal).

A series of regressions equation were developed to estimate the maximum consecutive days of saturation in sites that lack well data and are shown in Table 4.3. Multiple regression and interactive models (R2 = 0.57 – 0.73 and p = 0.05 – p < 0.001) were developed with the total number of hydrology indicators, age of restoration, litter layer thickness, potential tree height, and organic soils and/or soils with a histic epipedon based on definition 1b.

Chronosequences

Changes in litter thickness over time are shown in Fig. 4.2. Data were best fit with a

2nd-order polynomial term using a square root transformation. All models were significant at the 0.05 level or higher. Regression results were similar for Hydrologic Groups 1 and 2 and their data were combined in Fig. 4.2a. Regression results were similar for Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4 and the data for these were combined as well in Fig. 4.2b. For all Hydrologic Groups, litter thickness progressively increased up to approximately 15 years following restoration, and then remained nearly constant thereafter. Canopy closure probably occurred at about 15 years which maximized annual litter production.

Changes in Basal Area over time are shown in Fig. 4.3 and Tables S4.2, 4.3. Hydrologic

Groups 1 and 2 showed patterns similar to those found for litter thickness in that the curvilinear models showed basal area peaking at approximately 15 years (28 and 30 m2 ha-1) and remaining nearly constant thereafter. On the other hand, linear models best fit the data for Hydrologic

Groups 3 (34 m2 ha-1) and 4 (14 m2 ha-1), and it was not clear that maximum values had been reached.

Changes in potential tree height over time are shown in Fig. 4.4, Table S4.2, and 4.3.

Similar curvilinear relationships were found for Hydrologic Groups 1 and 2, and Groups 3 and 4.

The potential tree height peaked at approximately 15 years reaching a value of about 17 m

(Groups 1 and 2) and 12 m (Groups 3 and 4).

Mean values found for litter thickness, basal area, and potential tree height in the reference bays for each Hydrologic Group are shown in Table 4.4. Reference means are compared to mean values for the restored sites at 23 years (Groups 1-3) and 21 years (Group 4) after restoration (Table 4.4). Data for litter and tree basal area were obtained from the previous studies done at the reference bay plots used for this study. Potential tree height data were obtained by Otte (1982) and Hall and Penfound (1939), as such, data were not collected at the reference bays. The restored sites had similar litter thicknesses to those of the reference sites in

Groups 1 and 2 (12 cm vs. 10 cm and 13 cm vs. 10 cm) but not Groups in 3 and 4 (15 cm vs. 23 cm and 19 cm vs. 40 cm). In general, tree basal area values were about half of those for the reference locations (Table 4.4). Values for potential tree height in the restored sites were similar to those found for canopy height in the reference bays for Hydrologic Groups 1, 2, and 4 (7 m to

17 m vs. 10 m to 18 m) (Table 4.4). In Hydrologic Group 3, the potential tree height was approximately 9 m less (16 m) in the restoration site at 21 years than the canopy height found in the reference bays (25 m).

DISCUSSION

Chronosequences

The results of the study showed that the restored Carolina Bays have not fully reached reference conditions after 23 years of restoration for every measured site parameter within each

Hydrologic Group. Litter thicknesses in Hydrologic Groups 1 and 2 were similar to the

reference sites after 23 years, however, litter thicknesses for Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4 were almost half those of the restored sites. Litter thickness could potentially increase over time in

Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4, but ponded conditions would probably be needed to slow decomposition. As shown in Table 4.2, hydrologic indicators of ponded conditions (e.g., A1 and

B9) were observed in Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4 in 50% of the plots, but not in the other

Groups. This suggests that litter thicknesses in Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4 will continue to increase at the restoration sites where ponding occurs.

Tree basal area values were above those found in the reference areas and this suggested that as the restored sites age some of the trees will die. The restoration process overplants trees to compensate for those which will die during the early years of restoration. Like litter thickness, potential tree height in the restored sites at 23 years was similar to the estimated canopy height for the reference bays in Hydrologic Groups 1 and 2. However, changes in potential tree height may occur in Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4. Tree height in Group 3 may increase while that in

Group 4 may decrease over time as the dominant species in each group change. Presence or absence of fire (Schafale and Weakley 1990; Ash et al. 1983), soil type, and soil fertility

(Richardson 2003; Otte 1982; Shalfale and Weakley 1990) will likely influence how the litter thickness and vegetation characteristics change over longer time periods (Figs. S4.1-4.3).

Sueltenfuss and Cooper (2019) found that even though wetland hydrology can be restored to mimic reference conditions, the plant communities that grow in the mitigation sites do not lead to similar plant communities found in reference systems.

Ecological Assessment

The results of this study have not been validated at other Carolina Bay locations, but they could potentially be used to evaluate restoration sites. The relationships shown in Figs. 4.2

to 4.4 and Table 4.3 might be used to aid field personnel in evaluating restoration sites of different ages in similar Carolina Bay wetlands, I can suggest possible ways for doing this. I considered each of the restoration sites to represent successful restorations (except for Hillcrest

Bay, which was primarily used for Group 1 – non wetland areas). Field personnel could use the data in Figs. 4.2 to 4.4 and Table 4.3 by first considering the age of a given restoration site. Plots should then be selected along a transect that likely contains a wetness gradient that may include

Hydrologic Groups 1 to 4. Hydrologic field indicators should be identified at the selected plots and compared to monitoring well data if available. General soil type can be estimated using a push probe to determine if the soils are organic or contain a histic epipedon according to definition 1b. Litter thickness, basal area, and potential tree height (if trees are present) can be quickly estimated on site.

Hydrologic Group could be estimated using the number of field indicators and type

(Table 4.2) found in the plots at the restored sites. The equations shown in Table 4.3 offer an additional way to estimate saturation duration, but the equation needs additional verification at other sites before widespread usage can be recommended. Once the Hydrologic Group is known, litter layer thickness, tree basal area and height can be plotted in Figs. 4.2 to 4.4. If a restored site’s average values for litter thickness, tree basal area, and potential tree height within a given Group fall within the 95% confidence limits shown, then the site might be considered adequately restored for its age. However, if the values of any parameter fell below or above the

95% confidence limits, then project goals may need to be reassessed. This might consist of manipulating the hydrology and/or planting additional trees to meet project goals. More studies need to be done to verify the results in Figs. 4.2 to 4.4, and Table 4.3, but the results reported

100

here show that the chronosequences have the potential to be a useful tool to evaluate Carolina

Bay restoration sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine Carolina Bay restored wetlands were compared for changes in litter thickness, basal area, and potential tree height over time. Carolina Bays were focused on, because it was assumed that all sites would undergo similar changes over time for a given Hydrologic Group and there are no ecological assessments currently available for this landform. Time since restoration ranged from 0 to 23 years with restoration sites that were considered to be successfully restored, except for one site that was primarily used for non-wetland areas.

In general, litter thickness increased over time and appeared to reach a peak at approximately 15 years. Wetland plots saturated for > 51 days during the growing season had litter thicknesses about half of what was found in reference sites for similar saturation periods. Plots saturated for

< 51 days during the growing season had litter thicknesses that were similar to reference sites.

Ponding during the growing season was occurring in > 50% of the plots saturated for > 51 days and was expected to slow decomposition of litter enough to allow litter thickness to increase over time in these plots.

Tree basal area increased with time up to 15 years for sites saturated < 51 days during the growing season. For sites saturated for longer periods, basal area appeared to increase up to approximately 23 years following restoration. Tree basal areas at the restored sites were about one half of those of the restoration sites, which suggested that some trees at the restored sites will eventually die off.

Potential tree height increased with time up 15 years in the restored sites that were saturated for < 100 d during the growing season. For sites saturated for > 100 days per year

101

during the growing season, potential tree height continued to increase up to 23 years following restoration. Potential tree height at 15 to 23 years of restoration was similar to canopy height in reference sites in plots saturated for < 50 d during the growing season. Potential tree height (at

23 years) in plots saturated for 51 to 100 days during the growing season was less than canopy height in reference sites. For restored sites saturated > 100 days during the growing season, potential tree height was slightly greater than the canopy height estimated for reference sites.

Further research is needed to determine how tree species will change over time in the latter two groups. The chronosequences and saturation regressions developed will be useful to field personnel who evaluate wetland restoration success in restored Carolina Bays.

102

REFERENCES

Ash A, McDonald E, Kane E, Pories C (1983) Natural and modified pocosins: Literature

synthesis and management options. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Dept. Biol., Tech.

Rep. FWS/OBS-83/04. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Washington, D.C.

Richardson C (2003) Pocosins: hydrologically isolated or integrated wetlands on the landscape.

Wetlands. 23:563-576.

Berkowitz J (2009) Using IRIS tubes to monitor reduced conditions in soils - project design.

Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program 9:1-10.

Brinson M (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4,

Waterways Experiment Station, Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

Brinson M (1996) Assessing wetland functions using HGM. National Wetlands Newsletter.

18(1): 10-16.

Caldwell PV, Vepraskas M, Gregory J, Skaggs R, Huffman R (2011) Linking plant ecology and

long-term hydrology to improve wetland restoration success. Advances in Forest

Hydrology 54:2129-2137.

Culmo, RF (1988) Principle of operation — The Perkin-Elmer pe 2400 CHN elemental analyzer.

Perkin Elmer Corp, Norwalk, CT.

103

De Steven D, Lowrance R (2011) Agricultural conservation practices and wetland ecosystem

services in the wetland‐rich Piedmont‐Coastal Plain region. Ecology Applications 21: S3‐

S17.

DeYoung J (2018) Forest measurements: an applied approach. In: DeYoung J (ed) Field

technique tips for measuring tree height, 1st edn. Morrisville, NC, pp 55-61.

Dimick, B. P., Stucky J, Wall W, Vepraskas M, Wentworth T, Arellana C (2010) Plant‐soil‐

hydrology relationships in three Carolina bays in Bladen County, North Carolina, USA.

Castanaea 75(4): 407‐420.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M, White J, Broome S (2012) Changes in wetland soil morphological and

chemical properties after 15, 20, and 30 years of agricultural production. Geoderma 179-

180:73-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.02.018.

Ewing J, Vepraskas M, Zanner C (2005) Using historical records of land use to improve wetland

mitigation. Southeastern Geographer 45:25-43.

Fennessy M, Gernes J, Mack J, Wardrop D (2001) Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition:

Using Vegetation to Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands. EPA-822-R-02-020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, USA.

104

Fennessy S, Jacobs A, Kentula M (2007) An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the

ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:504-521.

Fennessy M, Wardrop D (2016) Approaches to assessing the ecological condition of wetlands

using soil indicators. In: Vepraskas M and Craft C (eds.) Wetland soils: genesis,

hydrology, landscapes and classification. 2 edn. Boca Raton, Florida. pp 425-442.

Gil-Sotres F, Trasar-Cepeda C, Leiros M, Seoane S (2005) Different approaches to evaluating

soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Biology Biogeochemistry. 37:877-887.

Grossman R, Reinsch T (2002) Bulk density and linear extensibility. In: J.H. Dane and G.C.

Topp (eds.) Methods of soil analysis, part 4 physical methods. Soil Science Society of

America. Madison, Wisconsin. pp 201-228.

Griffith, G, Omernik J, Comstock J, Schafale M, McNab W, Lenat D, MacPherson T (2002)

Ecoregions of North Carolina. United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Corvallis, Oregon.

Hall T, Penfound W (1939) A phytosociological study of a Nyssa biflora consocies in

southeastern Louisiana. American Midland Naturalist 22:369‐375.

105

Hossler K, Bouchard V, Fennessy M, Fry S, Anemaet E, Herbert E (2011) No-net-loss not met

for nutrient function: Recommendations for wetland mitigation policies. Ecospheres 2:1-

36.

Hurt R (2009) Soil survey field and laboratory methods manual: mineral content. United States

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Soil Survey

Center. Lincoln, Nebraska. pp 250 – 251.

Karr J, Dudley D (1981) Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental

Management 5: 55-68.

Kusler J, Kentula M (1990) Executive summary. In: wetland creation and restoration: The status

of the science. Island Press, Washington, DC. pp xvii–xxv.

Mitsch, W, Gosselink J (2007) Wetlands. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Moon J, Wardrop D (2013) Linking landscapes to wetland condition. In R. Brooks, and D.

Wardrop (Eds.). Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Advances in Wetlands Science,

Management, Policy, and Practice. Springer Publishing, New York, NY, pp.61-108.

National Research Council (1995) Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. National Academy

Press, Washington, DC.

106

NC Department of Environmental Quality (2020) Division of Mitigation Services Projects.

https://deq.nc.gov/division-mitigation-services-projects.

NC Department of Environmental Quality (2013) NC ecosystem enhancement program

celebrates a decade of conserving and restoring streams and wetlands.

https://deq.nc.gov/press-release/nc-ecosystem-enhancement-program-celebrates-decade-

conserving-and-restoring-streams. Accessed 3 August 2020.

Nielson G, Hole F (1964) Earthworms and the development of coprogenous A1 horizons in

forest soils of Wisconsin. SSSAP 28:426-430.

Otte L (1982) Origin, development, and maintenance of the pocosin wetlands of North Carolina.

Raleigh, NC.

Prouty W (1952) Carolina bays and their origin. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63:167–

224.

Reddy, K, Delaune R (2008) Biogeochemistry of wetlands: science and applications. CRC Press,

Boca Raton. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9780203491454.

Rheinhardt R, Brinson M, Brooks R, Mckenney-Easterling M, Rubbo J, Hite J, Armstrong B

(2007) Development of a reference-based method for identifying and scoring indicators

of condition for coastal plain riparian reaches. Ecological Indicators 7:339-361.

107

Richardson C, Gibbons J (1993) Pocosins, Carolina bays, and mountain bogs. p. 257–310. In:

Martin W, Boyce S, and Echternacht A (eds.). Biodiversity of the southeastern United

States –Lowland terrestrial communities. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

SER. 2004. The SER international primer on ecological restoration.Washington, D.C.: Society

for Ecological Restoration International. www.ser.org/pdf/primer3.pdf.

Schalles J, Shure D (1989) Hydrology, community structure, and productivity patterns of a

dystrophic Carolina bay wetland. Ecol. Monog. 59(4): 365-385.

Schloter M, O’Dilly C, Munch J (2003) Indicators for evaluating soil quality. Agriculture

Ecosystems Environment 98:255-262.

Schaetzl R (1994) Soil horizonation…the alphabet of soils. In: Schaetzl R and Thompson M

(eds) Soils: genesis and geomorphology, 2nd edn. New York, New York, pp 36.

Schafale, M, Weakley A (1990) Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department

of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Sharitz R, Gibbons J (1982) The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina

bays: a community profile. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

108

Smith R, Noble C, Berkowitz J (2013) Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland

Functions: Guidelines for Developing Guidebooks (Version 2). ERDC/EL TR-13-11.

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy. 12th edition. USDA-NRCS. Washington, D.C.

Sueltenfuss J, Cooper D (2019) Hydrologic similarity to reference wetlands does not lead to

similar plant communities in restored wetlands. Restoration Ecology. doi:

10.1111/rec.12964.

Trimble (2020) Models: nomad and geoxt. Trimble Global Headquarters, Sunnyvale, CA.

U.S Army Corps of Engineers (2010) Regional supplement to the corps of engineers wetland

delineation manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.

Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. U.S. Army Engineer

Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (2002) Regulatory guidance letter no. 02-2.

http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/mitigation/map-rgl/rgl_02-2.pdf.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (2005) Technical standard for water-table monitoring of

potential wetland sites. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, ERDC TN-WRAP-05-

2:12.

109

United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation (1994) National food

security act manual, third edition (as amended). Washington, DC.

USDA-NRCS (2020) Plant Database Search Engine. https://plants.usda.gov/java/. Accessed July

2020.

USDA (2002) Wetland reserve program: restoring America's wetlands. Washington, D.C. USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Wardrop D, Kentula M, Brooks R, Fennessy M, Chamberlain S, Havens K, Hershner C (2013)

Monitoring and assessment of wetlands: Concepts, case-studies, and lessons learned. In

R. Brooks, and D. Wardrop (Eds.). Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Advances in

Wetlands Science, Management, Policy, and Practice. Springer Publishing, New York,

NY, pp. 381-420.

Wentworth T, Johnson G, Kologiski R (1988) Designation of wetlands by weighted averages of

vegetation data: a preliminary evaluation. Water Resources Bulletin 24:389-396.

110

Table 4.1. Site characteristics for nine Carolina Bay mitigation sites Total Age No. Hydro. Dominant River of of Well Groups Bay Mapped Site Location Basin Rest. Size Plots Data Present Characteristics Soil Types (No. (Subgroup ------(D,Min,S) (yrs) (ha) (n) yrs) (1-4) ------Level)

Arabia 34°57’23.89” N, Cape Confined rim; clay Typic Fragiaquult; Grossarenic Bay 79°08’16.46” W Fear 0 6.5 11 0 0 based with Fragipan Kandiudlults; Typic Kandiudults; Sliver 35°12’13.29” N, Highly decomposed; Umbric Paleaquults; Moon II 77°21’51.42” W Neuse 0 12 13 0 0 wet flat Typic Paleaquults Highly decomposed; Twin 34°44’54.09” N, Cape wet flat; contains Typic Paleaquults; Bays 78°01’38.09” W Fear 7 4.9 10 2-5 2,3 low order stream Oxyaquic Paleudults Highly decomposed; Sliver 35°12’21.87” N, wet flat; contains Typic Humaquept; Moon I 77°21’39.69’ W Neuse 9 6.9 13 5 2-4 low order stream Umbric Paleaquult Confined Typic Fragiaquult; Arenic Kandiudults; Hillcrest 34°59’16.06” N, Cape rim; clay based with Arenic Paleudults; Grossarenic Bay 79°10’34.53” W Fear 15 19 10 2-6 1,2 Fragipan Kandiudults; Confined rim; Terric Haplosaprists; Typic Juniper 34° 30’23.38” N, 0, 25, 0, Peat-based; multiple Humaquepts, Umbric Paleaquults, and Bay 79° 01’16.96” W Lumber 15 230 50 5 1-4 bays Aeric Alaquods Terric Haploapists; Typic Humaquepts; Confined rim; Typic Paleaquults; Umbric Dover 35°12’46.04” N, Peat-based; Endoaquods, Aeric Alaquods; Spodic Bay 77°20’02.00” W Neuse 21 99 19 5 1-4 multiple bays Quartzipsamments; Broken rim; Mineral Typic Endoaquults; Typic Dowd 34°43’55.02” N, Cape bay and wet flat; Umbraquults; Typic Humaquepts; Dairy 78°38’56.68” W Fear 22 251 27 3-6 1-4 head water stream(s) Grossarenic Alorthods Broken rim; Peat- Terric Haplosaprists; based; headwater Cumulic Humaquepts; Typic Barra 34°55’45.09” N, Cape stream(s); multiple Humaquepts; Quartzipsamments; Aeric Farms 78°41’08.91” W Fear 23 101 16 1-3 1-3 bays Paleaquults

111

Table 4.2. Summary of hydrologic and soil properties found in plots where IRIS tubes were installed. Compared values shown within a column are LSMEANS except for the total number of hydrology indicators (values rounded to the nearest whole number).

Ave. Cumulative Below Below Range No. Total No. Hydrology Ground Ground Fe-oxide Hydrologic of of of Hydro. IndicatorsΘ SOC (30 SOC# (30 Paint Group Saturation Plots Indicators (>50% prob.) cm) cm) Removal (Max. Consec. Days (% During Grow. Seas.) ------(%) (Mg C ha-1) removal) 1⁋ 0-13 8 3a† A3, D2, D5 3.54a†† 96a 32a† 2 14-50 17 5ab A2, A3, D2, D5 4.47a 120a 50ab 3 51-100 8 7bc A1, A2, A3, B9, D2, D5 7.66ab 130a 74bc 4 101+ 4 8c A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5, D8 11.6b 190a 94c †Values shown within a column followed by a different lower superscript are significantly different at the 0.05 level.

††Values shown within a column followed by a different lower superscript are significantly different at the 0.1 level.

⁋Age of restoration for all sites that contain Group 1 is > 15 years.

#Cumulative SOC is a significant covariate at the 0.1 level (p = 0.081)

ΘHydrology Indicators: A1 (Surface water), A2 (High water table), A3 (Saturation), B9 (water-stained leaves), C2 (Dry-season water table), D2 (Geomorphic position), D5 (FAC-neutral test), and D8 (sphagnum moss). Field indicators: A1, A2, A3, B9 are considered primary hydrology indicators (one needed to meet wetland hydrology). Field indicators: C2, D5, and D8 are considered secondary hydrology indicators (two are needed to meet wetland hydrology).

112

Table 4.3. Regressions that estimate the maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season.

Eq. p < No. Equation R2 alpha 1 Sat. = 10.9(No. Hyd. Ind.) + 48.9(organic-histic) – 3.4 0.57 p < 0.001

Sat. = -0.65(age) + 9.2 (No. Hyd. Ind.) + 22.3(organic-histic) + 1.4 (litter) + 0.76(No. Hyd. Ind. 2 *organic-histic* litter) - 0.25(age *organic-histic* litter) 0.65 p < 0.01

Sat. = 2.1(age) + 9.9(No. Hyd. Ind.) + 97.1 (organic-histic) - 2.6 (Potnl. TH (m)) + 0.58(age*Potnl. 3 TH (m))*organic-histic) + 0.53(No. Hyd. Ind * Potnl. TH*organic-histic) 0.73 p < 0.05 Significance level refers to the lowest significance level for the highest order term.

113

Table 4.4. Reference means and restored means found 23 years after restoration for major site parameters.

Dominant Litter Tree Canopy Hydrologic Tree Species Thickness Basal Area Height Group Reference(a) Restored⁋ Reference(b) Restored Reference(a) Restored Reference(c) Restored 2 -1 (common name) (cm) (m ha ) (m)

Pinus Pinus 1 serotina palustris 10 12 12 28 18 17

Pinus taeda, Pinus Pinus 2 serotina serotina 10 13 12 30 18 15

Pinus serotina, Taxodium Taxodium 3 spp. spp. 23 15 22 34 25 16

Persea borbonia, Gordonia Pinus lasianthus, serotina, Magnolina Taxodium 4† virginiana spp. 40 19 8 14 10 7 Table modified from Caldwell et al. (2011). Reference site age, at least 65 years old, was estimated by Dimick et al. (2010). †Restored means came a site that was restored for 21 years. ⁋ Restored dominant tree species came from a site that was restored for 21 years. (a)Data from Dimick et al. (2010). (b) Data from Ewing et al. (2012). (c) Data from Otte (1982) and Hall and Penfound (1939).

114

Fig 4.1. Locations of the Carolina Bay research sites in relation to Raleigh, NC (red star). Mitigation sites are shown as blue circles and reference sites are shown as blue diamonds. A) Hoke County - Arabia Bay and Hillcrest Bay, B) Cumberland

County - Barra Farms (Harrison Bay) C) Robeson County – Juniper Bay, D) Bladen County – Dowd Dairy and Reference Bays

(Causeway, Charlie Long-Millpond, and Tatum-Millpond Bay(s)), E) Duplin County – Twin Bays, and F) Craven County - Dover Bay and Sliver Moon 1 & 2.

115

Fig 4.2. Chronosequences for litter layer thickness (cm): a) Group 1 and Group 2 datasets are combined, b) Group 3 and Group 4 datasets are combined. Light blue shaded areas are 95% confidence limits and areas in between the dotted lines are 95% prediction limits.

116

Fig 4.3. Chronosequences for tree basal area (m2 ha-1) across four Hydrologic Groups: a) Group 1, b) Group 2, c) Group 3, and d)

Group 4. Light blue shaded areas are 95% confidence limits and areas in between the dotted lines are 95% prediction limits.

117

Fig 4.4. Chronosequences for potential tree height (m): a) Group 1 and Group 2 datasets are combined, b) Group 3 and Group 4 datasets are combined. Light blue shaded areas are 95% confidence limits and areas in between the dotted lines are 95% prediction limits.

118

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Table S4.1: Pedotransfer functions from nine Carolina Bay mitigation sites that measure SOC

(%) from LOI (%).

Site Pedotransfer Function R²

1 Y = 0.3843X 0.97

2 Y = 0.3965X 0.91

3 Y = 0.4218X 0.94

4 Y = 0.456X 0.95

5 Y = 0.4605X 0.98

6 Y = 0.4961X 0.96

7 Y = 0.497X 0.98

8 Y = 0.5223X 0.99

9 Y = 0.57X 0.96

119

Table S4.2. Short-term ANOVA and regression summary for each site parameter and associated Hydrologic Group. Results Short-Term (ANOVA, Chronosequences Variable Regression Hydrologic Group ) 1 2 3 4 ANOVA† a†† a ab b SQRT(Litter Y = 3.30E-1(X) – Y = 3.56E-1(X) – Y = 3.68E-1(X) Y = 4.76E-1(X) – Layer Regression 8.8E-3(X2) 9.4E-3(X2) -9.3E-3(X2) 1.4E-2(X2) Thickness) R2 0.49 0.61 0.58 0.52 (cm) p < α p < 0.001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 ANOVA a ab bc c SQRT(Tree Y = 7.60E-1(X) – Y = 4.51E-1(X) – Basal Area) Regression 2.3E-2(X2) 8.9E-3(X2) Y = 2.52E-1(X) Y = 1.95E-1(X) (m2 ha-1) R2 0.5 0.52 0.63 0.35 p < α p < 0.0001 p < 0.05 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 ANOVA a a ab b SQRT(Potentia Y = 4.50E-1(X) – Y = 4.20E-1(X) – Y = 3.69E-1(X) l Tree Height) Regression 1.2E-2(X2) 1.1E-2(X2) -8.7E-3(X2) Y = 1.74E-1(X) (m) R2 0.85 0.79 0.74 0.38 P < α p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 †Predicted values from 1 to 25 yrs were analyzed through ANOVA.

††Different lower superscripts within a row indicate significant differences in predicted LSMEANS at the 0.05 level.

Age of restoration (yrs.) is the predictor for each regression.

120

Table S4.3. Within site and between site comparisons for litter layer thickness and variables related to above ground biomass. Values shown are 95% confidence intervals. Age of Hydro. Litter Tree Basal DBH Potential Tree Site Restoration Group Thickness Area Class Height 2 -1 (yrs) (1-4) (cm) (m ha ) (5 cm classes) (m)

Twin Bays 7 2 5 + 2a†BD†† 3 + 6aB 1 + 1aC 6 + 3aC 3 6 + 2aBCD 3 + 4aB 1 + 1aB 5 + 2aC Sliver Moon 1 9 2 4 + 2aBD 5 + 8aB 2 + 2aC 7 + 4aC 3 6 + 2aCD 1 + 1aB 1 + 1aB* 5 + 3aC 4 8 + 0bC 0 + 0a 0 + 0aB 3 + 1aC Hillcrest Bay 15 1 11 + 3aA 46 + 22aA 2 + 1aB 14 + 1aA 2 11 + 2aABC 34 + 9aA 3 + 1aAC 15 + 2aAB Juniper Bay 15 1 8 + 3aA 35 + 17aA 5 + 1aA 19+3aB * 2 11 + 2aABC 36 + 7aA 5 + 1aB 18 + 2abB 3 12 + 3aABD 24 + 10aA 4 + 1abA 15 + 2b*B 4 18 + 3bAB 11 + 6bA 3 + 1bA 9 + 2cB Dover Bay 21 1 - - - - 2 13 + 7aABC 25 + 29aA 3 + 1aAB 13 + 5aA 3 16 + 7aAB 17 + 9aA 2 + 1aAB 9 + 2abAC 4 19 + 3aAB 14 + 15aA 2 + 2aAB 7 + 4bBC Dowd Dairy 22 1 7 + 3aA 28 + 20aA 5 + 2aA 17 + 4aAB 2 8 + 3abCD 30 + 10aA 4 + 1aAB 18 + 3aAB 3 10 + 2abABC 36 + 9aA 3 + 1aA 17 + 2aB 4 14 + 5bABC 34 + 10aA 4 + 1aA 16 + 1aA Barra Farms 23 1 12 + 9aA 28 + 14aA 6 + 1aA 17 + 3aAB 2 13 + 6aAC 30 + 14aA 4 + 2abAB 15 + 3aAB 3 15 + 6aAB 34 + 11aA 4 + 2bA 16 + 6aB †Values followed by a lower-case letter represent within site comparisons at the 0.05 level. ††Values followed by an upper-case letter represent between site comparisons within a given Group the 0.05 level. *Significant difference at the 0.1 level.

121

Table S4.4. Dominant (>19.4 % abundance across all plots within a given Group) and common trees found in restoration sites, and within-site and between site comparisons within a given Group for prevalence index. Sites younger than 15 years contain sapling/seedling data due to a low number of trees (DBH > 5 cm). Values shown are LSMEANS. Restoration Age of Hydro. Dominant Prevalence Site Rest. Group Trees Index (yrs.) (1-4) (Common Name) (1-5) Twin 7 2 River Birch, Green Ash (Saplings) 2.2a†A†† Bays 3 River Birch, Black Willow, Cypress (19% Saplings) 2aB* 2 S. Red Oak, Loblolly Pine, River Birch 3.1aC Sliver Very few trees- S. Red Oak, River Birch; Red Maple Moon 1 9 3 (saplings) 3.1aA 4 no trees-Red Maple (saplings) 3.1aA Hillcrest 15 1 Loblolly Pine, Sweet Gum 3.2aA Bay 2 Loblolly Pine, Sweet Gum (18%) 3.3aBC 1 Loblolly Pine, Pond Pine (17%) 3aA Juniper 2 Loblolly Pine, Pond Pine 2.8abABC Bay 15 3 Loblolly Pine, Cypress 2cbB 4 Loblolly Pine, Cypress 1.8cA 1 Longleaf Pine 3.5aA Dover 2 Pond Pine; Loblolly Pine; Bay Trees (16%) 2.5aAB Bay 21 3 Pond Pine; Cypress 1.7bB 4 Pond Pine; Cypress 1.7bA 1 Loblolly Pine, Sweet Gum; Overcup Oak (19%) 2.8aA Dowd 2 Loblolly Pine, Sweet Gum (19%) 2.5abA Dairy 22 3 Willow Oak; Cypress; Overcup Oak (19%) 1.8bB 4 Overcup Oak; Cypress (15%); Loblolly Pine (17%) 2.1abA Barra 1 Loblolly Pine, Pond Pine 2.9aA Farms 23 2 Cypress, Red Maple 2.4aA 3 Red Maple, E. Cottonwood (19.4%), Cypress (16%) 2.3aAB † Values followed by a lower-case letter represent within site comparisons at the 0.05 level. ††Values followed by a upper-case letter represent between site comparisons within a given Group at the 0.05 level. *Significant differences at the 0.1 level.

122

APPENDICES

Fig S4.1. Chronosequences for litter layer thickness (cm) across four Hydrologic Groups: A) Group 1, B) Group 2, C) Group 3, and D) Group 4. Light blue shaded areas are 95% prediction limits and dark blue shaded areas are 95% confidence limits. Reference means come from Carolina Bay’s studied by Ewing et al. (2012).

123

Fig S4.2. Chronosequences for tree basal area (m2 ha-1) across four Hydrologic Groups: A) Group 1, B) Group 2, C) Group 3, and D) Group 4. Light blue shaded areas are 95% confidence limits for Group 1’s model and dotted lines are 95% confidence limits. Light blue shaded areas are 95% prediction limits and dark blue shaded areas are 95% confidence limits for Groups 2-4. Reference means come from Carolina Bay’s studied by Dimick et al (2010). 124

Fig S4.3. Chronosequences for potential tree height (m) across four Hydrologic Groups: A) Group 1, B) Group 2, C) Group 3, and D) Group 4. Light blue shaded areas are 95% prediction limits and dark blue shaded areas are 95% confidence limits. Reference means come from Otte (1982) and Hall and Penfound (1939). 125

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Jurisdictional Wetlands

Federal jurisdictional wetlands contain a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and are connected to waters of the United States (Environmental

Laboratory 1987). Wetlands provide many functions and values to society, and prime among these functions is C sequestration (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). As a result, wetlands are protected by federal laws, which require that wetlands cannot be filled in or drained without a permit (Environmental Laboratory 1987 and USDA 1985). Such permits usually require that lost wetland functions be restored or replaced. Compensatory mitigation consists of creating new wetlands, restoration of pre-existing wetlands, and enhancement of existing wetlands (EPA

2008). Restoring wetlands can cost as much as ($3000/ha) (USDA 2002). Because of the expense involved in restoring wetlands, reliable methods for evaluating restoration sites need to be developed. This research focused on evaluating restored Carolina Bay wetlands, which is a unique type of wetland found in the Southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain.

Goal of the Research

The USDA is currently developing Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) to guide management of ecological areas deemed of value to society (Soil Science Division 2017).

Central to an ESD is the State and Transition Model that specifies the changes that a given area can undergo by varying the management of the land. One such State and Transition Model has been proposed for Carolina Bay wetlands as shown in Fig. 5.1. The goal of this research has been to develop a field method for evaluating Transition 3 where an agricultural field is transitioning back to or toward a natural Carolina Bay wetland.

126

State and Transition Model for Organic Soil Based Carolina Bay Wetlands

Fig 5.1. A State and Transition model proposed for organic soil based Carolina Bay wetlands. The model contains three states: 1) Natural wetland, 2) agricultural field, and 3) restored wetland that can transition from one to another. The natural wetland contains four “sub-states” that differ in hydrology and soil characteristics. The transition processes (T1-T3) are shown. Transition T3 occurs over a long time period as the restored wetland changes toward a natural wetland.

127

Principal Findings

Vegetation and hydrologic relationships were defined in Chapter 2 for one Carolina Bay wetland that had been restored for 15 years (Juniper Bay). A hydrologic gradient occurred from the sand rim along the bay perimeter to the center of the bay. Soils and vegetation changed along the gradient. The bay was divided into four Hydrologic Groups based on well data collected in the first 5 years of restoration. The Groups were separated based on maximum consecutive days that saturation occurred within 30 cm of the surface, during the growing season, in 5 or more years out of 10. The Hydrologic Groups were defined as: 1) < 14, 2) 14-50,

3) 51-100, and 4) > 100 days of saturation. Significant relationships were found between vegetative strata and changes in the gradient of saturation.

Tree basal area and height were selected as potential site parameters that could be used to evaluate restoration success, and which may be applicable to other restored Carolina Bay wetlands. Other parameters such as vegetation prevalence index, graminoids, and shrubs/vines were also found to significantly change across the hydrosequence, however, it was thought they may be site specific, may not reliably change with time, and require more time and experience to measure. The type and total number of wetland hydrology indicators significantly changed across the Hydrologic Groups and could be used to identify the Groups at other sites.

Solid phase soil organic C (SOC) dynamics were studied in Chapter 3 at Juniper Bay by comparing SOC levels 15 years after restoration to the same soils sampled prior to restoration, as well as comparing SOC in the restored sites to those in reference bays. Significant losses in SOC on a mass basis occurred across the hydrosequence at Juniper Bay. Analyzing below-ground C

(%) at similar soil masses showed that significant losses of C only occurred in the organic soils.

In general, mineral soils also experienced losses of C down to 75 cm, however, the losses were not

128

significantly different compared to the corresponding soils sampled prior to restoration.

Concentrations of SOC at Juniper Bay 15 years after restoration were similar to those found in reference Carolina Bay wetlands. This indicated that the SOC concentrations at Juniper Bay had adjusted to reference bay levels.

Soil organic C levels require laboratory measurements of C concentration along with bulk density analyses in order to estimate SOC content in the field. These are time consuming and expensive. Evaluating litter layer thickness is easier and faster. Results from Chapter 3 showed that litter layer thickness increased significantly across Hydrologic Groups 1 to 4 and potentially could be used to assess changes in C following restoration.

Chronosequences were developed in Chapter 4 for Carolina Bay wetlands to show changes in litter layer thickness, tree basal area, and potential tree height. These were intended to be the major tools to use to evaluate the transition (T3) of a Carolina Bay wetland restored from an agricultural field to a natural wetland shown in Fig. 5.1. Nine restored wetlands, including Juniper

Bay, were evaluated that ranged in age from 0 to 23 years since restoration.

Litter layer thickness increased with age up to 15 years since restoration and remained constant thereafter. In Hydrologic Groups 1 and 2, litter thickness was similar to that found in the reference sites for similar Groups. Litter thickness appeared to be less than that found in reference sites for Hydrologic Groups 3 and 4, suggesting that the litter would continue to thicken beyond the 23 years the sites were restored. Ponded conditions occurred periodically in Hydrologic

Groups 3 and 4 and these would promote increases in litter layer over time by retarding decomposition.

Tree basal area increased with time across all Hydrologic Groups. It appeared to reach a maximum value at approximately 15 years in Hydrologic Groups 1 and 2. For Groups 3 and 4, no

129

maximum value could be defined after 23 years as basal area increased linearly with time.

However, basal area for all Hydrologic Groups was greater than that found at the reference sites suggesting that at some point it would decline.

Tree canopy height increased with restoration age, with the greatest changes occurring within 15 years of restoration for all Hydrologic Groups. Tree height was similar to that in the reference sites for Hydrologic Groups 1 and 2, and possibly Group 4 as well. However, tree height appeared to be less than the reference sites for Hydrologic Group 3, indicating that the reference conditions were not yet met as regards tree height.

Regression equations were developed to estimate duration of saturation during the growing season as an additional tool for estimating hydrologic groups at restoration sites that do not have available well data. Significant correlations and low to high order interactions were found to estimate the maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of soil surface during the growing season. Significant variables included: total number of hydrology field indicators, the presence of organic soils or soils with a histic epipedon according to definition 1b (surface organic thickness ranges from 20 cm to 40 cm), litter layer thickness, and potential tree height.

Recommendations

Combining the findings from Chapters 2, 3, and 4, a recommended methodology for an ecological assessment of restored Carolina Bay wetlands that are found inland within the

Southeastern Coastal Plain of the United States can be proposed (Table 5.1.) In general, the assessment can be conducted during a single site visit, requires little training, and no well data.

Table 5.2 provides values for the indicators used in the chronosequences across the different

Hydrologic Groups for restored wetlands of different ages. The table may be easier for field personnel to use than the graphs reported in Chapter 4.

130

It is recognized that the findings reported here need to be evaluated at other Carolina Bay wetlands restored from agricultural fields. However, the research has shown that it is theoretically possible to use chronosequences to evaluate restoration success. If further work proves their validity at other sites, then such chronosequences could be built into State and Transition models and used to evaluate restoration projects at different ages.

131

REFERENCES

Mitsch, W, Gosselink J (2007) Wetlands. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Soil Science Division Staff (2017) Soil survey manual. Ditzler C, Scheffe K, Monger H (eds.).

USDA Handbook 18. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Agriculture: Natural Resource Conservation Service (1985)

Wetland conservation provisions (swampbuster).

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/water/wetlands/?cid=stelpr

db1043554 Accessed 5 April 2021.

USDA (2002) Wetland reserve program: restoring America's wetlands. Washington, D.C. USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Background about Compensatory

Mitigation Requirements under CWA Section 404. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-

404/background-about-compensatory-mitigation-requirements-under-cwa-section-404

Accessed 5 April 2021.

132

Table 5.1. A recommended procedure that takes an ecological approach to evaluate restored

Carolina Bay wetlands found inland within areas in the Southeastern United States Coastal

Plain.

Step Step No. Description 1 Desk study to determine the age of restoration, area of site, dominant mapped soil types, and major land-use history. Additional geospatial elevation and hydrologic source/dynamics estimations may also be useful. Identify/analyze/incorporate any pre- existing data on vegetation, soils, hydrology, and site management before and/or after conversion/restoration.

2 Create transects that fully cover the site and/or a soil map unit across a potential hydrosequence. Traverse off the transect at each potential sample location to collect AT LEAST two more replicates.

3 Collect the total number of hydrology field indicators and IRIS tube data (if installed- not rapid)

4 Sample and describe soils to see if the soils meet a hydric soil field indicator. Take note if the soils are organic or if the soils contains a histic epipedon according to definition 1b (surface organic thickness ranges from 20 cm to 40 cm).

5 If present, measure litter layer thickness, potential tree height and tree basal area (variables related to C)

6 Depending on the site parameters present onsite, insert measured variables into saturation regressions (Eq. 1, 2, or 3) that were created in Chapter 4 (Table 4.3) to estimate which Hydrologic Group is present (defined in Chapter 2).

7 Compare measured variables related C into regressions shown in chapter 4 (Fig. 4.2, Fig. 4.3, and Fig. 4.4). Take the average of the measured variables to see if the area is within the 95% confidence limits.

8a If within the confidence limits for the given Group(s), the area and/or plot(s) will be considered successfully restored for a given Hydrologic Group.

8b If not within the confidence limits, project goals and/or the system may need to be reassessed.

133

Table 5.2. Predicted values for indicators in restored Carolina Bay wetlands that were previously converted to agriculture found inland within the Southeastern United States Coastal Plain.

Hydrologic Group and Associated Saturation Duration

(Max. Cons. days during Growing Season) Age of 1 (0-13) 2 (14-50) 3 (51-100) 4 (101+) Restoration Tree Potential Tree Potential Tree Potential Tree Potential Litter Basal Tree Litter Basal Tree Litter Basal Tree Litter Basal Tree Thick. Area Height Thick. Area Height Thick. Area Height Thick. Area Height (m2 (m2 (m2 (m2 -1 -1 -1 -1 (yrs.) (cm) ha ) (m) (cm) ha ) (m) (cm) ha ) (m) (cm) ha ) (m)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 2 10 4 2 4 3 3 2 3 4 1 1

10 6 28 11 7 13 10 8 6 8 12 4 3

15 9 38 17 10 23 15 12 14 13 17 9 7

20 10 34 18 11 30 17 13 25 15 17 15 12 Predicted values for each Hydrologic Group were generated from the regressions shown in Table S4.2.

134

APPENDICES

135

APPENDIX A

Archived Figures from Chapter 2

136

Fig AA 1. Two-dimensional hydrology map of Juniper Bay overlayed with a general soil map. Mineral soils occupy all areas outside of the “hashed” polygons.

137

Fig AA 2. Two-dimensional hydrology map of Juniper Bay overlayed with a general soil map (M: mineral soils; O: organic soils) and general plant communities. *Hashed areas represent a non-riverine swamp forest (NRSF) like plant community. Areas not hashed represent a “pine” woodland.

138

APPENDIX B

Archived Tables and Figures from Chapter 3

139

Table AB 1. Soil properties found at Juniper Bay 14 and 15 years after restoration. Values for sapric material thickness are averages. Values for base saturation and IRIS tube paint removal are LSMEANS.

Texture Depth of IRIS No. of No. of of Mineral Sapric Tube Hydro. Soil Mineral Soils Material in Base Paint Removal Group Pits Soils (0-15cm) Organic Soils Saturation (0-30cm) (USDA Class) ------(%)------

1 2 2 Loamy Sand 0 47a† 74a

2 3 3 Loamy Sand 0 N/A 74a

Mucky Loamy 3 7 4 Sand 68 51a 78a

Mucky Sandy 4 13 5 Loam 64 64a 94a †Values shown within a column followed by the same lower superscript were not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Soil particle size class data was extracted from Ewing et al. (2012).

140

Table AB 2. Summary of litter thickness (cm) across four Hydrologic Groups and four general plant community types. Values shown are LSMEANS.

Group Group Litter No. of Plots Type No. Thickness (n) (cm)

1 7 8a† 2 11 11a Hydrology 3 11 12a 4 21 18b 1 16 10a Gen. Plant 2 9 14a Comm. 3 12 11a 4 13 21b †Values shown within a column followed by the same lower superscript were not significantly different at the 0.05 within the same group type.

General plant community (1): are plots that contain > 80% coniferous vegetation.

General plant community (2): are plots that contain > 80% deciduous vegetation.

General plant community (3): are plots that contain < 80% deciduous and coniferous vegetation.

General plant community (4): are plots that are considered a “scrub”, marsh, or open water environment. In general, these areas experience year-round ponding and can be considered Hydrologic Group 5.

141

Table AB 3. Summary of general plant community abundance and litter thickness within each Hydrologic Group. Values shown are

LSMEANS.

Coniferous Deciduous Mixed Marsh/Open- water/Scrub (1) (2) (3) (4) Group Group No. of (% Litter (% Litter (% Litter Litter Type no. Plots Comm. Thick. Comm. Thick. Comm. Thick. (% Comm. Thick. (n) abund.) (cm) abund.) (cm) abund.) (cm) abund) (cm 1 7 100 9 Not Present Not Present Not Present 2 11 64 11a† 9 13a 27 10a Not Present Hydro. 3 11 18 12a 36 13a 46 10a Not Present 4 21 Not Present 19 14ab 19 12a 62 21b †Values shown within a row followed by the same lower superscript were not significantly different at the 0.10 level.

142

Table AB 4. Summary of general plant community abundance and litter thickness within each soil class. Values shown are

LSMEANS.

Coniferous Deciduous Mixed Marsh/Open water/Scrub (1) (2) (3) (4) No. of Litter Litter Litter Litter Soil Plots (% Comm. Thick. (% Comm. Thick. (% Comm. Thick. (% Comm. Thick. Type (n) abund.) (cm) abund.) (cm) abund.) (cm) abund) (cm)

Mineral 34 47 10a† 12 13a 20.5 9a 20.5 19b

Organic 16 Not Present 31 14a 31 13a 38 23b †Values shown within a row followed by the same lower superscript were not significantly different at the 0.10 level.

143

Table AB 5. Equivalent soil depths based on similar (p>0.1) soil masses between pre- and post- restoration periods. Values shown are MEANS.

Soil Equivalent Cumulative Type Depths Soil Mass

-2 ------(cm)------(g cm )------

Pre Post Pre Post

30 45 19a† 20a Organic 45 60 27a 29a

60 75 37a 40a

45 45 51a 44a Mineral 60 60 72a 65a

75 75 94a 87a †Values shown within a row followed by the same lower superscript were not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

144

Table AB 6. Changes in sapric muck thickness 14 years after restoring wetland hydrology in organic soils at Juniper Bay based off pedon descriptions. Values shown are 95% confidence intervals for sapric material thickness. “Swell rates” are averages.

Sapric Material Thickness Group (cm) "Swell Rate"

Pre Post -1 (cm yr ) All Organic Soils 49 + 10a 65 + 8b 1.1

Hydro. Group 3 57 + 17a† 68 + 16a 0.73

Hydro. Group 4 46 + 14a 64 + 11b 1.2 †Values shown within a row followed by the same lower superscript were not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

145

Fig AB 1. Difference in IRIS tube Fe-oxide paint removal in two Spodosols found in Hydrologic Group 3. A) soil pit 3C (crest soil) and B) soil pit 3D (ditch soil). Both soils do not meet a hydric soil indicator due to the amount of organic coated sand grains. Pictures of IRIS tubes are showing the front and back of the tubes. The bottom blue line represents 30 cm into the soil. IRIS tubes were 50 cm long.

146

Fig AB 2. A) Soil map of Juniper Bay prior to restoration and B) soil map of Juniper Bay 14 years after restoration. In general, organic soils (hashed areas) prior to restoration are classified as Terric Haplosaprists. Organic soils 14 years after restoration in polygon (1) now have inclusions of Typic Haplosaprists and organic soils in polygon (2) now classify as “wassits.”

147

Fig AB 3. A) Total organic thickness (cm) at Juniper Bay prior to restoration and B) total organic thickness (cm) at Juniper Bay 14 years after restoration. In general, total organic thickness has increased at Juniper Bay 14 years after restoration.

148

A. R2 = 0.88

p < 0.0001

B. 2 R = 0.71 p < 0.0001

Fig AB 4. A) Total organic thickness (cm) since no major anthropogenic disturbance (yrs.) and B) sapric material thickness (cm) since no major anthropogenic disturbance (yrs.). Reference data came from Ewing et al. (2012). Light blue shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals and dotted lines represent 95% prediction intervals.

149

Fig AB 5. Two-dimensional example of removing and restoring wetland hydrology in an organic soil dominated by sapric material.

A) a reference saprist, B) and C) a saprist in agriculture, and D) a restored organic soil dominated by sapric material. Red vertical arrows refer to land subsidence (A to B) and land “swelling” (C to D).

150

Fig AB 6. Hypothetical example of restoring wetland hydrology in a saprist. A) Plugging ditches restores the buoyant force, increasing organic thickness of the original sapric material, B) organic thickness increases through the accumulation of litter (Oi and Oe horizons) and C) organic thickness increases from biological decomposition of the Oi and Oe horizons into highly decomposed organic horizons (Oa horizons).

151

APPENDIX C

Archived Tables and Figures from Chapter 4

152

Table AC 1. Within site (between Hydro. Groups) and between site comparisons (within Hydro. Groups) for vegetation variables not used in the RAT. Values shown are 95% confidence intervals.

Hydro. Saplings/ Shrubs/ Coarse Woody Site Age of Restoration Graminoids Group Seedlings Vines Debris (yrs.) stems ha-1 ------% cover------m3 ha-1

1 2940 + 2921a†A†† 50 + 41aA 4 + 5aA 4 + 5a Barra Farms 23 2 5960 + 4944aA 15 + 26aA 0.4 + 1.1aA 0.4 + 0.7a 3 6533 + 5410aAB 18 + 40aA 1 + 2aA 10 + 7b 1 1240 + 788aA 47 + 51aA 1 + 3aA 10 + 13a 2 1317 + 767aB 29 + 38aABC 1 + 2aA 5 + 4a Dowd Dairy 22 3 2986 + 2743aB 9 + 11aA 5 + 5aA 1 + 1b 4 3944 + 2947aA 7 + 11aB 5 + 11aB 2 + 2ab 2 5725 + 6000abAB 69 + 74aBC 0 + 0aA 4 + 6a Dover Bay 21 3 10525 + 4282aA 14 + 35bA 100 + 0bB 1 + 1ab 4 4480 + 5190bA 17 + 15bAC 57 + 65bACD 0 + 0b Hillcrest Bay 15 1 2280 + 1588aA 19 + 28aA 0 + 0aA 2 + 2a 2 4640 + 3896AB 7 + 10aB 0 + 0aA 3 + 4a 1 2186 + 1,436aA 49 + 32aA 2.0 + 2.0aA 9.0 + 10a 2 2645 + 1,798aAB 30 + 19aABC 17 + 11aB 13 + 15a Juniper Bay 15 3 4691 + 2,777aB 9.0 + 8.0bA 47 + 20bC 8.0 + 7.0a 4 2976 + 1,209aA 1.0 + 2.0bB 53 + 15bC 3.0 + 3.0a

Sliver Moon 2 1572 + 1375aAB 58 + 25aAC 96 + 3aC 0 + 0a 1 9 3 6700 + 3768aAB 59 + 32aB 97 + 8aB 0 + 1a 4 12167 + 20268bB 27 + 16aAC 100 + 0aAD 0 + 0a Twin Bays 7 2 2300 + 1068aAB 28 + 27aABC 100 + 0C 0 + 0a 3 1920 + 425aB 28 + 41aAB 94 + 17aB 0 + 0a †Values shown within a row followed by the same lower-case letter were not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

††Values shown within a column followed by the same upper-case letter were not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

153

Table AC 2. Regressions that estimate the maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season.

Eq. No. Equation R2 p < α

1 Sat. = -2.1(age) + 10.8 (No. Hyd. Ind.) + 3.9 (litter thick (cm)) 0.57 p < 0.001

Sat. = 0.46(age) + 4.0 (No. Hyd. Ind.) + 3.1 (litter) + 0.72(No. Hyd. Ind. * litter) - 0.23(age * 2 litter) 0.61 p < 0.05

3 Sat. = 2.9(age) + 13.5 (No. Hyd. Ind.) - 4.2 (Potnl. TH (m)) 0.56 p < 0.001

Sat. = 6.0(age) + 28.2 (No. Hyd. Ind.) + 7.5 (Potnl. TH (m)) - 0.37(age*Potnl. TH (m)) - 1.1(No. 4 Hyd. Ind * Potnl. TH) - 123 0.65 p < 0.01

154

Table AC 3. Pedotransfer functions that measure soil bulk density (g cm-3) from loss of ignition

(%) from eight Carolina Bay mitigation sites that previously experienced agriculture.

Site Equation R2

Arabia Bay Y = -8.4E-02X + 1.68 0.79

Barra Farms Y = 2.0E-04X2 - 3.0E-02X + 1.27 0.89

Dover Bay Y = 2.0E-04X2 - 2.9E-02X + 1.15 0.86

Dowd Dairy Y = 9.0E-04X2 - 5.8E-02X + 1.41 0.81

Juniper Bay Y = 2.0E-04X2 - 2.9E-02X + 1.14 0.84

Twin Bays Y = -8.3E-02 X+ 1.48 0.41

Sliver Moon 1 Y = 8.0E-04X2 - 5.6E-02 + 1.53 0.92

Sliver Moon 2 Y = -3.3E-02X + 1.47 0.5

155

R2 = 0.76

p < 0.01

2 R = 0.36

p < 0.0001

Fig AC 1. Chronosequences of bulk density in organic soils dominated by sapric material down to 30 cm below the Oi and Oe horizons. A) 0 to 15 cm and B) 15 to 30 cm. Reference data come from Ewing et al. (2012) and Caldwell et al. (2007). Light blue shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals and dotted lines represent 95% prediction intervals.

156

Fig AC 2. Photographs of pedons and IRIS tubes from two soil pits. A) photographs are from Barra Farms soil pit W13 (Hydro. 1). This soil meets hydric soil indicator F13 (i.e. Umbric Surface), however, IRIS tube data suggest this soil no longer becomes saturated and anaerobic in the “upper part” during the growing season. B) photographs are from Juniper Bay soil pit 14C, this soil does not meet a hydric soil indicator, contains a sandy surface textural class, and IRIS tube data suggest that this soil does become saturated and anaerobic in the “upper part” during the growing season.

157

APPENDIX D

Raw Data

158

HYDROLOGY DATA: Site; AB=Arabia Bay, BF=Barra Farms, DB=Dover Bay, DD=Dowd Dairy, HC=Hillcrest Bay, JB=Juniper Bay, SM1=Sliver Moon1, SM2=Sliver Moon 2, and TB=Twin Bays. Age=age of restoration (yrs.). Location=sample plot. Hydro.=Hydrologic Group (1-4) based on the maximum consecutive days of saturation within 30 cm of the soil surface during the growing season, Sat. = average maximum consecutive days of saturation used to place a plot within a Hydro. Group. Pond (only applies to Juniper Bay)= estimated maximum consecutive days of ponding during the growing season. USACOE Hydro. Indicators= United States Army Corps of Engineers Hydrology Indicators found within the Atlantic Gulf Coast Regional Supplement. *Assumption, **Indicator is likely only active during extreme storm events.

Site Age Location Hydro. Sat. Pond USACOE Hydro. Indicators

AB 0 AB1 . . . A3, C4, C2, D2, D3 AB 0 AB2 . . . A1, A2, A3, B4, B7, C4, C2, D2 AB 0 AB3 . . . A1, A2, A3, B7, C3, C4, C2, D2, D3 AB 0 AB4 . . . A1, A2, A3, B7, C3, C4, C2, D2, D3 AB 0 AB5 . . . A1, A2, A3, B4, C4, C2, D2, D3 AB 0 AB6 . . . A1, A2, A3, C3, C4, C2, C9, D2, D3 AB 0 AB7 . . . A1, A2, A3, C3, C4, C2, C9, D2, D3 AB 0 AB8 . . . A3, C4, C2, C9, D2, D3 AB 0 AB9 . . . A1, A2, A3, C4, C2, C9, D2, D3 AB 0 AB10 . . . A3, C2, D2 AB 0 AB11 . . . A3, C4, C2, C9, D2 BF 23 W1 2 47.3 . A2, A3, D2, D5 BF 23 W2 2 49.7 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B10, C2, D2, D5 BF 23 W4 3 85.3 . A1, A2, A3, B7, B9, C2, D2, D5 BF 23 W6 2 32.7 . A2, A3, D2, D5 BF 23 W7 2 47.3 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B10, C2, D2, D5 BF 23 W9 3 51.3 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5 BF 23 W10 3 55.0 . A1, A2, A3, B7, C2, D2, D5, D8 BF 23 W11 2 47.3 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5, D8 BF 23 W12 3 51.3 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B10, C2, D2, D5

159

Site Age Location Hydro. Sat. Pond USACOE Hydro. Indicators

BF 23 W13 1 0.0 . No indicator met BF 23 W17 3 52.3 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5, D8 BF 23 W20 3 52.3 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5 BF 23 VC1.1 1 . . No indicator met BF 23 VC1.2 1 . . D5 BF 23 VC1.3 1 . . No indicator met BF 23 VC1.4 1 . . No indicator met DB 21 W13 2 48.0 . A1, A2, A3, C2, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 W14 4 195.6 . A1, A2, A3, C2, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 W15 4 194.2 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 W16 4 187.6 . A1, A2, A3, C2, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 T1.1 1 . . D2, D5 DB 21 T1.2 1 . . A2, A3, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 T1.3 1 . . A2, A3, D2 DB 21 T1.4 1 . . A2, A3, B4, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 T2.2 2 . . A2, A3, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 T2.5 2 . . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5 DB 21 T2.5B 2 . . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 T3.1 3 . . A1, A2, A3, C2, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 T3.2 3 . . A1, A2, A3, C2, D2 DB 21 T3.3 3 . . . DB 21 T3.4 3 . . A1, A2, A3, C2, D2, D5 DB 21 T3.5 3 . . A1, A2, A3, C2, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 N3.5B 3 . . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 T4.4 4 . . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5, D8 DB 21 T4.5 4 . . A1, A2, A3, B7, C2, D2, D5, D8 DD 22 W2 1 11.1 . D5

160

Site Age Location Hydro. Sat. Pond USACOE Hydro. Indicators

DD 22 W3 2 18.7 . No indicator met DD 22 W4 1 5.7 . D5 DD 22 W7 2 28.0 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B10, C8, D5 DD 22 W8 3 54.1 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B10, D5 DD 22 W8(orig) 3 . . A1, A2, A3, B9, D5* DD 22 W9 3 72.5 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B10, C4, C8, D5 DD 22 W13 1 4.0 . D5 DD 22 W14 3 52.7 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B10, C4, C8, D5, D8 DD 22 W15 4 104.3 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C4, C2, D3, D5 DD 22 W17 4 104.6 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C4, C2, D5 DD 22 W18 3 92.3 . A1, A2, A3, C4, D5 DD 22 W20 4 104.7 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C4, C2, D5 DD 22 W22 2 34.1 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B10, D5 DD 22 W24 3 83.3 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C4, D5 DD 22 W26 4 108.2 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D5 DD 22 W27 3 71.4 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C2, D5 DD 22 W28 4 112.1 . A1, A2, A3, B1, B9, B16, C4, C2, D5 DD 22 W29 4 115.6 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C4, C2, D5 DD 22 W34 2 26.6 . A2, A3, D5 DD 22 W35 2 32.0 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B10, C8, D5, D8 DD 22 W36 1 5.3 . No indicator met DD 22 W37 2 31.4 . D5 DD 22 T99 1 . . No indicator met HC 15 W1 2 16.0 . D3, D5 HC 15 W2 2 19.2 . A3, B1**, D2, D3 HC 15 WN3 1 3.5 . A3, B1**, D2, D3 HC 15 WN4 1 4.0 . B1**, D5

161

Site Age Location Hydro. Sat. Pond USACOE Hydro. Indicators

HC 15 W5 2* 13.4 . B1**, D5 HC 15 W6A 1 7.5 . B1**, D5 HC 15 WN9 1 5.0 . D5 HC 15 WN10 1 5.0 . A3, C4, C2, D2, D3, D5 HC 15 T2.1 2 . . A3, B1**, D2 HC 15 T2.2 2 . . B1**, D5 JB 15 1C 3 95.0 40 A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 2C 4 124 100 A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 3C 3 57.0 10 A1, A2, A3, B9, D2, D5 JB 15 4C 3 55.0 70 A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5, D8 JB 15 5C 4 159.0 110 A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 6C 4 115.0 90 A1, A2, A3, B13, C2, C9, D2, D5 JB 15 7C 2 44.0 20 A1, A2, A3,C2, D2, D5 JB 15 8C 4* 200* 200 A1, A2, A3, B7, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 9C 3 84.0 95 A1, A2, A3, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 10C 4 168 110 A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C2, C9, D2, D5 JB 15 11C 4 138 105 A1, A2, A3, B7, B13, B10, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 12C 2 32.0 30 A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 13C 4* 200* 200 A1, A2, A3, B13, C2, C9, D2, D5, D8 JB 15 14C 2 18.0 5 A2, A3, D2 JB 15 15C 3 80.0 70 A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5, D8 JB 15 16C 4 138 95 A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 17C 1 6.0 5 A1, A2, A3, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 61C 4 116 60 A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 62C 3 61.0 20 A1, A2, A3, B9, D2, D5 (Check C2) JB 15 63C 3 58.0 35 A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 64C 1 13.0 2 A2, A3, C2, D2, D5

162

Site Age Location Hydro. Sat. Pond USACOE Hydro. Indicators

JB 15 64D 1 . . No indicator met JB 15 65C 4 225* 190 A1, A2, A3, B13, C2, C9, D2, D5, D8 JB 15 66C 4* 225* 225 A1, A2, A3, B7, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 67C 4* 225* 200 A1, A2, A3, B7, B9, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 68C 4 225* 225 A1, A2, A3, B7, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 W1 2 30.2 . A2, A3, D2, D5 JB 15 W2 3 68.2 . A1, A2, A3, B9, D2, D5 JB 15 W7 4 156 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 W11 1 1.6 . No indicator met JB 15 W21 3 74.6 . A1, A2, A3, B9, D2, D5, D8 JB 15 W24 4 146 . A1, A2, A3, B9, B13, C2, C9, D2, D5 JB 15 W26 2 39.0 . A1, A2, A3, B9, D2, D5 JB 15 W31 2 47.8 . A2, A3, D2 JB 15 W33 1 11.0 . A2, A3, D2, D5 JB 15 W34 2 19.8 . A2, A3, D2, D5 JB 15 W35 2 32.6 . A2, A3, D2, D5 JB 15 W36 2 43.6 . A1, A2, A3, D2, D5 JB 15 W42 2 37.2 . A1, A2, A3, D2, D5 JB 15 W43 4 145 . A1, A2, A3, B7, B13, C2, D2, D5 JB 15 W44 1 12.6 . A2, A3, D2, D5 JB 15 W45 2 35.6 . A1, A2, A3, B9, D2, D5 SM1 9 W1 2 33.2 . A2, A3, D5 SM1 9 W2 4 101 . A1, A2, A3, B9, D5, D8 SM1 9 W3 3 90.0 . A1, A2, A3, D5, D8 SM1 9 W4 2 21.6 . A2, A3, D5 SM1 9 W5 3 76.0 . A2, A3, D5 SM1 9 W6 2 33.2 . A2, A3, D5

163

Site Age Location Hydro. Sat. Pond USACOE Hydro. Indicators

SM1 9 W9 3 92.8 . A2, A3, D5, D8 SM1 9 T4.2 4* . . A1, A2, A3, B9, D5, D8 SM1 9 T4.3 4* . . A1, A2, A3, B9, D5, D8 SM2 0 Pa1 . . . A2, A3 SM2 0 Pa1.5 . . . A2, A3 SM2 0 Pa2 . . . A2, A3 SM2 0 Pa2.5 . . . No indicator met SM2 0 Pa3 . . . A2, A3 SM2 0 Pa3.5 . . . A2, A3, C4 SM2 0 Ra1 . . . A2, A3 SM2 0 Ra1.5 . . . A2, A3 SM2 0 Ra2 . . . A2, A3 SM2 0 Ra2.5 . . . A1, A2, A3 SM2 0 Ra3 . . . A2, A3 SM2 0 Ra4 . . . A2, A3 TB 7 W2 2 41.2 . A2, A3, C4, C3, D5 TB 7 W5 3 57.6 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C4, C3, D5 TB 7 W8 3 59.6 . A1, A2, A3, B4, B9 C3, D5 TB 7 W11 3 67.6 . A1, A2, A3, B4, B9, C4, C3, D5 TB 7 W12 2 33.2 . A2, A3, C3, D5 TB 7 W13 2 37.0 . A2, A3, C3, D5 TB 7 W14 2 30.8 . A2, A3, C4, C3, D5 TB 7 W15 3 63.4 . A1, A2, A3, B4, B9, C4, C3, D5 TB 7 W16 3 60.0 . A1, A2, A3, B9, C3, D5 TB 7 W19 2 25.5 . A2, A3, B9, C4, D5

164

SOILS (PART 1) CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA: Site; AB=Arabia Bay, BF=Barra Farms, DB=Dover Bay, DD=Dowd Dairy, HC=Hillcrest Bay, JB=Juniper Bay, SM1=Sliver Moon1, SM2=Sliver Moon 2, and TB=Twin Bays. Location=sample plot. Depth=bottom depth of soil horizon (cm). pH=pH measured by NCDA. BS=base saturation (%) measured by NCDA. C*=total carbon (%) measured by the EATS lab. N*=total nitrogen (%) measured by the EATS lab. C=total carbon (%) estimated from pedotransfer function. LOI=loss of ignition (%). Bd=soil bulk density (g soil cm-3).

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

AB AB1 8 . . 1.98 0.10 2.38 6.01 1.09 AB AB1 23 . . . . 1.48 3.74 1.46 AB AB1 36 . . . . 1.37 3.46 1.39 AB AB2 15 . . 1.69 0.13 1.24 3.14 1.35 AB AB2 36 . . . . 1.12 2.82 1.45 AB AB2 41 . . . . 0.75 1.89 1.36 AB AB3 13 . . . . 2.36 5.96 1.17 AB AB3 29 . . . . 2.22 5.61 1.20 AB AB3 38 . . . . 1.49 3.76 1.36 AB AB4 13 . . 2.35 0.16 2.04 5.15 1.24 AB AB4 28 . . . . 1.50 3.77 1.36 AB AB4 38 . . . . 1.02 2.58 1.46 AB AB5 8 . . . . 2.59 6.53 1.11 AB AB5 30 . . . . 1.57 3.95 1.39 AB AB5 41 . . 0.80 0.05 0.66 1.68 1.58 AB AB6 8 . . . . 2.24 5.64 1.20 AB AB6 29 . . . . 1.70 4.28 1.31 AB AB6 36 . . . . 1.16 2.94 1.43 AB AB7 8 . . . . 1.99 5.02 1.25 AB AB7 25 . . . . 1.55 3.90 1.35 AB AB7 36 . . . . 0.87 2.20 1.49 AB AB8 8 . . . . 1.90 4.79 1.22 AB AB8 28 . . . . 1.20 3.02 1.41 AB AB8 41 . . . . 0.62 1.57 1.52 AB AB9 8 . . . . 2.20 5.55 1.21 AB AB9 20 . . . . 1.78 4.50 1.30 AB AB9 36 . . . . 2.35 5.92 1.18 AB AB10 8 . . . . 1.39 3.51 1.10 AB AB10 25 . . . . 1.16 2.92 1.48 AB AB10 38 . . . . 0.78 1.96 1.52 AB AB11 13 . . 1.52 0.10 1.91 4.82 1.32

165

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

AB AB11 29 . . . . 1.48 3.72 1.41 AB AB11 42 . . 4.22 0.09 4.11 10.37 1.46 BF W1 11 . . . . 49.59 94.94 . BF W1 14 . . . . 43.32 82.94 . BF W1 22 . . 25.36 0.76 23.07 44.17 0.49 BF W1 33 . . . . 22.03 42.17 0.51 BF W1 53 . . . . 10.31 19.74 0.40 BF W4 18 . . . . 49.96 95.65 . BF W4 22 . . . . 46.38 88.79 . BF W4 32 . . . . 32.73 62.66 0.31 BF W4 50 . . . . 27.38 52.42 0.30 BF W4 58 . . . . 12.23 23.42 0.54 BF W6 10 . . . . 48.77 93.37 . BF W6 13 . . . . 41.05 78.59 . BF W6 20 . . . . 5.58 10.68 1.04 BF W6 36 . . . . 4.01 7.68 1.08 BF W6 48 . . . . 3.35 6.41 1.40 BF W7 9 . . . . 48.99 93.79 . BF W7 13 . . . . 45.14 86.43 . BF W7 25 . . . . 11.66 22.33 0.59 BF W7 37 . . 17.95 0.49 13.92 26.65 0.68 BF W7 52 . . . . 6.79 13.00 0.85 BF W9 14 . . 44.42 2.85 46.55 89.12 . BF W9 17 . . . 43.81 83.89 . BF W9 32 . . . 12.26 23.47 0.71 BF W9 44 . . . 11.34 21.71 0.80 BF W9 58 . . 9.16 0.27 7.87 15.07 0.83 BF W10 13 . . . . 49.76 95.27 . BF W10 18 . . . . 45.92 87.92 . BF W10 28 . . . . 21.29 40.75 0.34 BF W10 41 . . . . 20.45 39.16 0.57 BF W10 61 . . . . 11.72 22.44 0.91 BF W13 10 . . . 51.17 97.96 . BF W13 18 . . . 32.96 63.11 . BF W13 33 . . . 5.10 9.77 0.87 BF W13 53 . . 3.07 0.12 4.46 8.54 0.96 BF W13 58 . . . 2.80 5.37 1.33 BF BFVC1.3 10 . . 48.85 0.84 51.42 98.45 .

166

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

BF BFVC1.3 20 . . 42.30 1.50 39.20 75.05 . BF BFVC1.3 30 . . 6.38 0.26 6.74 12.90 0.91 BF BFVC1.3 41 . . . . 3.19 6.11 0.95 BF BFVC1.3 51 . . 0.12 <0.02 0.34 0.64 1.25 BF BFVC1.1 5 . . . . 50.45 96.60 . BF BFVC1.1 8 . . . . 23.21 44.44 . BF BFVC1.1 13 . . . . 4.27 8.17 1.03 BF BFVC1.1 23 . . . . 2.08 3.99 1.28 BF BFVC1.1 36 . . . . 1.86 3.56 1.16 BF BFVC1.1 51 . . 2.55 0.07 3.07 5.87 . BF BFREF 8 . . . . 50.52 96.73 . BF BFREF 15 . . . . 48.32 92.51 . BF BFREF 28 . . . . 39.71 76.03 . BF BFREF 38 . . . . 9.28 17.76 . BF BFREF 48 . . . . 6.12 11.73 . BF BFREF 64 . . . . 0.46 0.87 . DB DB1.3 5 . . . . 46.85 94.26 . DB DB1.3 10 . . . . 0.88 1.78 1.13 DB DB1.3 24 . . . . 0.35 0.71 1.21 DB DB1.3 41 . . . . 0.53 1.06 1.27 DB DB1.4 3 . . . . 47.17 94.90 . DB DB1.4 6 . . . . 0.99 1.99 1.10 DB DB1.4 14 . . 0.21 <0.02 0.34 0.68 1.21 DB DB1.4 24 . . 3.85 0.07 3.14 6.31 1.63 DB DB1.4 39 . . . . 2.28 4.58 1.26 DB DB1.5 5 . . . . 48.47 97.53 . DB DB1.5 14 . . . . 0.64 1.28 1.12 DB DB1.5 39 . . . . 0.24 0.48 1.24 DB DB2.2 5 . . . . 44.73 89.99 . DB DB2.2 13 . . . . 33.55 67.50 . DB DB2.2 27 . . . . 1.42 2.85 0.94 DB DB2.2 46 . . . . 1.70 3.41 1.20 DB DB2.5 5 . . 44.27 1.24 46.65 93.85 . DB DB2.5 13 . . . . 37.49 75.43 . DB DB2.5 20 . . 7.56 0.25 10.60 21.33 0.65 DB DB2.5 33 . . . . 6.37 12.82 . DB DB2.5 46 . . . . 4.51 9.07 . DB W13 8 . . . . 14.52 29.22 .

167

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

DB W13 15 . . . . 1.58 3.17 0.91 DB W13 28 . . . . 0.23 0.46 1.30 DB W13 41 . . . . 1.08 2.17 1.61 DB W13 48 . . . . 0.34 0.68 . DB DB3.1 8 . . . . 46.82 94.20 . DB DB3.1 13 . . . . 33.10 66.60 . DB DB3.1 20 . . 5.60 0.15 4.39 8.82 . DB DB3.1 43 . . . . 6.79 13.66 . DB DB3.1 56 . . . . 7.04 14.16 . DB DB3.2 5 . . . . 48.32 97.22 . DB DB3.2 13 . . . . 29.87 60.10 . DB DB3.2 22 . . . . 7.15 14.38 0.42 DB DB3.2 43 . . . . 7.16 14.41 0.56 DB DB3.2 56 . . . . 1.47 2.95 0.89 DB DB3.4 8 . . . . 46.79 94.14 . DB DB3.4 20 . . . . 44.37 89.28 . DB DB3.4 30 . . . . 20.15 40.54 0.42 DB DB3.4 46 . . . . 14.14 28.45 0.42 DB DB3.4 56 . . . . 4.22 8.49 0.80 DB W14 3 . . . . 47.92 96.41 . DB W14 23 . . . . 45.12 90.79 . DB W14 36 . . . . 21.52 43.30 0.34 DB W14 51 . . . . 35.88 72.19 0.26 DB W14 64 . . . . 25.02 50.34 0.38 DB W15 16 . . . . 45.67 91.89 . DB W15 20 . . . . 31.11 62.59 . DB W15 28 . . 13.16 0.39 9.28 18.67 0.74 DB W15 42 . . . . 11.76 23.65 0.36 DB W15 58 . . 15.04 0.29 17.73 35.68 0.50 DB W16 18 . . . . 47.17 94.91 . DB W16 28 . . . . 42.81 86.14 0.26 DB W16 41 . . . . 46.40 93.37 0.25 DB W16 56 . . 35.16 0.77 30.29 60.95 0.32 DD W2 4 . . . . 37.97 90.03 . DD W2 5 . . . . 34.78 82.46 . DD W2 13 . . . . 13.83 32.62 0.52 DD W2 30 . . . . 10.76 25.50 0.64 DD W2 51 . . . . 8.51 20.17 0.59

168

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

DD W4o 9 . . . . 40.13 95.14 . DD W4o 10 . . . . 30.31 71.85 . DD W4o 19 . . . . 3.15 7.47 1.01 DD W4o 36 . . . . 1.45 3.44 1.36 DD W4o 46 . . . . 0.71 1.69 1.60 DD W4 5 . . . . 37.78 89.57 . DD W4 10 . . . . 1.81 4.28 . DD W4 25 . . . . 1.00 2.36 . DD W4 43 . . . . 1.55 3.68 . DD W7 8 . . . . 38.60 91.51 . DD W7 13 . . 19.56 1.05 26.88 63.73 . DD W7 20 . . 6.45 0.29 4.44 10.53 1.03 DD W7 41 . . . . 2.33 5.52 1.10 DD W7 51 . . . . 2.87 6.80 1.23 DD W8o 5 . . . . 37.64 89.25 . DD W8o 13 . . . . 35.70 84.63 . DD W8o 18 . . . . 31.20 73.97 . DD W8o 25 . . . . 9.06 21.49 0.59 DD W8o 43 . . . . 8.21 19.46 0.61 DD W8o 51 . . . . 7.23 17.14 0.48 DD W8 5 . . . . 41.91 99.36 . DD W8 8 . . . . 27.16 64.38 . DD W8 20 . . . . 9.82 23.29 0.65 DD W8 46 . . . . 8.97 21.26 0.68 DD W9 10 . . . . 26.71 63.32 . DD W9 20 . . . . 3.96 9.39 0.77 DD W9 30 . . . . 3.29 7.81 1.01 DD W9 46 . . . . 2.40 5.68 1.25 DD W13 9 . . 44.15 1.71 40.05 94.94 . DD W13 10 . . . . 27.01 64.03 . DD W13 17 . . . . 2.26 5.36 0.89 DD W13 33 . . 1.79 0.07 1.19 2.82 1.05 DD W13 51 . . 0.31 <0.02 0.37 0.88 1.28 DD W13 64 . . . . 2.92 6.92 . DD W14 6 . . . . 28.15 66.73 . DD W14 11 . . 6.35* 0.35 9.28 13.49*;22 . DD W14 20 . . 5.64 0.32 3.87 9.18 0.93 DD W14 42 . . . . 3.11 7.37 1.08

169

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

DD W15 10 . . . . 36.88 87.43 . DD W15 13 . . . . 25.36 60.13 . DD W15 30 . . . . 2.88 6.83 . DD W15 48 . . . . 2.20 5.21 . DD W17 17 . . . . 33.10 78.47 . DD W17 30 . . . . 3.39 8.04 . DD W17 47 . . . . 3.21 7.60 . DD W17 62 . . . . 2.53 5.99 . DD W20 15 . . . . 37.86 89.76 . DD W20 19 . . . . 29.21 69.25 . DD W20 42 . . . . 2.84 6.73 . DD W20 65 . . . . 2.70 6.40 . DD W20 75 . . . . 1.77 4.20 . DD W29 8 . . . . 38.55 91.39 . DD W29 13 . . . . 31.07 73.66 . DD W29 23 . . . . 7.63 18.08 . DD W29 48 . . . . 6.91 16.37 . DD W34 6 . . . . 38.92 92.28 . DD W34 8 . . . . 23.81 56.44 . DD W34 20 . . . . 4.54 10.77 0.88 DD W34 36 . . 5.91 0.24 3.92 9.29 1.08 DD W34 51 . . . . 3.07 7.27 1.18 DD W35 8 . . . . 38.22 90.62 . DD W35 13 . . . . 14.58 34.56 . DD W35 20 . . . . 4.76 11.30 . DD W35 41 . . 4.88 0.25 3.78 8.97 . DD W35 51 . . . . 0.21 0.50 DD DDNR 10 . . . . 32.51 77.08 . DD DDNR 17 . . . . 3.84 9.11 0.91 DD DDNR 37 . . . . 1.30 3.09 1.20 DD DDNR 50 . . . . 7.52 17.82 1.21 DD DDOR 5 . . . . 36.56 86.67 . DD DDOR 10 . . . . 4.43 10.50 . DD DDOR 33 . . . . 2.88 6.83 . DD DDOR 43 . . . . 5.29 12.54 . HC W1 8 . . 48.10 0.86 44.35 96.32 . HC W1 13 . . 31.41 1.19 32.95 71.56 . HC W1 25 . . 2.97 0.18 3.13 6.80 1.26

170

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

HC W1 38 . . 2.06 0.13 2.89 6.27 1.40 HC W1 51 . . 0.63 0.06 1.35 2.94 1.38 HC W2 8 . . . . 44.48 96.58 . HC W2 10 . . . . 35.92 78.00 . HC W2 19 . . 1.88 0.12 2.55 5.54 1.14 HC W2 32 . . . . 1.78 3.87 1.20 HC W2 46 . . 0.55 0.06 1.38 3.00 1.34 HC W3 8 . . . . 44.96 97.63 . HC W3 13 . . . . 41.14 89.35 . HC W3 23 . . . . 2.47 5.37 1.09 HC W3 38 . . . . 2.08 4.51 1.34 HC W3 51 . . . . 1.77 3.84 1.59 HC W4 8 . . . . 44.84 97.38 . HC W4 13 . . . . 39.35 85.44 . HC W4 25 . . . . 2.56 5.56 1.12 HC W4 43 . . . . 2.11 4.58 1.26 HC W5 8 . . . . 44.07 95.69 . HC W5 13 . . . . 34.11 74.07 . HC W5 23 . . . . 2.57 5.58 1.02 HC W5 36 . . . . 1.74 3.77 1.36 HC W5 51 . . 0.35 0.03 0.70 1.53 1.49 HC W10 8 . . 45.67 1.04 42.75 92.83 . HC W10 10 . . 28.22 1.43 34.89 75.77 . HC W10 18 . . . . 2.94 6.38 1.22 HC W10 32 . . . . 2.34 5.08 1.39 HC W10 46 . . . . 2.33 5.05 1.48 JB 1C 5 . . . . 46.20 93.12 . JB 1C 8 . . . . 44.19 89.08 . JB 1C 14 . . . . 10.47 21.10 . JB 1C 29 . . . . 9.90 19.96 . JB 1C 37 . . . . 7.82 15.76 . JB 1C 50 . . . . 2.26 4.56 . JB 1C 66 . . . . 0.96 1.93 . JB 1C 93 . . . . 0.51 1.04 . JB 1C 100 . . . . 0.25 0.51 . JB 2C 3 . . . . 45.69 92.10 . JB 2C 16 . . . . 41.92 84.50 . JB 2C 23 . . . . 26.68 53.78 0.39

171

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 2C 33 . . . . 41.26 83.17 0.32 JB 2C 42 . . . . 38.58 77.76 0.45 JB 2C 77 . . . . 14.70 29.62 0.74 JB 2C 83 . . . . 5.32 10.73 . JB 3C 4 5 62 44.77 2.20 46.76 94.27 . JB 3C 9 4.9 61 2.05 0.11 2.19 4.41 0.95 JB 3C 22 5.3 61 2.85 0.13 1.92 3.87 1.13 JB 3C 36 5.6 67 0.28 0.02 0.08 0.17 1.26 JB 3C 57 4.9 44 0.97 0.02 0.70 1.42 . JB 3C 81 . . . . 0.50 1.01 . JB 3C 81 . . . . 0.44 0.88 . JB 4C 15 . . . . 45.41 91.53 . JB 4C 17 . . . . 42.10 84.87 . JB 4C 48 . . . . 29.88 60.23 0.44 JB 4C 71 . . . . 18.80 37.90 0.30 JB 4C 84 . . . . 17.86 36.01 . JB 4C 95 . . . . 5.94 11.98 . JB 4C 112 . . . . 3.17 6.40 . JB 5C 5 5.1 63 43.16 1.82 45.45 91.61 . JB 5C 8 4.8 58 34.91 1.64 36.92 74.41 . JB 5C 19 4.7 62 23.39 0.84 19.79 39.89 0.46 JB 5C 34 4.3 41 35.47 0.90 36.51 73.59 0.27 JB 5C 52 4.1 34 34.93 0.59 35.55 71.66 0.35 JB 5C 66 . . . . 35.42 71.40 0.37 JB 5C 79 . . . . 16.48 33.22 . JB 5C 91 . . . . 6.83 13.78 . JB 6C 10 5.8 78 46.70 2.64 45.66 92.04 . JB 6C 13 5 59 46.77 2.82 45.18 91.07 . JB 6C 28 5.2 69 19.66 0.59 11.03 22.24 0.66 JB 6C 43 5 76 24.46 0.58 16.27 32.80 0.62 JB 6C 61 4.4 62 40.15 0.68 35.93 72.43 0.27 JB 6C 71 . . . . 27.25 54.92 . JB 6C 84 . . . . 12.60 25.39 . JB 6C 102 . . . . 4.11 8.28 . JB 7C 5 . . . . 47.74 96.23 . JB 7C 9 . . . . 46.52 93.77 . JB 7C 14 . . . . 2.36 4.75 . JB 7C 28 . . . . 2.41 4.86 .

172

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 7C 53 . . . . 4.53 9.14 . JB 7C 70 . . . . 0.92 1.85 . JB 7C 86 . . . . 1.06 2.13 . JB 7C 100 . . . . 0.86 1.73 . JB 8C 20 . . . . 46.74 87.82 . JB 8C 28 . . . . 44.03 36.24 . JB 8C 38 . . . . 8.74 17.62 0.59 JB 8C 48 . . . . 5.54 11.16 0.64 JB 8C 54 . . . . 2.80 5.65 . JB 8C 63 . . . . 2.11 4.26 . JB 8C 82 . . . . 1.02 2.06 . JB 8C 94 . . . . 0.99 2.00 . JB 8C 104 . . . . 1.23 2.49 . JB 9C 3 . . 41.74 3.26 43.56 87.80 . JB 9C 13 4.7 55 42.86 2.26 42.67 86.01 . JB 9C 25 4.5 57 21.85 0.74 22.45 45.26 0.51 JB 9C 39 4.3 52 36.29 0.52 34.22 68.98 0.28 JB 9C 75 4.2 48 29.06 0.46 22.98 46.32 0.34 JB 9C 100 4.2 14 . . 5.33 10.74 . JB 9C 117 . . . . 4.37 8.81 . JB 10C 15 . . . . 47.58 95.91 . JB 10C 20 . . . . 46.38 93.50 . JB 10C 38 . . . . 14.51 29.25 0.57 JB 10C 58 . . . . 27.40 55.24 0.41 JB 10C 90 . . . . 24.49 49.36 0.35 JB 10C 109 . . . . 23.02 46.41 . JB 11C 13 . . . . 42.63 85.93 . JB 11C 20 . . . . 26.81 54.05 0.43 JB 11C 29 . . . . 27.23 54.89 0.37 JB 11C 53 . . . . 28.37 57.19 0.41 JB 11C 67 . . . . 16.34 32.94 . JB 11C 77 . . . . 2.86 5.76 . JB 11C 95 . . . . 0.78 1.57 . JB 12C 6 . . . . 48.23 97.22 . JB 12C 16 . . . . 45.39 91.50 . JB 12C 27 . . . . 5.73 11.54 . JB 12C 38 . . . . 4.88 9.83 . JB 12C 49 . . . . 2.17 4.37 .

173

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 12C 60 . . . . 1.09 2.19 . JB 12C 82 . . . . 0.74 1.49 . JB 12C 98 . . . . 2.15 4.32 . JB 13C 10 . . . . 45.47 91.65 . JB 13C 15 . . . . 34.62 69.79 . JB 13C 30 . . . . 11.67 23.53 0.45 JB 13C 56 . . . . 11.50 23.18 0.58 JB 13C 79 . . . . 3.68 7.42 . JB 13C 98 . . . . 1.50 3.03 . JB 13C 109 . . . . 2.04 4.12 . JB 14C 4 . . . . 48.44 97.64 . JB 14C 9 . . . . 46.77 94.27 . JB 14C 10 . . . . 39.67 79.96 . JB 14C 25 . . . . 1.60 3.22 1.00 JB 14C 35 . . . . 2.28 4.60 1.06 JB 14C 50 . . . . 1.18 2.38 1.33 JB 14C 61 . . . . 0.35 0.70 . JB 14C 70 . . . . 0.15 0.30 . JB 14C 84 . . . . 1.10 2.22 . JB 14C 90 . . . . 1.50 3.02 . JB 14C 106 . . . . 0.98 1.97 . JB 15C 3 . . . . 47.75 96.25 . JB 15C 10 . . . . 46.01 92.75 . JB 15C 18 . . . . 41.37 83.39 . JB 15C 25 . . . . 13.52 27.26 0.45 JB 15C 50 . . . . 13.31 26.83 0.33 JB 15C 93 . . . . 25.30 51.00 . JB 15C 118 . . . . 9.14 18.42 . JB 15C 128 . . . . 2.08 4.20 . JB 16C 4 . . . . 46.97 94.68 . JB 16C 10 . . . . 37.57 75.74 . JB 16C 24 . . . . 18.85 37.99 0.55 JB 16C 31 . . . . 40.33 81.28 0.33 JB 16C 52 . . . . 34.88 70.31 0.35 JB 16C 69 . . . . 34.10 68.73 . JB 16C 76 . . . . 10.29 20.73 . JB 17C 6 . . . . 47.07 94.88 . JB 17C 10 . . . . 46.81 94.36 .

174

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 17C 13 . . . . 42.85 86.38 . JB 17C 18 . . . . 2.16 4.36 0.94 JB 17C 31 . . . . 2.13 4.29 1.19 JB 17C 58 . . . . 0.17 0.33 . JB 17C 68 . . . . 0.91 1.83 . JB 17C 85 . . . . 1.89 3.81 . JB 17C 100 . . . . 3.86 7.77 . JB 17C 118 . . . . 6.75 13.62 . JB 61C 9 . . . . 49.61 - . JB 61C 15 . . . . 45.10 90.91 . JB 61C 44 . . . . 5.91 11.91 0.61 JB 61C 61 . . . . 9.95 20.06 0.48 JB 61C 71 . . . . 5.41 10.90 . JB 61C 79 . . . . 3.06 6.17 . JB 61C 91 . . . . 1.23 2.48 . JB 61C 104 . . . . 0.72 1.46 . JB 62C 8 4.9 61 46.88 1.77 46.66 94.05 . JB 62C 10 4.7 58 28.51 1.03 33.30 67.13 . JB 62C 20 4.9 43 3.13 0.13 2.49 5.01 0.92 JB 62C 30 5.2 33 4.58 0.18 2.63 5.30 1.06 JB 62C 38 5.2 46 0.31 0.02 0.18 0.37 1.28 JB 62C 44 . . . . 0.53 1.07 1.16 JB 62C 52 . . . . 1.34 2.69 . JB 62C 57 . . . . 1.16 2.34 . JB 62C 77 . . . . 1.06 2.14 . JB 62C 85 . . . . 1.15 2.33 . JB 62C 100 . . . . 1.62 3.27 . JB 63C 6 . . . . 45.75 92.22 . JB 63C 8 . . . . 39.21 79.03 . JB 63C 16 . . . . 10.44 21.05 . JB 63C 32 . . . . 8.56 17.26 . JB 63C 50 . . . . 3.49 7.03 . JB 63C 68 . . . . 0.83 1.66 . JB 63C 81 . . . . 2.28 4.59 . JB 63C 99 . . . . 0.63 1.28 . JB 64C 4 5.3 63 48.23 1.20 47.73 96.21 . JB 64C 7 4.9 65 20.38 0.72 29.08 58.61 . JB 64C 22 5 47 5.35 0.17 4.07 8.20 0.83

175

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 64C 27 5.1 35 2.32 0.07 1.75 3.52 0.92 JB 64C 41 4.9 36 1.34 0.03 0.69 1.40 1.34 JB 64C 47 . . . . 1.09 2.19 . JB 64C 69 . . . . 0.98 1.98 . JB 64C 90 . . . . 0.65 1.32 . JB 64C 101 . . . . - JB 65C 19 . . . . 47.31 95.37 . JB 65C 30 . . . . 47.74 96.24 . JB 65C 36 . . . . 39.94 80.52 . JB 65C 50 . . . . 15.66 31.57 0.43 JB 65C 60 . . . . 11.78 23.74 0.50 JB 65C 72 . . . . 7.93 15.99 0.70 JB 65C 91 . . . . 5.04 10.17 . JB 65C 109 . . . . 0.88 1.78 . JB 66C 20 . . . . 36.13 72.82 . JB 66C 25 . . . . 41.45 83.55 . JB 66C 32 . . . . 14.32 28.87 0.43 JB 66C 46 . . . . 10.01 20.18 0.49 JB 66C 56 . . . . 7.52 15.16 0.59 JB 66C 79 . . . . 4.66 9.40 . JB 66C 95 . . . . 3.23 6.51 . JB 66C 104 . . . . 4.13 8.33 . JB 67C 23 . . . . 22.19 44.73 . JB 67C 47 . . . . 14.69 29.60 0.56 JB 67C 69 . . . . 13.21 26.62 0.75 JB 67C 80 . . . . 3.50 7.06 . JB 67C 90 . . . . 1.35 2.73 . JB 67C 104 . . . . 0.78 1.57 . JB 68C 32 . . . . 46.63 93.98 . JB 68C 51 . . . . 33.24 67.00 0.40 JB 68C 62 . . . . 34.50 69.55 0.36 JB 68C 71 . . . . 17.24 34.75 0.47 JB 68C 117 . . . . 5.93 11.95 . JB 1D 5 . . . . 38.80 78.22 . JB 1D 15 . . . . 37.74 76.08 . JB 1D 26 . . . . 16.67 33.61 . JB 1D 49 . . . . 36.17 72.91 . JB 1D 58 . . . . 19.07 38.45 .

176

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 1D 73 . . . . 5.02 10.13 . JB 1D 86 . . . . 2.38 4.80 . JB 1D 99 . . . . 1.68 3.38 . JB 2D 10 . . . . 40.45 81.54 . JB 2D 20 . . . . 16.72 33.71 . JB 2D 32 . . . . 27.86 56.16 . JB 2D 56 . . . . 17.78 35.83 . JB 2D 68 . . . . 12.34 24.88 . JB 3D 3 . . . . 44.85 90.40 . JB 3D 18 . . . . 1.53 3.09 . JB 3D 36 . . . . 1.57 3.16 . JB 3D 63 . . . . 0.08 0.17 . JB 3D 81 . . . . 0.64 1.28 . JB 3D 105 . . . . 1.12 2.27 . JB 3D 125 . . . . 2.38 4.80 . JB 4D 10 . . . . 30.11 60.70 . JB 4D 25 . . . . 9.86 19.87 . JB 4D 43 . . . . 5.86 11.82 . JB 4D 58 . . . . 1.30 2.62 . JB 4D 76 . . . . 1.00 2.01 . JB 5D 1 . . . . 45.98 92.68 . JB 5D 6 . . . . 41.18 83.01 . JB 5D 18 . . . . 32.87 66.25 . JB 5D 43 . . . . 41.19 83.04 . JB 5D 53 . . . . 16.63 33.52 . JB 5D 74 . . . . 8.89 17.91 . JB 5D 86 . . . . 3.22 6.49 . JB 6D 9 . . . . 45.03 90.77 . JB 6D 30 . . . . 7.93 15.99 . JB 6D 42 . . . . 12.54 25.28 . JB 6D 57 . . . . 4.12 8.30 . JB 6D 64 . . . . 1.78 3.58 . JB 6D 86 . . . . 0.43 0.87 . JB 7D 2 . . . . 47.43 95.60 . JB 7D 5 . . . . 39.45 79.51 . JB 7D 10 . . . . 1.58 3.19 . JB 7D 32 . . . . 1.92 3.88 . JB 7D 49 . . . . 0.17 0.34 .

177

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 7D 68 . . . . 0.75 1.51 . JB 7D 77 . . . . 0.71 1.44 . JB 7D 100 . . . . 0.57 1.15 . JB 8D 20 . . . . 46.84 94.43 . JB 8D 30 . . . . 47.72 96.19 . JB 8D 36 . . . . 8.42 16.98 . JB 8D 47 . . . . 9.08 18.30 . JB 8D 79 . . . . 8.85 17.85 . JB 8D 86 . . . . 3.44 6.94 . JB 9D 8 . . . . 48.14 97.04 . JB 9D 10 . . . . 45.72 92.17 . JB 9D 23 . . . . 5.02 10.12 . JB 9D 39 . . . . 4.96 10.00 . JB 9D 51 . . . . 2.16 4.36 . JB 9D 66 . . . . 1.12 2.26 . JB 9D 90 . . . . 0.83 1.66 . JB 9D 97 . . . . 1.09 2.20 . JB 10D 33 . . . . 40.47 81.58 . JB 10D 43 . . . . 18.31 36.91 . JB 10D 56 . . . . 19.89 40.10 . JB 10D 83 . . . . 5.66 11.41 . JB 10D 107 . . . . 3.96 7.97 . JB 10D 117 . . . . 1.78 3.60 . JB 11D 11 . . . . 41.17 83.00 . JB 11D 20 . . . . 2.98 6.00 . JB 11D 33 . . . . 5.74 11.57 . JB 11D 47 . . . . 3.06 6.16 . JB 11D 60 . . . . 1.36 2.74 . JB 11D 76 . . . . 0.72 1.44 . JB 12D 7 . . . . 48.23 97.22 . JB 12D 11 . . . . 43.33 87.35 . JB 12D 18 . . . . 4.30 8.66 . JB 12D 26 . . . . 4.91 9.89 . JB 12D 35 . . . . 4.53 9.14 . JB 12D 52 . . . . 4.84 9.75 . JB 12D 70 . . . . 2.67 5.37 . JB 12D 82 . . . . 0.61 1.22 . JB 12D 96 . . . . 0.43 0.88 .

178

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 13D 8 . . . . 41.23 83.11 . JB 13D 13 . . . . 35.42 71.40 . JB 13D 27 . . . . 15.43 31.11 . JB 13D 43 . . . . 8.97 18.09 . JB 13D 58 . . . . 4.82 9.71 . JB 13D 77 . . . . 2.98 6.01 . JB 13D 91 . . . . 6.20 12.50 . JB 14D 4 . . . . 47.60 95.95 . JB 14D 6 . . . . 41.22 83.09 . JB 14D 12 . . . . 1.88 3.79 . JB 14D 24 . . . . 2.11 4.26 . JB 14D 28 . . . . 0.98 1.97 . JB 14D 39 . . . . 0.09 0.18 . JB 14D 46 . . . . 0.23 0.47 . JB 14D 66 . . . . 0.92 1.86 . JB 14D 96 . . . . 0.44 0.89 . JB 15D 8 . . . . 47.92 96.59 . JB 15D 13 . . . . 32.89 66.30 . JB 15D 25 . . . . 2.22 4.48 . JB 15D 41 . . . . 2.67 5.39 . JB 15D 56 . . . . 4.20 8.46 . JB 15D 74 . . . . 1.94 3.91 . JB 15D 85 . . . . 0.63 1.27 . JB 15D 104 . . . . 0.81 1.64 . JB 16D 8 . . . . 46.59 93.91 . JB 16D 15 . . . . 31.03 62.55 . JB 16D 28 . . . . 13.15 26.50 . JB 16D 42 . . . . 33.25 67.01 . JB 16D 52 . . . . 30.84 62.16 . JB 16D 64 . . . . 27.04 54.50 . JB 16D 78 . . . . 8.16 16.45 . JB 17D 3 . . . . 46.93 94.59 . JB 17D 4 . . . . 38.56 77.72 . JB 17D 11 . . . . 1.21 2.43 . JB 17D 23 . . . . 1.36 2.75 . JB 17D 39 . . . . 1.49 3.00 . JB 17D 62 . . . . 0.00 0.00 . JB 17D 75 . . . . 0.24 0.49 .

179

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 17D 85 . . . . 0.58 1.18 . JB 17D 104 . . . . 1.26 2.54 . JB 17D 118 . . . . 2.96 5.97 . JB 61D 8 . . . . 39.79 80.21 . JB 61D 22 . . . . 17.89 36.05 . JB 61D 33 . . . . 29.95 60.37 . JB 61D 46 . . . . 10.48 21.12 . JB 61D 61 . . . . 3.64 7.33 . JB 61D 76 . . . . 0.83 1.67 . JB 62D 5 . . . . 47.45 95.65 . JB 62D 7 . . . . 35.94 72.44 . JB 62D 12 . . . . 1.75 3.53 . JB 62D 34 . . . . 1.42 2.86 . JB 62D 49 . . . . 1.47 2.95 . JB 62D 66 . . . . 0.29 0.59 . JB 62D 82 . . . . 0.76 1.53 . JB 62D 97 . . . . 1.85 3.72 . JB 62D 110 . . . . 0.85 1.71 . JB 63D 5 . . . . 48.07 96.89 . JB 63D 12 . . . . 45.63 91.97 . JB 63D 17 . . . . 6.60 14.24 . JB 63D 27 . . . . 2.02 13.31 . JB 63D 35 . . . . 6.72 4.08 . JB 63D 51 . . . . 6.43 13.54 . JB 63D 61 . . . . 1.38 12.97 . JB 63D 80 . . . . 0.39 2.78 . JB 63D 99 . . . . 0.46 0.79 . JB 64D 3 . . . . 47.14 95.02 . JB 64D 4 . . . . 40.55 81.74 . JB 64D 18 . . . . 1.69 3.40 . JB 64D 23 . . . . 1.61 3.24 . JB 64D 30 . . . . 3.85 7.76 . JB 64D 41 . . . . 0.35 0.72 . JB 64D 51 . . . . 0.26 0.53 . JB 64D 63 . . . . 0.49 0.98 . JB 64D 72 . . . . 1.29 2.59 . JB 64D 80 . . . . 1.03 1.88 . JB 64D 96 . . . . 0.93 1.77 .

180

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

JB 65D 25 . . . . 35.76 72.08 . JB 65D 38 . . . . 4.50 9.08 . JB 65D 48 . . . . 3.79 7.63 . JB 65D 58 . . . . 2.84 5.73 . JB 65D 83 . . . . 2.20 4.43 . JB 65D 94 . . . . 2.04 4.11 . JB 66D 18 . . . . 46.55 93.83 . JB 66D 23 . . . . 40.65 81.94 . JB 66D 41 . . . . 22.38 45.12 . JB 66D 55 . . . . 16.14 32.53 . JB 66D 76 . . . . 5.27 10.63 . JB 66D 103 . . . . 4.26 8.58 . JB 66D 114 . . . . 1.18 2.38 . JB 67D 13 . . . . 33.73 67.99 . JB 67D 22 . . . . 5.89 11.87 . JB 67D 30 . . . . 5.58 11.24 . JB 67D 39 . . . . 3.91 7.88 . JB 67D 53 . . . . 2.91 5.86 . JB 67D 64 . . . . 1.79 3.60 . JB 67D 76 . . . . 1.07 2.15 . JB 67D 86 . . . . 1.16 2.34 . JB 67D 99 . . . . 1.08 2.19 . JB 68D 25 . . . . 46.02 92.76 . JB 68D 38 . . . . 19.88 40.07 . JB 68D 74 . . . . 25.05 50.50 . JB 68D 84 . . . . 17.11 34.49 . JB 68D 112 . . . . 5.75 11.58 . JB 68D 122 . . . . 1.19 2.40 . SM1 W1 4 . . . . 42.19 92.52 . SM1 W1 11 . . . . 4.75 10.42 0.95 SM1 W1 19 . . . . 4.76 10.44 1.10 SM1 W1 28 . . . . 1.89 4.13 1.19 SM1 W1 38 . . 1.40 0.05 0.89 1.96 1.52 SM1 W2 8 . . . . 41.59 91.22 . SM1 W2 18 . . . . 13.36 29.29 . SM1 W2 30 . . . . 13.23 29.02 . SM1 W2 43 . . . . 7.33 16.08 . SM1 W3 6 . . 28.82 1.40 38.11 83.57 .

181

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

SM1 W3 14 . . 25.90 0.94 22.02 48.29 . SM1 W3 32 . . . . 24.19 53.06 . SM1 W3 39 . . 26.67 0.74 16.32 35.80 . SM1 W4 3 . . . . 42.10 92.33 . SM1 W4 10 . . . . 15.61 34.23 0.62 SM1 W4 30 . . 17.96 0.68 18.88 41.40 0.74 SM1 W4 41 . . 13.42 0.39 10.44 22.90 0.69 SM1 W5 8 . . . . 42.99 94.27 . SM1 W5 18 . . . . 18.39 40.32 0.45 SM1 W5 46 . . . . 15.30 33.55 0.56 SM1 W6 5 . . 43.07 1.65 40.98 89.87 . SM1 W6 15 . . . . 7.71 16.91 0.84 SM1 W6 29 . . . . 7.14 15.66 0.85 SM1 W6 42 . . . . 5.03 11.03 1.04 SM1 W8 5 . . . . 33.40 73.24 . SM1 W8 15 . . . . 10.01 21.96 . SM1 W8 30 . . . . 6.44 14.13 . SM1 W8 42 . . . . 4.90 10.75 . SM1 T4.2 8 . . . . 42.44 93.07 . SM1 T4.2 15 . . . . 12.25 26.87 . SM1 T4.2 30 . . . . 12.40 27.19 . SM1 T4.2 46 . . . . 4.58 10.04 . SM1 T4.3 8 . . . . 41.08 90.08 . SM1 T4.3 15 . . . . 12.79 28.05 . SM1 T4.3 33 . . . . 8.32 18.25 . SM1 T4.3 43 . . . . 6.56 14.39 . SM2 Pa1 9 . . . . 10.35 18.16 0.81 SM2 Pa1 18 . . . . 10.46 18.35 0.79 SM2 Pa1 34 . . . . 8.43 14.79 1.04 SM2 Pa1.5 8 . . . . 6.08 10.66 0.96 SM2 Pa1.5 18 . . . . 5.63 9.87 1.09 SM2 Pa1.5 38 . . . . 2.10 3.69 1.09 SM2 Pa2 13 . . . . 5.45 9.57 1.00 SM2 Pa2 23 . . . . 3.72 6.53 1.04 SM2 Pa2 41 . . . . 2.46 4.32 1.40 SM2 Pa2.5 10 . . . . 7.73 13.57 0.87 SM2 Pa2.5 25 . . . . 8.65 15.17 0.95 SM2 Pa2.5 38 . . . . 5.14 9.01 1.13

182

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

SM2 Pa3 13 . . 9.05 0.40 5.21 9.14 0.90 SM2 Pa3 23 . . . . 3.75 6.58 1.26 SM2 Pa3 29 . . 3.01 0.10 1.59 2.80 - SM2 Pa3 41 . . 0.78 0.04 0.73 1.28 - SM2 Pa3.5 15 . . . . 5.39 9.46 1.10 SM2 Pa3.5 28 . . . . 5.21 9.14 1.28 SM2 Pa3.5 38 . . . . 1.70 2.98 1.51 SM2 Ra1 8 . . 8.75 0.31 11.39 19.98 0.93 SM2 Ra1 23 . . . . 8.93 15.67 1.26 SM2 Ra1 43 . . . . 5.73 10.06 1.44 SM2 Ra1.5 10 . . 7.00 0.31 7.24 12.71 1.03 SM2 Ra1.5 22 . . . . 6.69 11.73 1.17 SM2 Ra1.5 41 . . . . 2.24 3.94 1.52 SM2 Ra2 9 . . . . 4.89 8.58 1.09 SM2 Ra2 20 . . . . 5.02 8.81 1.26 SM2 Ra2 38 . . . . 1.84 3.22 1.57 SM2 Ra2.5 8 . . . . 7.09 12.43 - SM2 Ra2.5 20 . . . . 3.07 10.40 - SM2 Ra2.5 41 . . 2.61 0.11 1.00 3.71 - SM2 Ra3 10 . . . . 7.83 13.74 0.92 SM2 Ra3 25 . . . . 6.72 11.79 1.06 SM2 Ra3 38 . . . . 4.26 7.48 1.20 SM2 Ra4 13 . . . . 6.68 11.73 1.00 SM2 Ra4 28 . . . . 6.29 11.04 1.30 SM2 Ra4 41 . . . . 6.36 11.17 1.45 SM2 Ra5 8 . . . . 3.53 6.20 - SM2 Ra5 23 . . . . 3.07 5.39 - SM2 Ra5 41 . . 1.03 0.04 1.00 1.75 - TB W2 15 . . . . 2.11 5.49 1.09 TB W2 41 . . . . 1.52 3.97 1.31 TB W5 8 . . . . 32.08 83.48 . TB W5 15 . . . . 1.41 3.66 1.12 TB W5 33 . . . . 1.54 4.01 1.34 TB W5 53 . . . . 0.71 1.84 1.49 TB W11 8 . . 16.22 0.80 20.59 53.58 . TB W11 17 . . 2.23 0.16 1.84 4.79 0.78 TB W11 32 . . . . 1.25 3.24 1.23 TB W11 44 . . 0.41 0.03 0.69 1.80 1.60

183

Site Location Depth pH BS C* N* C LOI Bd (cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g cm-3)

TB W14 3 . . . . 37.44 97.42 . TB W14 25 . . 1.56 0.10 1.18 3.07 1.04 TB W14 38 . . . . 0.79 2.06 1.25 TB W14 38 . . . . TB W15 5 . . . . 20.55 53.48 . TB W15 28 . . 2.51 0.15 2.17 5.63 0.92 TB W15 39 . . . . 1.27 3.30 1.11 TB W15 51 . . . . 0.35 0.92 1.32 TB W19 8 . . 34.21 0.97 31.46 81.87 . TB W19 18 . . . . 2.31 6.01 0.98 TB W19 30 . . 2.83 0.13 1.79 4.66 1.23 TB W19 43 . . 0.14 <0.02 0.44 1.15 1.18

184

SOILS (Part 2) IRIS TUBE DATA: Site; AB=Arabia Bay, BF=Barra Farms, DB=Dover Bay, DD=Dowd Dairy, HC=Hillcrest Bay, JB=Juniper Bay, SM1=Sliver Moon1, SM2=Sliver Moon 2, and TB=Twin Bays. Location=sample plot. Hydro=Hydrologic Group. No. Tubes=Number of tubes installed at each plot. Install date=Date IRIS tubes were installed. Removal Date=Date IRIS tubes were removed. Ave. 30cm=Average Fe-oxide paint removal from all tubes within a given plot down to 30cm. Ave. 50cm=Average Fe-oxide paint removal from all tubes within a given plot down to 50cm.

No. Install Removal Ave. Ave. Site Location Hydro Tubes Date Date 30cm 50cm

BF W1 2 5 2/2/2020 6/19/2020 37 55 BF W6 2 5 2/8/2020 6/19/2020 26 36 BF W13 1 5 2/2/2020 6/19/2020 2 5 BF W9 3 5 6/1/2020 6/19/2020 40 . DB W13 2 5 2/4/2020 6/19/2020 64 70 DB VC1.3 1 5 2/4/2020 6/19/2020 70 78 DB W15 4 5 2/20/2020 6/19/2020 98 99 DD W2 1 5 1/21/2020 6/22/2020 1 2 DD W8 3 5 1/21/2020 6/22/2020 84 80 DD W34 2 5 2/8/2020 6/22/2020 20 35 DD W35 2 5 1/7/2020 6/22/2020 97 98 DD W15 4 5 3/26/2020 6/22/2020 81 . HC W1 2 5 2/14/2020 6/18/2020 35 45 HC W2 2 5 2/14/2020 6/18/2020 10 20 HC W5 2 5 2/14/2020 6/18/2020 9 16 HC N3 1 5 2/14/2020 6/18/2020 4 7 HC N4 1 5 2/14/2020 6/18/2020 17 29 HC N10 1 5 2/14/2020 6/18/2020 39 48 JB 3C 3 5 10/10/2019 6/16/2020 58 52 JB 3D 3 2 10/10/2019 6/16/2020 20 35 JB 7C 2 5 10/10/2019 6/16/2020 88 68 JB 7D 2 2 10/10/2019 6/16/2020 89 65 JB 12C 2 5 10/11/2019 6/16/2020 95 85 JB 14C 2 5 10/11/2019 6/18/2020 38 47 JB 14D 2 2 10/11/2019 6/18/2020 11 11 JB 15C 3 5 10/11/2019 6/17/2020 99 100 JB 15D 3 1 10/11/2019 6/17/2020 98 99 JB 17C 1 5 10/11/2019 6/16/2020 93 97 JB 17D 1 2 10/11/2019 6/16/2020 9 38 JB 62C 3 5 10/10/2019 6/16/2020 83 71 JB 62D 3 2 10/10/2019 6/16/2020 7 25

185

No. Install Removal Ave. Ave. Site Location Hydro Tubes Date Date 30cm 50cm

JB 63C 3 5 10/10/2019 6/23/2020 73 78 JB 64C 1 5 10/11/2019 6/18/2020 54 44 JB 64D 1 2 10/11/2019 6/18/2020 0 2 JB 10C 4 5 3/26/2020 6/18/2020 94 . SM1 W1 2 5 2/13/2020 6/19/2020 54 63 SM1 W4 2 5 2/13/2020 6/19/2020 41 53 SM1 W6 2 5 2/13/2020 6/19/2020 38 53 SM1 W5 3 5 2/20/2020 6/19/2020 54 63 SM1 W2 4 5 2/20/2020 6/19/2020 74 . TB W2 2 5 2/6/2020 6/19/2020 86 79 TB W14 2 5 2/6/2020 6/19/2020 58 65 TB W19 2 5 2/6/2020 6/19/2020 72 69 TB W11 3 5 2/26/2020 6/19/2020 93 .

186

VEGETATION DATA (PART 1) PREVALENCE INDEX DATA: Site; AB=Arabia Bay, BF=Barra Farms, DB=Dover Bay, DD=Dowd Dairy, HC=Hillcrest Bay, JB=Juniper Bay, SM1=Sliver Moon1, SM2=Sliver Moon 2, and TB=Twin Bays. Lctn=sample plot. Hyd=Hydrologic Group (1-4). Common name=common name for tree species(except for Sliver Moon 1 and Twin Bays - common name for saplings and seedlings). W. Status=USDA wetland plant status. PI score=Prevalence index score for individual plant (1-5). Cover= percent cover of plant. TTL Score= total prevalence index score for each plot.

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

BF VC1.1 1 Sweet Gum FAC 3 16.67 3.16 BF VC1.1 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 75.00 . BF VC1.1 1 Water Oak FAC 3 8.33 . BF VC1.2 1 Pond Pine FACW 2 100.0 2.11 BF VC1.3 1 Water Oak FAC 3 10.00 2.95 BF VC1.3 1 Pond Pine FACW 2 40.00 . BF VC1.3 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 10.00 . BF VC1.3 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 30.00 . BF VC1.3 1 Laurel Oak FACW 2 10.00 . BF VC1.4 1 Water Oak FAC 3 14.29 3.31 BF VC1.4 1 Laurel Oak FACW 2 14.29 . BF VC1.4 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 14.29 . BF VC1.4 1 Sweet Gum FAC 3 14.29 . BF VC1.4 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 14.29 . BF VC1.4 1 Black Cherry FACU 4 14.29 . Unknown Red Oak BF VC1.4 1 assume FAC FAC 3 14.29 . BF W1 2 Red Maple FAC 3 37.50 2.50 BF W1 2 Willow Oak FACW 2 12.50 . BF W1 2 Black Gum FAC 3 25.00 . BF W1 2 Pond Cypress OBL 1 25.00 . BF W2 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 5.00 1.68 BF W2 2 Pond Cypress OBL 1 65.00 . BF W2 2 Pond Pine FACW 2 5.00 . BF W2 2 Willow Oak FACW 2 5.00 . BF W2 2 White Oak FACU 4 15.00 . BF W2 2 Green Ash FACW 2 5.00 . BF W4 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 23.53 1.30 BF W4 3 Pond Cypress OBL 1 58.82 . BF W4 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 11.76 . BF W4 3 Red Maple FAC 3 5.88 .

187

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

BF W6 2 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 20.00 2.95 ASSUME BF W6 2 Turkey Oak FAC 3 30.00 . BF W6 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 50.00 . BF W7 2 Pond Cypress OBL 1 7.69 2.67 BF W7 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 46.15 . BF W7 2 Southern Red Oak FACU 4 15.38 . BF W7 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 23.08 . BF W7 2 Red Maple FAC 3 7.69 . BF W9 3 E. Cottonwood FAC 3 64.71 3.03 BF W9 3 Red Maple FAC 3 17.65 . BF W9 3 Sweetgum FAC 3 11.76 . BF W9 3 Black Willow OBL 1 5.88 . BF W10 3 Tupelo OBL 1 37.50 1.97 BF W10 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 25.00 . BF W10 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 12.50 . BF W10 3 Red Maple FAC 3 12.50 . BF W10 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 12.50 . BF W11 2 Red Maple FAC 3 53.33 2.39 BF W11 2 Willow Oak FACW 2 6.67 . BF W11 2 Pond Cypress OBL 1 6.67 . BF W11 2 Atlantic White Cedar OBL 1 6.67 . BF W11 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 13.33 . BF W11 2 Laurel Oak FACW 2 13.33 . BF W12 3 Pond Cypress OBL 1 26.67 1.89 BF W12 3 Laurel Oak FACW 2 33.33 . BF W12 3 Am. Sycamore FACW 2 26.67 . BF W12 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 6.67 . BF W12 3 E. Cottonwood FAC 3 6.67 . BF W13 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 90.00 3.16 BF W13 1 Red Maple FAC 3 10.00 . BF W17 3 Red Maple FAC 3 90.91 2.97 BF W17 3 Pond Cypress OBL 1 9.09 . BF W20 3 Red Maple FAC 3 35.00 2.47 BF W20 3 Red Bay FACW 2 35.00 . BF W20 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 30.00 . DB VC1.1 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 100.0 4.21

188

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

DB VC1.2 1 . . . . . DB VC1.3 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 100.0 4.21 DB VC1.4 1 . . . . . DB VC1.5 1 Atlantic White Cedar OBL 1 66.67 2.11 DB VC1.5 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 33.33 . DB T2.2 2 Black Gum FAC 3 8.33 2.37 DB T2.2 2 Pond Pine FACW 2 83.33 . DB T2.2 2 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 8.33 . DB T2.5 2 Red Maple FAC 3 27.27 2.58 DB T2.5 2 Loblolly Bay FACW 2 54.55 . DB T2.5 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 9.09 . DB T2.5 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 9.09 . DB T2.5B 2 Pond Pine FACW 2 20.00 1.79 DB T2.5B 2 Sweet Bay FACW 2 10.00 . DB T2.5B 2 Atlantic White Cedar OBL 1 50.00 . DB T2.5B 2 Red Maple FAC 3 10.00 . DB T2.5B 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 10.00 . DB 3.1 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 36.36 1.72 DB 3.1 3 Pond Pine FACW 2 54.55 . DB 3.1 3 Black Gum FACW 2 9.09 . DB T3.4 3 Pond Cypress OBL 1 100.0 1.05 DB N3.5 3 Pond Cypress OBL 1 66.67 1.75 DB N3.5 3 Black Gum FAC 3 33.33 . DB 3.5B 3 Red Maple FAC 3 16.67 2.28 DB 3.5B 3 Pond Pine FACW 2 83.33 . DB 4.4 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 62.50 1.58 DB 4.4 4 Red Maple FAC 3 12.50 . DB 4.4 4 Sweet Bay FACW 2 25.00 . DB T4.5 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 100.0 1.05 DB W13 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 100.0 3.16 DB W14 4 Pond Pine FACW 2 33.33 1.40 DB W14 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 66.67 . DB W15 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 50.00 2.11 DB W15 4 Red Maple FAC 3 50.00 . DB W16 4 Pond Pine FACW 2 100.0 2.11 DD W2 1 Sweet Gum FAC 3 100.0 3.16 DD W3 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 57.14 2.56 DD W3 2 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 28.57 .

189

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

DD W3 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 14.29 . DD W4 1 Overcup Oak OBL 1 33.33 2.39 DD W4 1 Green Ash FACW 2 6.67 . DD W4 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 46.67 . DD W4 1 Sweet Gum FAC 3 13.33 . DD W7 2 Willow Oak FACW 2 33.33 1.75 DD W7 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 16.67 . DD W7 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 16.67 . DD W7 2 Bald Cypress OBL 1 33.33 . DD W8 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 41.67 2.19 DD W8 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 33.33 . DD W8 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 8.33 . DD W8 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 16.67 . DD W9 3 Black Willow OBL 1 41.18 DD W9 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 23.53 1.49 DD W9 3 Green Ash FACW 2 11.76 . DD W9 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 5.88 . DD W9 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 5.88 . DD W9 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 11.76 . DD W13 1 Loblolly Bay FACW 2 40.00 2.11 DD W13 1 Overcup Oak OBL 1 40.00 . DD W13 1 Southern Red Oak FACU 4 20.00 . DD W14 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 10.00 2.68 DD W14 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 25.00 . DD W14 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 15.00 . DD W14 3 Red Maple FAC 3 15.00 . DD W14 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 35.00 . DD W15 4 Sweetgum FAC 3 28.57 2.63 DD W15 4 Willow Oak FACW 2 7.14 . DD W15 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 7.14 . DD W15 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 14.29 . DD W15 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 42.86 . DD W17 4 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 30.00 2.21 DD W17 4 Red Maple FAC 3 10.00 . DD W17 4 Sweet Gum FAC 3 30.00 . DD W17 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 20.00 . DD W17 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 10.00 . DD W18 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 90.91 1.34

190

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

DD W18 3 White Oak FACU 4 9.09 . DD W20 4 Red Maple FAC 3 19.05 1.45 DD W20 4 Black Willow OBL 1 47.62 . DD W20 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 28.57 . DD W20 4 Water Tupelo OBL 1 4.76 . DD W21 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 81.25 1.05 DD W21 3 Willow Oak OBL 1 18.75 . DD W22 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 12.50 2.83 DD W22 2 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 6.25 . DD W22 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 62.50 . DD W22 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 18.75 . DD W24 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 8.33 2.11 DD W24 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 25.00 . DD W24 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 25.00 . DD W24 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 25.00 . DD W24 3 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 8.33 . DD W24 3 Water Tupelo OBL 1 8.33 . DD W26 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 10.53 1.83 DD W26 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 42.11 . DD W26 4 Black Willow OBL 1 15.79 . DD W26 4 Red Maple FAC 3 21.05 . DD W30 4 Green Ash FACW 2 10.53 . DD W27 3 Green Ash FACW 2 59.09 1.91 DD W27 3 Pond Cypress OBL 1 18.18 . DD W27 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 22.73 . DD W28 4 Willow Oak FACW 2 8.33 2.81 DD W28 4 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 8.33 . DD W28 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 50.00 . DD W28 4 Unknown Assumed FAC 3 8.33 . DD W28 4 Sweet Gum FAC 3 16.67 . DD W28 4 Black Willow OBL 1 8.33 . DD W29 4 American Sycamore FACW 2 8.33 1.40 DD W29 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 50.00 . DD W29 4 Green Ash FACW 2 8.33 . DD W29 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 25.00 . DD W29 4 Red Maple FAC 3 8.33 . DD W34 2 Southern Red Oak FACU 4 27.27 2.78

191

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

DD W34 2 Loblolly Bay FACW 2 27.27 . DD W34 2 Willow Oak FACW 2 18.18 . DD W34 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 9.09 . DD W34 2 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 18.18 . DD W35 2 Bald Cypress OBL 1 7.14 1.80 DD W35 2 Green Ash FACW 2 57.14 . DD W35 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 21.43 . DD W35 2 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 7.14 . DD W35 2 Laurel Oak FACW 2 7.14 . DD W36 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 50.00 2.95 DD W36 1 Water Oak FAC 3 20.00 . DD W36 1 Overcup Oak OBL 1 10.00 . DD W36 1 Red Maple FAC 3 20.00 . DD W37 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 94.44 3.16 DD W37 2 Red Maple FAC 3 5.56 . DD W99 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 11.11 3.27 DD W99 1 Overcup Oak OBL 1 11.11 . DD W99 1 Tulip Poplar FACU 4 44.44 . DD W99 1 Scarlet Oak Assumed FAC 3 11.11 . DD W99 1 Willow Oak FACW 2 11.11 . DD W99 1 Red Maple FAC 3 11.11 . HC H1 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 94.44 3.16 HC H1 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 5.56 . HC A2 2 Plum UPL 5 6.25 3.29 HC A2 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 81.25 . HC A2 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 12.50 . HC T2.1 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 50.00 3.79 HC T2.1 2 Plum UPL 5 30.00 . HC T2.1 2 Sweet Gum FAC FAC 3 20.00 . HC T2.2 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 38.46 3.16 HC T2.2 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 61.54 . HC N3 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 100.0 3.16 HC N4 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 96.00 3.24 HC N4 1 Plum UPL 5 4.00 . HC H5 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 12.50 3.16 HC H5 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 87.50 . HC 6A 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 92.86 3.31

192

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

HC 6A 1 Plum UPL 5 7.14 . HC N9 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 40.00 3.16 HC N9 1 Sweet Gum FAC 3 60.00 . HC N10 1 Sweet Gum FAC 3 66.67 3.16 HC N10 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 33.33 . JB VC1.1 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 66.67 3.33 JB VC1.1 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 16.67 . JB VC1.1 1 Red Maple FAC 3 16.67 . JB 1C 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 46.67 2.39 JB 1C 3 Pond Pine FACW 2 20.00 . JB 1C 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 33.33 . JB 1C 3 Black Willow OBL 1 13.33 . JB 1D 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 66.67 1.75 JB 1D 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 33.33 . JB 2C 4 Pond Pine FACW 2 12.50 1.18 JB 2C 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 12.50 . JB 2C 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 75.00 . JB 3C 3 Black Willow OBL 1 25.00 2.50 JB 3C 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 37.50 . JB 3C 3 Red Maple FAC 3 25.00 . JB 3C 3 Pond Pine FACW 2 12.50 . JB 4C 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 100.0 1.05 JB 5C 4 Red Maple FAC 3 33.33 1.05 JB 5C 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 33.33 . JB 5C 4 Black Willow OBL 1 33.33 . JB 6C 4 Pond Pine FACW 2 100.0 2.11 JB 7C 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 47.37 2.55 JB 7C 2 Pond Pine FACW 2 47.37 . JB 7C 2 Atlantic White Cedar OBL 1 5.26 . JB 8C 4 Red Maple FAC 3 100.0 3.16 JB 8D 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 100.0 3.16 JB 9C 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 8.33 1.14 JB 9C 3 Water Tupelo OBL 1 41.67 . JB 9C 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 50.00 . JB 9D 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 40.00 2.32 JB 9D 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 60.00 . JB 10C 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 31.25 1.78 JB 10C 4 Pond Pine FACW 2 6.25 .

193

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

JB 10C 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 25.00 . JB 10C 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 18.75 . JB 10C 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 18.75 . JB 11C 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 100.0 1.05 JB 12C 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 5.56 2.92 JB 12C 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 88.89 - JB 12C 2 Bald Cypress OBL 1 5.56 - JB 13C 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 100.0 3.16 JB 13D 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 100.0 3.16 JB 14C 2 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 100.0 4.21 JB 15C 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 73.33 2.67 JB 15C 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 6.67 . JB 15C 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 20.00 . JB 16C 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 41.67 1.58 JB 16C 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 25.00 . JB 16C 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 33.33 . JB 17C 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 100.00 3.16 JB 61C 4 Black Willow OBL 1 30.77 1.62 JB 61C 4 Sweet Bay FACW 2 7.69 . JB 61C 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 23.08 . JB 61C 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 15.38 . JB 61C 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 23.08 . JB 62C 3 Pond Pine FACW 2 36.36 1.44 JB 62C 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 1 63.64 . JB 63C 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 21.43 2.48 JB 63C 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 21.43 . JB 63C 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 57.14 . JB 64C 1 Bay FACW 2 10.00 2.74 JB 64C 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 60.00 . JB 64C 1 Pond Pine FACW 2 30.00 . JB 64D 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 75.00 2.89 JB 64D 1 Pond Pine FACW 2 25.00 JB 65C 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 50.00 2.11 JB 65C 4 Water Tupelo OBL 1 50.00 . JB 65D 4 . . . . . JB 66C 4 . . . . . JB 67C 4 Red Maple FAC 3 100.0 3.16 JB 68C 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 100.0 1.05

194

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

JB 68D 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 100.0 3.16 JB W1 2 Pond Pine FACW 2 66.67 2.46 JB W1 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 23.81 . JB W1 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 9.52 . JB W2 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 81.82 2.87 JB W2 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 9.09 . JB W2 3 Pond Pine FACW 2 9.09 . JB W7 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 42.86 1.65 JB W7 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 21.43 . JB W7 4 Pond Pine FACW 2 14.29 . JB W7 4 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 21.43 . JB W11 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 91.67 3.07 JB W11 1 Pond Pine FACW 2 8.33 . JB W14 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 100.0 1.05 JB W21 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 42.86 1.65 JB W21 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 28.57 . JB W21 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 14.29 . JB W21 3 Black Willow OBL 1 14.29 . JB W24 4 Pond Pine FACW 2 16.67 1.23 JB W24 4 Bald Cypress OBL 1 50.00 . JB W24 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 16.67 . JB W24 4 Black Willow OBL 1 16.67 . JB W26 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 33.33 2.22 JB W26 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 11.11 . JB W26 2 Red Maple FAC 3 11.11 . JB W26 2 Bald Cypress OBL 1 33.33 . JB W26 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 11.11 . JB W31 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 100.00 3.16 JB W33 1 Pond Pine FACW 2 57.89 2.55 JB W33 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 42.11 . JB W34 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 87.50 2.89 JB W34 2 Atlantic White Cedar OBL 1 12.50 . JB W35 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 7.69 2.02 JB W35 2 Pond Pine FACW 2 92.31 . JB W36 2 Pond Pine FACW 2 52.94 2.60 JB W36 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 47.06 . JB W42 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 75.00 2.63 JB W42 2 Bald Cypress OBL 1 25.00 .

195

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

JB W43 4 . . . . . JB W44 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 100.0 3.16 JB W45 2 Bald Cypress OBL 1 25.00 2.63 JB W45 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 75.00 . SM1 W1 2 Red Maple FAC 3 64.52 3.29 SM1 W1 2 S. Red Oak FACU 4 19.35 . SM1 W1 2 Red Bay FACW 2 6.45 . SM1 W1 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 9.68 . SM1 W2 4 Red Maple FAC 3 100.0 3.16 SM1 W3 3 Red Maple FAC 3 91.94 3.09 SM1 W3 3 S. Red Oak FACU 4 1.61 . SM1 W3 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 1.61 . SM1 W3 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 1.61 . SM1 W3 3 Black Willow OBL 1 3.23 . SM1 W4 2 Laurel Oak FACW 2 50.00 2.46 SM1 W4 2 Red Maple FAC 3 33.33 . SM1 W4 2 Swamp Bay FACW 2 16.67 . SM1 W5 3 Red Maple FAC 3 48.57 2.74 SM1 W5 3 S. Red Oak FACU 4 2.86 . SM1 W5 3 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 5.71 . SM1 W5 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 5.71 . SM1 W5 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 37.14 . SM1 W6 2 River Birch FACW 2 7.69 3.24 SM1 W6 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 7.69 . SM1 W6 2 S. Red Oak FACU 4 23.08 . SM1 W6 2 Red Maple FAC 3 38.46 . SM1 W6 2 Black Gum FAC 3 15.38 . SM1 W6 2 Red Bay FACW 2 7.69 . SM1 W7 3 Red Maple FAC 3 75.00 3.14 SM1 W7 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 15.00 . SM1 W7 3 Laurel Oak FACW 2 2.50 . SM1 W7 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 3.75 . SM1 W7 3 S. Red Oak FACU 4 2.50 . SM1 W7 3 River Birch FACW 2 1.25 . SM1 W8 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 5.36 3.10 SM1 W8 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 0.89 . SM1 W8 3 Red Maple FAC 3 89.29 . SM1 W8 3 Black Gum FAC 3 3.57 .

196

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

SM1 W8 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 0.89 . SM1 W9 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 2.17 3.18 SM1 W9 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 2.17 . SM1 W9 3 Red Maple FAC 3 82.61 . SM1 W9 3 S. Red Oak FACU 4 4.35 . SM1 W9 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 8.70 . SM1 T2.1 2 E. Red Cedar FACU 4 10.00 3.37 SM1 T2.1 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 45.00 . SM1 T2.1 2 Willow Oak FACW 2 5.00 . SM1 T2.1 2 S. Red Oak FACU 4 15.00 . SM1 T2.1 2 Red Maple FAC 3 25.00 . SM1 T2.2 2 Swamp Bay FACW 2 7.14 3.16 SM1 T2.2 2 S. Red Oak FACU 4 21.43 . SM1 T2.2 2 Red Maple FAC 3 28.57 . SM1 T2.2 2 Atlantic White Cedar OBL 1 7.14 . SM1 T2.2 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 35.71 . SM1 T4.2 4 Red Maple FAC 3 97.74 3.13 SM1 T4.2 4 Swamp Bay FACW 2 0.75 . SM1 T4.2 4 Willow Oak FACW 2 1.50 . SM1 T4.3 4 Sweet Gum FAC 3 0.48 3.05 SM1 T4.3 4 Swamp Bay FACW 2 9.66 . SM1 T4.3 4 Willow Oak FACW 2 0.48 . SM1 T4.3 4 Red Maple FAC 3 89.37 . TB W2 2 Cherry Bark Oak FACW 2 15.38 2.35 TB W2 2 S. Red Oak FACU 4 7.69 . TB W2 2 Red Maple FAC 3 7.69 . TB W2 2 Willow Oak FACW 2 30.77 . TB W2 2 Laurel Oak FACW 2 7.69 . TB W2 2 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 30.77 . TB W5 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 16.00 . TB W5 3 Black Willow OBL 1 12.00 . TB W5 3 River Birch FACW 2 32.00 . TB W5 3 Laurel Oak FACW 2 20.00 . TB W5 3 S. Red Oak FACU 4 20.00 . TB W8 3 Laurel Oak FACW 2 22.22 2.05 TB W8 3 Red Maple FAC 3 5.56 . TB W8 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 33.33 . TB W8 3 S. Red Oak FACU 4 11.11 .

197

PI Cover TTL Site Lctn Hyd Common Name W. Status Score (%) Score

TB W8 3 River Birch FACW 2 27.78 . TB W11 3 Pond Cypress OBL 1 18.75 1.78 TB W11 3 Sweet Bay FACW 2 25.00 . TB W11 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 12.50 . TB W11 3 Black Willow OBL 1 12.50 . TB W11 3 River Birch FACW 2 25.00 . TB W11 3 Laurel Oak FACW 2 6.25 . TB W12 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 6.25 2.17 TB W12 2 Green Ash FACW 2 18.75 . TB W12 2 Sweet Bay FACW 2 56.25 . TB W12 2 River Birch FACW 2 18.75 . TB W13 2 Red Maple FAC 3 4.17 1.84 TB W13 2 Black Willow OBL 1 41.67 . TB W13 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 8.33 . TB W13 2 Green Ash FACW 2 33.33 . TB W13 2 Sweet Bay FACW 2 8.33 . TB W13 2 Sweet Gum FAC 3 4.17 . TB W14 2 Green Ash FACW 2 32.00 2.57 TB W14 2 Laurel Oak FACW 2 24.00 . TB W14 2 River Birch FACW 2 12.00 . TB W14 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 20.00 . TB W14 2 S. Red Oak FACU 4 12.00 . TB W15 3 Black Willow OBL 1 10.53 2.55 TB W15 3 Green Ash FACW 2 36.84 . TB W15 3 Red Maple FAC 3 10.53 . TB W15 3 River Birch FAC 3 15.79 . TB W15 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 26.32 . TB W16 3 Pond Cypress OBL 1 77.78 1.11 TB W16 3 Black Willow OBL 1 5.56 . TB W16 3 Willow Oak OBL 1 11.11 . TB W16 3 Am. Sycamore FACW 2 5.56 . TB W19 2 Green Ash FACW 2 29.41 1.98 TB W19 2 Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 2 23.53 . TB W19 2 Am. Sycamore FACW 2 41.18 .

198

VEGETATION DATA (PART 2) SHRUB AND VINE DATA: Site; AB=Arabia Bay, BF=Barra Farms, DB=Dover Bay, DD=Dowd Dairy, HC=Hillcrest Bay, JB=Juniper Bay, SM1=Sliver Moon1, SM2=Sliver Moon 2, and TB=Twin Bays. Location=sample plot. Hydro=Hydrologic Group (1-4). Common name=common name for shrubs and vines. W. Status=USDA wetland plant status. Cover= Percent cover of each shrub and vine.

Site Location Hydro Common Name W. Status Cover (%)

BF VC1.1 1 Vaccinium FACW 5 BF VC1.1 1 Greenbrier FACW 1 BF VC1.1 1 Rasberry FAC 2 BF VC1.1 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 2 BF VC1.2 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 20 BF VC1.2 1 Golden Vine . 5 BF VC1.3 1 Blackberry FAC 10 BF VC1.3 1 VA Creeper FACU 30 BF VC1.3 1 Muscadine FACU 30 BF VC1.3 1 Laurel Greenbrier FACW 2 BF VC1.3 1 Unknown 2 BF VC1.4 1 VA Creeper FACU 30 BF VC1.4 1 Muscadine FAC 10 BF VC1.4 1 Blackberry FAC 10 BF W1 2 Jap. Barberry UPL 5 BF W2 2 . . . BF W4 3 . . . BF W6 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 20 BF W6 3 Blackberry FAC 20 BF W6 3 Poison Ivy FAC 10 BF W7 2 . . . BF W9 3 . . . BF W10 3 . . . BF W12 3 . . . BF W11 2 Jap. Barberry UPL 1 BF W11 2 Unknown . 15 BF W13 1 Poison Ivy FAC 35 BF W13 1 Muscadine FACU 35 BF W13 1 VA. Creeper FACU 15 BF W13 1 Unknown 2 BF W13 1 Unknown 2 BF W17 3 Poison Ivy FAC 10 BF W20 3 Sweet pepper Bush FACW 30

199

Site Location Hydro Common Name W. Status Cover (%)

BF W20 3 Honeysuckle FACU 30 BF W20 3 Greenbrier FACW 35 DB VC1.1 1 Sweet pepper bush FACW 10 DB VC1.2 1 Unknown . 5 DB VC1.2 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 35 DB VC1.3 1 Unknown . 15 DB VC1.3 1 Jap. Barberry UPL 2 DB VC1.4 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 15 DB VC1.4 1 Fetterbush FACW 30 DB VC1.4 1 Low bush blueberry FACU 5 DB VC1.5 1 Fetterbush FACW 10 DB T2.2 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 43 DB T2.2 2 Kane FACW 20 DB T2.2 2 Nine bark . 15 DB T2.2 2 Dogwood FAC 2 DB T2.2 2 Jap. Privet FAC 20 DB T2.5 2 Dogwood FACU 65 DB T2.5 2 Large Gallberry FACW 35 DB T2.5B 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 2 DB T3.1 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 10 DB T3.1 3 Fetterbush FACW 20 DB T3.1 3 Large Gallberry FACW 15 DB T3.1 3 Dogwood FACU 2 DB T3.4 3 . . . DB N3.5 3 . . . DB T3.5B 3 Blueberry FACW 5 DB T3.5B 3 Leatherleaf OBL 2 DB T4.4 4 Wax Myrtle FAC 5 DB T4.4 4 Vaccinium . 10 DB T4.5 5 Unknown . 1 DB W13 2 Unknown . 75 DB W14 4 Jap. Privet FAC 10 DB W14 4 Unknown . 5 DB W15 4 Wax Myrtle FAC 35 DB W16 4 Wax Myrtle FAC 20 DD W2 1 Blackberry FAC 75 DD W2 1 Poison Ivy FAC 25 DD W3 2 Unknown . 5

200

Site Location Hydro Common Name W. Status Cover (%)

DD W4 1 Blackberry FAC 5 DD W4 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 5 DD W4 1 Japanese Barberry UPL 1 DD W7 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 15 DD W7 2 Blackberry FAC 2 DD W7 2 Japanese Barberry UPL 2 DD W8 3 Jap. Barberry UPL 2 DD W8 3 Poison Ivy FAC 20 DD W9 3 LL Greenbrier FACW 2 DD W9 3 Blackberry FAC 5 DD W13 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 5 DD W14 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 25 DD W14 3 LL Greenbrier FACW 1 DD W14 3 Muscadine Grape FAC 1 DD W14 3 St. Johns Wart . 2 DD W14 3 VA Creeper FACU 2 DD W15 4 Vaccinium . 10 DD W15 4 Wax Myrtle FAC 10 DD W15 4 Golden Vine . 2 DD W17 4 . . . DD W20 4 . . . DD W22 2 . . . DD W26 4 Poison Ivy FAC 20 DD W28 4 . . . DD W27 3 . . . DD W29 4 . . . DD W34 2 Blackberry FAC 25 DD W34 2 LL Greenbrier FACW 2 DD W35 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 2 DD W35 2 Blackberry FAC 2 DD W35 2 Poison Ivy FAC 15 DD W35 2 LL Greenbrier FACW 2 DD W35 2 Jap. Barberry UPL 2 DD W36 1 Muscadine (grape) FAC 15 DD W36 1 LL Greenbriar FACW 5 DD W36 1 Poison Ivy FAC 20 DD W36 1 VA Creeper FACU 15 DD W36 1 Blackberry FAC 15

201

Site Location Hydro Common Name W. Status Cover (%)

DD W36 1 Yellow Jasmine . 2 DD W36 1 St. Johns Wart . 2 DD W36 1 Vibrium . 2 DD W37 2 Blackberry FAC 83 DD W37 2 Poison Ivy FAC 15 DD W37 2 Jap. Barberry UPL 2 DD W99 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 2 DD W99 1 Serviceberry . 1 DD W99 1 Winged Sumac UPL 5 DD W99 1 Dogwood . 2 DD W99 1 Vaccinium . 5 DD W99 1 VA Creeper FACU 10 DD W99 1 Muscadine FAC 10 DD W99 1 Laurel Greenbrier FACW 1 DD W99 1 Yellow Jasmin 5 HC H1 2 Jap. Barberry UPL 2 HC A2 2 . . . HC T2.1 2 Large Gallberry FACW 5 HC T2.1 2 Leatherleaf OBL 5 HC T2.2 2 Leather leaf OBL 20 HC N3 1 . . . HC N4 1 . . . HC H5 2 Jap. Barberry UPL 3 HC H6A 1 Blackberry . 15 HC H6A 1 Poison Ivy FAC 15 HC H6A 1 Blueberry . 10 HC N9 1 Blueberry . 10 HC N10 1 Leatherleaf OBL 2 HC N10 1 Poison Ivy FAC 45 JB VC1.1 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 30 JB 1C 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 1 JB 1D 3 Unknown . 3 JB 2C 4 . . . JB 3C 3 Blackberry FAC 10 JB 3C 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 2 JB 4C 3 Vaccinium FACW 2 JB 4C 3 Blackberry FAC 7 JB 5C 4 . . .

202

Site Location Hydro Common Name W. Status Cover (%)

JB 6C 4 . . . JB 7C 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 70 JB 7C 2 Muscadine FAC 2 JB 7C 2 Vaccinium FACW 2 JB 8C 4 . . . JB 8D 4 . . . JB 9C 3 . . . JB 9D 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 2 JB 10C 4 Wax Myrtle FAC 2 JB 10C 4 Button Bush OBL 2 JB 10C 4 Vaccinium FACW 2 JB 11C 4 . . . JB 12C 2 . . . JB 13C 4 . . . JB 13D 4 Wax Myrtle FAC 15 JB 14C 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 25 JB 14C 2 Honeysuckle FACU 5 JB 15C 3 Vaccinium FACW 5 JB 15C 3 Unknown . 5 JB 16C 4 . . . JB 17C 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 85 JB 17C 1 Poison Ivy FAC 15 JB 61C 4 . . . JB 62C 3 Blackberry FAC 15 JB 62C 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 25 JB 63C 3 VA Creeper FACU 5 JB 63C 3 Unknown Shrub . 2 JB 63C 3 Baccharis FAC 2 JB 64C 1 Honeysuckle vine FACU 1 JB 64C 1 Barberry UPL 1 JB 64C 1 Blackberry FAC 1 JB 64C 1 Wax myrtle FAC 15 JB 64D 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 15 JB 64D 1 Honey suckle vine FACU 5 JB 65C 4 . . . JB 65D 4 . . . JB 66C 4 . . . JB 67C 4 . . .

203

Site Location Hydro Common Name W. Status Cover (%)

JB 68C 4 . . . JB 68D 4 . . . JB W1 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 5 JB W1 2 Barberry UPL 5 JB W1 2 Smilax FACW 1 JB W2 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 10 JB W7 4 . . . JB W11 1 Honeysuckle vine FACU 10 JB W11 1 Vaccinium FACW 10 JB W14 4 . . . JB W21 3 . . . JB W24 4 . . . JB W26 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 20 JB W31 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 40 JB W33 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 65 JB W33 Blackberry FAC 5 JB W34 2 Vaccinium FACW 2 JB W34 2 Poison Ivy FAC 30 JB W34 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 15 JB W35 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 85 JB W36 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 15 JB W42 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 5 JB W43 4 . . . JB W44 1 Wax Myrtle FAC 50 JB W44 1 Poison Ivy FAC 35 JB W45 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 5 SM1 W1 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 20 SM1 W1 2 Baccharis FAC 15 SM1 W1 2 Blackberry FAC 15 SM1 W2 4 Wax Myrtle FAC 10 SM1 W2 4 Baccharis FAC 5 SM1 W2 4 Blackberry FAC 5 SM1 T2.1 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 60 SM1 T2.1 2 Blackberry FAC 25 SM1 T2.2 2 Baccharis FAC 30 SM1 T2.2 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 10 SM1 T2.2 2 Blackberry FAC 25 SM1 W3 3 Blackberry FAC 15

204

Site Location Hydro Common Name W. Status Cover (%)

SM1 W3 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 10 SM1 W3 3 Baccharis FAC 25 SM1 T4.2 4 Wax Myrtle FAC 20 SM1 T4.2 4 Baccharis FAC 5 SM1 T4.2 4 Blackberry FAC 5 SM1 T4.3 4 . . . SM1 W4 2 Baccharis FAC 30 SM1 W4 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 2 SM1 W5 3 Baccharis FAC 20 SM1 W5 3 Blackberry FAC 35 SM1 W5 3 Jap. Barberry UPL 1 SM1 W6 2 Blackberry FAC 50 SM1 W6 2 Wax Myrtle FAC 10 SM1 W7 3 Baccharis FAC 60 SM1 W7 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 5 SM1 W7 3 Blackberry FAC 35 SM1 W8 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 5 SM1 W8 3 Baccharis FAC 10 SM1 W8 3 Blackberry FAC 15 SM1 W9 3 Baccharis FAC 40 SM1 W9 3 Blackberry FAC 15 SM1 W9 3 Vaccinium FAC 2 TB W2 2 Blackberry FAC 45 TB W5 3 Baccharis FAC 5 TB W8 3 . . . TB W11 3 Blackberry FAC 50 TB W12 2 Baccharis FAC 10 TB W13 2 Unknown . 2 TB W13 2 Blackberry FAC 40 TB W14 2 . . . TB W15 3 Wax Myrtle FAC 10 TB W15 3 Baccharis FAC 2 TB W16 3 Blackberry FAC 65 TB W16 3 Baccharis FAC 10 TB W19 2 Baccharis FAC 25 TB W19 2 Blackberry FAC 20

205

VEGETATION DATA (PART 3) SAPLING AND SEEDLING DATA: Site; AB=Arabia Bay, BF=Barra Farms, DB=Dover Bay, DD=Dowd Dairy, HC=Hillcrest Bay, JB=Juniper Bay, SM1=Sliver Moon1, SM2=Sliver Moon 2, and TB=Twin Bays. Location=sample plot. Hydro=Hydrologic Group (1-4). Common name=common name for saplings and seedlings. W. Status=USDA wetland plant status. Stem Count=total amount of stems counted for each plant. TTL= total amount of stems per hectare for each type of sapling and seedling.

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

BF VC1.1 1 Red Maple FAC 2 200 BF VC1.1 1 Green Ash FACW 3 300 BF VC1.1 1 Water Oak FAC 3 300 BF VC1.1 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 1 100 BF VC1.1 1 Red Bay FACW 1 100 BF VC1.1 1 Sweet Gum FAC 4 400 BF VC1.1 1 Laurel Oak FACW 5 500 BF VC1.1 1 Loblolly Bay FACW 2 200 BF VC1.1 1 White Oak FACU 2 200 BF VC1.2 1 Water Oak FAC 3 300 BF VC1.2 1 Laurel Oak FACW 1 100 BF VC1.2 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 1 100 BF VC1.2 1 Black Willow OBL 1 100 BF VC1.2 1 Red Maple FAC 3 300 BF VC1.2 1 White Oak FACU 1 100 BF VC1.3 1 Red Maple FAC 32 3200 BF VC1.4 1 Overcup Oak OBL 2 200 BF VC1.4 1 Red Maple FAC 12 1200 BF VC1.4 1 Laurel Oak FACW 7 700 BF VC1.4 1 Red Cedar FACU 1 100 BF VC1.4 1 Sweet Gum FAC 3 300 BF W1 2 Sweet Bay FACW 7 700 BF W1 2 Red Maple FAC 23 2300 BF W2 2 Red Maple FAC 80 8000 BF W2 2 Red Bay FACW 2 200 BF W4 3 Red Maple FAC 18 1800 BF W6 3 Turkey Oak . 3 300 BF W6 3 Red Maple FAC 20 2000 BF W7 2 Red Bay FACW 5 500 BF W7 2 Red Maple FAC 40 4000 BF W9 3 Red Maple FAC 37 3700

206

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

BF W9 3 Bald Cypress OBL 1 100 BF W10 3 Red Maple FAC 20 20000 BF W11 2 Red Bay FACW 85 8500 BF W11 2 Red Maple FAC 19 1900 BF W11 2 Laurel Oak FACW 7 700 BF W11 2 Sweet Bay FACW 6 600 BF W11 2 Am. Holly FAC 1 100 BF W12 3 Red Maple FAC 60 6000 BF W12 3 Am. Sycamore FACW 1 100 BF W12 3 Am. Holly FAC 2 200 BF W12 3 Red Bay FACW 1 100 BF W13 1 Red Bay FACW 2 200 BF W13 1 Red Maple FAC 57 5700 BF W13 1 Am. Holly FAC 2 200 BF W13 1 Water Oak FAC 3 300 BF W13 1 Sassafras FACU 1 100 BF W13 1 Willow Oak FACW 1 100 BF W17 3 Am. Holly FAC 1 100 BF W17 3 Red Bay FACW 140 14000 BF W17 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 100 BF W17 3 Red Maple FAC 5 500 BF W20 3 Red Bay FACW 90 9000 BF W20 3 Red Maple FAC 8 800 BF W20 3 Sweet Bay FACW 6 600 BF W20 3 Am. Holly FAC 1 100 Atlantic White DB VC1.1 1 Cedar OBL 4 400 DB VC1.1 1 Loblolly Bay FACW 1 100 DB VC1.1 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 1 100 DB VC1..2 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 400 Atlantic White DB VC1..2 1 Cedar OBL 40 4000 Atlantic White DB VC1.3 1 Cedar OBL 60 6000 DB VC1.3 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 3 300 Atlantic White DB VC1.4 1 Cedar OBL 22 2200 DB VC1.4 1 Longleaf Pine FACU 4 400

207

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

Atlantic White DB VC1.5 1 Cedar OBL 6 600 DB VC1.5 1 Red Bay FACW 5 500 DB T2.2 2 Red Maple FAC 50 5000 DB T2.2 2 Red Bay FACW 45 4500 DB T2.5 2 Red Maple FAC 4 400 DB T2.5 2 Loblolly Bay FACW 1 100 DB T2.5B 2 Swamp Bay FACW 55 5500 DB T2.5B 2 Am. Holly FAC 1 100 DB T2.5B 2 Red Maple FAC 10 1000 DB T3.1 3 Red Maple FAC 60 6000 DB T3.1 3 Swamp Bay FACW 6 600 DB T3.1 3 Red Bay FACW 1 100 DB T3.4 3 Red Maple FAC 92 9200 DB T3.4 3 Pond Cypress OBL 15 1500 DB T3.4 3 Swamp Bay FACW 6 600 DB N3.5 3 Red Maple FAC 110 11000 DB N3.5 3 Pond Cypress OBL 2 200 DB N3.5 3 Sweet Bay FACW 1 100 DB N3.5 3 Swamp Bay FACW 1 100 DB N3.5 3 Red Bay FACW 3 300 DB T3.5B 3 Red Maple FAC 100 10000 DB T3.5B 3 Swamp Bay FACW 27 2700 DB T3.5B 3 Southern Red Oak FACU 1 100 DB T3.5B 3 American Holly FAC 1 100 DB T4.4 4 Red Bay FACW 23 2300 DB T4.4 4 Red Maple FAC 77 7700 DB T4.4 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 100 DB T4.4 4 Swamp Bay OBL 14 1400 DB T4.5 4 Pond Cypress OBL 18 1800 DB T4.5 4 Red Maple FAC 7 700 DB W13 2 Red Cedar 17 1700 DB W13 2 Loblolly Bay FACW 12 1200 DB W13 2 Sweet Bay FACW 19 1900 DB W13 2 Red Bay FACW 12 1200 DB W13 2 Pond Pine FACW 3 300 DB W14 4 Pond Cypress OBL 7 700 DB W14 4 Sweet Bay FACW 2 200

208

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

DB W14 4 Red Maple FAC 1 100 DB W15 4 Red Maple FAC 21 2100 DB W15 4 Pond Cypress OBL 2 200 DB W15 4 Red Bay FACW 1 100 DB W16 4 Red Maple FAC 50 5000 DB W16 4 Red Bay FACW 2 200 DD W2 1 Laurel Oak FACW 2 200 DD W2 1 Loblolly Bay FACW 1 100 DD W2 1 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 DD W2 1 Red Maple FAC 1 100 DD W3 2 American Holly FAC 2 200 DD W3 2 Red Maple FAC 3 300 DD W3 2 Sweet Gum FAC 2 200 DD W4 1 Overcup Oak OBL 3 300 DD W4 1 Sweet Gum FAC 9 900 DD W4 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 1 100 DD W4 1 Red Maple FAC 3 300 DD W7 2 Willow Oak FACW 12 1200 DD W7 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 2 200 DD W7 2 Red Maple FAC 8 800 DD W7 2 Green Ash FACW 1 100 DD W8 3 Green Ash FACW 1 100 DD W8 3 Red Maple FAC 7 700 DD W9 3 Red Maple FAC 13 1300 DD W9 3 Loblolly Bay FACW 1 100 DD W9 3 American Holly FAC 8 800 DD W13 1 Overcup Oak OBL 2 200 DD W13 1 Southern Red Oak FACU 1 100 DD W13 1 Willow Oak FACW 9 900 DD W14 3 Red Maple FAC 85 8500 DD W14 3 Sweet Gum FAC 4 400 DD W14 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 200 DD W14 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 100 DD W15 4 Red Maple FAC 51 5100 DD W15 4 Sweet Gum FAC 7 700 DD W15 4 Pond Cypress OBL 1 100 DD W15 4 Swamp Black Gum 1 100 DD W17 4 Red Maple FAC 22 2200

209

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

DD W20 4 Red Maple FAC 14 1400 DD W21 3 Red Maple FAC 7 700 DD W22 2 Red Maple FAC 22 2200 DD W26 4 Overcup Oak OBL 1 100 DD W26 4 Red Maple FAC 30 3000 DD W27 3 Red Maple FAC 12 1200 DD W28 4 Red Maple FAC 92 8464 DD W28 4 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 Swamp Chestnut DD W28 4 Oak FACW 1 100 DD W29 4 Red Maple FAC 23 2300 DD W34 2 Willow Oak FACW 4 400 DD W34 2 American Holly FAC 1 100 DD W34 2 Red Maple FAC 2 200 DD W34 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 100 DD W34 2 Loblolly Bay FACW 1 100 DD W35 2 Willow Oak FACW 1 100 DD W35 2 Laurel Oak FACW 2 200 DD W35 2 Red Maple FAC 2 200 DD W35 2 Loblolly Bay FACW 2 200 DD W35 2 Overcup Oak OBL 3 300 DD W36 1 Red Maple FAC 1 100 DD W36 1 Sweet Gum FAC 6 600 DD W36 1 Southern Red Oak FACU 1 100 DD W37 2 American Holly FAC 1 100 DD W37 2 Loblolly Bay FACW 3 300 DD W37 2 Red Maple FAC 3 300 DD W37 2 Black Jack Oak . 1 100 DD W99 1 American Holly FAC 2 200 DD W99 1 Tuliptree . 1 100 DD W99 1 Willow Oak FACW 3 300 DD W99 1 Red Maple FAC 5 500 DD W99 1 Water Oak FAC 2 200 DD W99 1 Overcup Oak OBL 3 300 DD W99 1 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 DD W99 1 Red Bay FACW 1 100 DD W99 1 Black Cherry FACU 3 300 HC H1 2 E. Red Cedar . 2 200

210

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

HC H1 2 Sweet Gum FAC 17 1700 HC H1 2 Bald Cypress OBL 6 600 HC H1 2 Plum . 1 100 HC A2 2 Cypress OBL 2 200 HC A2 2 Sweet Gum FAC 22 2200 HC T2.1 2 Plum . 8 800 HC T2.1 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 4 400 HC T2.1 2 Sweet Gum FAC 11 1100 HC T2.1 2 Bald Cypress OBL 1 100 HC T2.2 2 Swamp Bay FACW 3 300 HC T2.2 2 Sweet Gum FAC 90 9000 HC N3 1 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 HC N3 1 Am. Holly FAC 1 100 HC N3 1 Plum . 2 200 HC N4 1 Bald Cypress OBL 3 300 HC N4 1 Sweet Gum FAC 8 800 HC N4 1 Plum . 2 200 HC H5 2 E. Red Cedar . 1 100 HC H5 2 Sweet Gum FAC 62 6200 HC H5 2 Plum . 2 200 HC H6A 1 Sweet Gum FAC 26 2600 HC H6A 1 Plum . 2 200 HC N9 1 Am. Holly FAC 1 100 HC N9 1 E. Red Cedar . 2 200 HC N9 1 Sweet Gum FAC 19 1900 HC N9 1 S. Red Oak FACU 2 200 HC N10 1 Sweet Gum FAC 45 4500 JB 1C 3 Red Maple FAC 6 600 JB 1C 3 Sweet Gum FAC 3 300 JB 1D 3 Red Maple FAC 37 3700 JB 2C 4 Red Maple FAC 30 3000 JB 2C 4 Sweet Bay FACW 3 300 JB 3C 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 2 200 JB 3C 3 Red Maple FAC 54 5400 JB 3C 3 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 JB 4C 3 Red Maple FAC 90 9000 JB 5C 4 Red Maple FAC 10 1000 JB 5C 4 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100

211

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

JB 5C 4 Sweet Bay FACW 5 500 JB 5C 4 Black Willow OBL 1 100 JB 6C 4 . . . . JB 7C 2 Red Maple FAC 40 4000 JB 7C 2 Sweet Bay FACW 30 3000 Atlantic White JB 7C 2 Cedar OBL 7 700 JB 7C 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 300 JB 8C 4 Red Maple FAC 23 2300 JB 8D 4 Red Maple FAC 23 2300 JB 9C 3 Sweet Bay FACW 3 300 JB 9C 3 Black Willow OBL 1 100 JB 9C 3 Red Maple FAC 2 200 JB 9D 3 Red Maple FAC 68 6800 JB 9D 3 Black Willow OBL 2 200 JB 10C 4 Red Maple FAC 90 9000 JB 10C 4 Bald Cypress OBL 5 500 JB 10C 4 Water Tupelo OBL 2 200 JB 10C 4 Sweet Bay FACW 1 100 JB 11C 4 Red Maple FAC 5 500 JB 12C 2 Red Maple FAC 27 2700 JB 12C 2 Bald Cypress OBL 4 400 JB 13C 4 Red Maple FAC 75 7500 JB 13D 4 Red Maple FAC 55 5500 JB 14C 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 1 100 JB 14C 2 Sweetgum FAC 2 200 JB 14C 2 Red Maple FAC 2 200 JB 15C 3 Red Maple fAC 65 6500 JB 15C 3 Sweet Bay FACW 9 900 JB 16C 4 Red Maple FAC 17 1700 JB 16C 4 Sweet Bay FACW 6 600 JB 17C 1 Red Maple FAC 35 3500 JB 17C 1 Red Bay FACW 3 300 JB 17C 1 Sweet Gum FAC 4 400 JB 61C 4 Red Maple FAC 25 2500 JB 62C 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 2 200 JB 62C 3 Sweet Gum FAC 2 200 JB 63C 3 Sweet Bay FACW 6 600

212

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

JB 63C 3 Red Maple FAC 111 11100 JB 63C 3 Sweet Gum FAC 5 500 JB 63C 3 Overcup Oak OBL 1 100 JB 64C 1 Sweetgum FAC 8 800 JB 64C 1 Red Maple FAC 18 1800 Atlantic White JB 64C 1 Cedar OBL 2 200 JB 64C 1 Sweet Bay FACW 10 1000 JB 64D 1 Water Oak FAC 11 1100 JB 64D 1 S. Red Oak FACU 15 1500 JB 64D 1 Sweet Gum FAC 4 400 JB 64D 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 1 100 JB 64D 1 Red Maple FAC 2 200 JB 65C 4 Red Maple FAC 56 5600 JB 65C 4 Water Tupelo OBL 2 200 JB 65D 4 Red Maple FAC 20 2000 JB 66C 4 Sweet Bay FACW 1 100 JB 66C 4 Red Maple FAC 7 700 JB 66C 4 Water Tupelo OBL 1 100 JB 67C 4 Red Maple FAC 60 6000 JB 68C 4 Red Maple FAC 20 2000 JB 68D 4 Red Maple FAC 15 1500 JB W1 2 Red Maple FAC 41 4100 Atlantic White JB W1 2 Cedar OBL 1 100 JB W1 2 Sweet Gum FAC 30 3000 JB W1 2 American Holly FAC 2 200 JB W2 3 Red Maple FAC 36 3600 JB W2 3 Sweet Gum FAC 5 500 JB W7 4 . . . . JB W11 1 S. Red Oak FACU 4 400 JB W11 1 Red Maple FAC 6 600 JB W11 1 Water Oak FAC 6 600 JB W11 1 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 JB W11 1 Sassafras FACU 1 100 JB W14 4 Sweet Bay FACW 1 100 JB W21 3 . . . . JB W24 4 Red Maple FAC 4 400

213

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

JB W26 2 Red Maple FAC 12 1200 JB W26 2 Bald Cypress OBL 1 100 JB W26 2 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 JB W31 2 Red Maple FAC 160 16000 JB W31 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 1 100 JB W33 1 Sweet Gum FAC 3 300 JB W33 1 Red Maple FAC 1 100 JB W33 1 Loblolly Pine FAC 1 100 JB W34 2 Bald Cypress OBL 4 400 JB W34 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 2 200 JB W34 2 Red Bay FACW 1 100 Atlantic White JB W34 2 Cedar OBL 1 100 JB W34 2 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 JB W35 2 Sweet Bay FACW 3 300 JB W35 2 Overcup Oak OBL 3 300 JB W36 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 2 200 JB W36 2 Overcup Oak OBL 1 100 JB W42 2 Bald Cypress OBL 3 300 JB W42 2 Red Maple FAC 5 500 JB W43 4 Red Maple FAC 53 5300 JB W44 1 Bald Cypress OBL 2 200 JB W44 1 Red Bay FACW 1 100 JB W44 1 Red Maple FAC 4 400 JB W44 1 Sweetgum FAC 2 200 JB W45 2 Red Maple FAC 65 6500 JB W45 2 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 JB VC1.1 1 Red Maple FAC 4 400 JB VC1.1 1 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 JB VC1.1 1 S. Red Oak FACU 2 200 JB VC1.1 1 American Holly FAC 1 100 SM1 W1 2 Red Maple FAC 20 2000 SM1 W1 2 S. Red Oak FACU 6 600 SM1 W1 2 Red Bay FACW 2 200 SM1 W1 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 300 SM1 W2 4 Red Maple FAC 35 3500 SM1 T2.1 2 E. Red Cedar 2 200 SM1 T2.1 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 9 900

214

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

SM1 T2.1 2 Willow Oak FACW 1 100 SM1 T2.1 2 S. Red Oak FACU 3 300 SM1 T2.1 2 Red Maple FAC 5 500 SM1 T2.2 2 Swamp Bay FACW 1 100 SM1 T2.2 2 S. Red Oak FACU 3 300 SM1 T2.2 2 Red Maple FAC 4 400 Atlantic White SM1 T2.2 2 Cedar OBL 1 100 SM1 T2.2 2 Sweet Gum FAC 5 500 SM1 W3 3 Red Maple FAC 57 5700 SM1 W3 3 S. Red Oak FACU 1 100 SM1 W3 3 Sweet Bay FACW 1 100 SM1 W3 3 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 SM1 W3 3 Black Willow OBL 2 200 SM1 W4 2 Laurel Oak FACW 3 300 SM1 W4 2 Red Maple FAC 2 200 SM1 W4 2 Swamp Bay FACW 1 100 SM1 T4.2 4 Red Maple FAC 130 13000 SM1 T4.2 4 Swamp Bay FACW 1 100 SM1 T4.2 4 Willow Oak FACW 2 200 SM1 T4.3 4 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 SM1 T4.3 4 Swamp Bay FACW 20 2000 SM1 T4.3 4 Willow Oak FACW 1 100 SM1 T4.3 4 Red Maple FAC 185 18500 SM1 W5 3 Red Maple FAC 17 1700 SM1 W5 3 S. Red Oak FACU 1 100 Swamp Chestnut SM1 W5 3 Oak FACW 2 200 SM1 W5 3 Sweet Gum FAC 2 200 SM1 W5 3 Sweet Bay FACW 13 1300 SM1 W6 2 River Birch FACW 1 100 SM1 W6 2 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 SM1 W6 2 S. Red Oak FACU 3 300 SM1 W6 2 Red Maple FAC 5 500 SM1 W6 2 Black Gum FAC 2 200 SM1 W6 2 Red Bay FACW 1 100 SM1 W7 3 Red Maple FAC 60 6000 SM1 W7 3 Sweet Gum FAC 12 1200

215

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

SM1 W7 3 Laurel Oak FACW 2 200 SM1 W7 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 3 300 SM1 W7 3 S. Red Oak FACU 2 200 SM1 W7 3 River Birch FACW 1 100 SM1 W8 3 Sweet Bay FACW 6 600 SM1 W8 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 1 100 SM1 W8 3 Red Maple FAC 100 10000 SM1 W8 3 Black Gum FAC 4 400 SM1 W8 3 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 SM1 W9 3 Sweet Bay FACW 1 100 SM1 W9 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 1 100 SM1 W9 3 Red Maple FAC 38 3800 SM1 W9 3 S. Red Oak FACU 2 200 SM1 W9 3 Sweet Gum FAC 4 400 TB W2 2 Cherry Bark Oak FACW 2 200 TB W2 2 S. Red Oak FACU 1 100 TB W2 2 Red Maple FAC 1 100 TB W2 2 Willow Oak FACW 4 400 TB W2 2 Laurel Oak FACW 1 100 Swamp Chestnut TB W2 2 Oak FACW 4 400 TB W5 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 4 400 TB W5 3 Black Willow OBL 3 300 TB W5 3 River Birch FACW 8 800 TB W5 3 Laurel Oak FACW 5 500 TB W5 3 S. Red Oak FACU 5 500 TB W8 3 Laurel Oak FACW 4 400 TB W8 3 Red Maple FAC 1 100 TB W8 3 Bald Cypress OBL 6 600 TB W8 3 S. Red Oak FACU 2 200 TB W8 3 River Birch FACW 5 500 TB W11 3 Pond Cypress OBL 3 300 TB W11 3 Sweet Bay FACW 4 400 TB W11 3 Willow Oak FACW 2 200 TB W11 3 Black Willow OBL 2 200 TB W11 3 River Birch FACW 4 400 TB W11 3 Laurel Oak FACW 1 100 TB W12 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 2 200

216

Common W. Stem TTL Site Location Hydro Name Status Count (stems ha-1)

TB W12 2 Green Ash FACW 6 600 TB W12 2 Sweet Bay FACW 18 1800 TB W12 2 River Birch FACW 6 600 TB W13 2 Red Maple FAC 1 100 TB W13 2 Black Willow OBL 10 1000 TB W13 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 2 200 TB W13 2 Green Ash FACW 8 800 TB W13 2 Sweet Bay FACW 2 200 TB W13 2 Sweet Gum FAC 1 100 TB W14 2 Green Ash FACW 8 80 TB W14 2 Laurel Oak FACW 6 60 TB W14 2 River Birch FACW 3 30 TB W14 2 Loblolly Pine FAC 5 50 TB W14 2 S. Red Oak FACU 3 30 TB W15 3 Black Willow OBL 2 200 TB W15 3 Green Ash FACW 7 700 TB W15 3 Red Maple FAC 2 200 TB W15 3 River Birch FAC 3 300 TB W15 3 Loblolly Pine FAC 5 500 TB W16 3 Pond Cypress OBL 14 1400 TB W16 3 Black Willow OBL 1 100 TB W16 3 Willow Oak OBL 2 200 TB W16 3 Am. Sycamore FACW 1 100 TB W19 2 Green Ash FACW 5 500 Swamp Chestnut TB W19 2 Oak FACW 4 400 TB W19 2 Am. Sycamore FACW 7 700

217

VEGETATION DATA (PART 4) ABOVEGROUND BIOMASS MEASUREMENTS AND LITTER DATA: Site; AB=Arabia Bay, BF=Barra Farms, DB=Dover Bay, DD=Dowd Dairy, HC=Hillcrest Bay, JB=Juniper Bay, SM1=Sliver Moon1, and TB=Twin Bays. Age=age of restoration (yrs.). Location=sample plot. Hydro=Hydrologic Group (1-4). ANSNAG=Basal area of snag trees. BA=Basal area of live tress. CWD=Coarse woody debris. GRM=Percent cover of graminoids. LTR=Litter thickness. SAPSD=saplings and seedlings. SHBVIN=Percent cover of shrubs and vines. TH=Potential tree height.

Site Age Location Hydro ASNAG BA CWD GRM LTR SAPSD SHBVIN TH (m2 (m2 (m3 (stms (yrs.) ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) (%) (cm) ha-1) (%) (m)

BF 23 VC1.2 1 10 30 0 2 6 100 25 15 BF 23 VC1.4 1 20 16 9 0 6 2500 50 15 BF 23 VC1.3 1 10 23 1 10 20 3200 75 18 BF 23 VC1.1 1 0 28 4 5 8 2300 10 19 BF 23 W13 1 20 46 4 1 18 6600 89 20 BF 23 W11 2 0 34 1 0 20 11800 16 15 BF 23 W7 2 0 30 1 0 13 4500 0 16 BF 23 W6 2 0 23 0 0 13 2300 50 14 BF 23 W2 2 0 46 0 0 6 8200 0 18 BF 23 W1 2 0 18 0 2 14 3000 7 14 BF 23 W4 3 0 39 11 0 22 1800 0 15 BF 23 W12 3 10 34 7 0 6 6400 0 24 BF 23 W20 3 0 46 15 0 11 10500 95 12 BF 23 W17 3 0 25 1 0 15 14700 10 15 BF 23 W10 3 20 18 6 5 18 2000 0 14 BF 23 W9 3 10 39 18 0 17 3800 0 . DB 21 W13 2 0 2 0 0 8 6300 75 11 DB 21 T2.5 2 10 25 2 0 13 500 100 17 DB 21 T2.5B 2 0 46 9 0 19 6600 2 13 DB 21 T2.2 2 0 28 5 0 13 9500 100 11

218

Site Age Location Hydro ASNAG BA CWD GRM LTR SAPSD SHBVIN TH (m2 (m2 (m3 (stms (yrs.) ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) (%) (cm) ha-1) (%) (m)

DB 21 N3.5 3 0 14 0 100 23 11700 0 9 DB 21 T3.4 3 0 16 0 100 20 10800 0 10 DB 21 T3.1 3 0 25 2 100 13 6700 47 7 DB 21 3.5B 3 20 14 0 100 11 12900 7 10 DB 21 T3.2 3 . . . . 13 . . . DB 21 W16 4 0 2 0 100 18 5000 20 4 DB 21 W15 4 0 9 0 85 20 2400 35 5 DB 21 W14 4 0 7 0 100 23 1000 15 7 DB 21 T4.5 4 0 32 0 0 17 2500 1 11 DB 21 T4.4 4 0 18 0 0 18 11500 15 10 DD 22 W2 1 0 53 18 0 5 500 100 21 DD 22 W4 1 20 34 24 0 10 1600 11 17 DD 22 W13 1 0 11 0 0 10 1200 5 13 DD 22 W36 1 10 23 5 5 6 800 76 15 DD 22 W99 1 0 21 2 2 8 2100 41 0 DD 22 N4 1 . . . . 5 . . . DD 22 W3 2 0 32 1 0 6 700 5 18 DD 22 W7 2 0 14 1 0 13 2300 19 17 DD 22 W37 2 0 41 10 0 5 800 100 23 DD 22 W34 2 10 25 10 0 8 900 27 16 DD 22 W35 2 0 32 1 5 13 1000 23 15 DD 22 W22 2 20 37 4 0 6 2200 0 19 DD 22 ON 2 . . . . 5 . . . DD 22 NR 2 . . . . 10 . . . DD 22 W8 3 0 28 1 10 8 800 22 18

219

Site Age Location Hydro ASNAG BA CWD GRM LTR SAPSD SHBVIN TH (m2 (m2 (m3 (stms (yrs.) ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) (%) (cm) ha-1) (%) (m)

DD 22 W9 3 0 39 2 0 10 2200 7 17 DD 22 W27 3 0 50 3 0 . 1200 0 18 DD 22 W18 3 0 25 0 5 11 3300 0 12 DD 22 W21 3 40 37 1 0 11 700 0 15 DD 22 W24 3 0 28 0 10 8 3500 0 18 DD 22 W14 3 10 46 1 10 11 9200 31 19 DD 22 W28 4 0 28 3 0 10 8664 0 17 DD 22 W29 4 0 28 1 0 13 2300 0 16 DD 22 W17 4 20 23 5 0 17 2200 0 13 DD 22 W20 4 30 48 3 5 19 1400 0 15 DD 22 W26 4 0 44 0 0 9 3100 20 17 DD 22 W15 4 0 32 1 25 13 6000 22 15 HC 15 N10 1 0 28 1 0 10 4500 47 14 HC 15 N4 1 40 57 3 0 13 1300 0 14 HC 15 N3 1 30 69 1 0 13 400 0 14 HC 15 H6A 1 0 32 0 0 9 2800 40 14 HC 15 N9 1 10 46 4 0 8 2400 10 13 HC 15 T21 2 0 23 1 0 11 2400 10 14 HC 15 T22 2 10 30 9 0 9 9300 20 17 HC 15 H5 2 0 37 0 0 13 6500 3 14 HC 15 H1 2 0 41 3 0 13 2600 2 15 HC 15 A2 2 0 37 1 0 10 2400 0 14 JB 15 W11 1 0 28 8.1 1 8 1800 20 20 JB 15 VC1.1 1 2 14 32.4 1 8 800 30 24 JB 15 64D 1 0 28 3.9 3 4 3300 20 20

220

Site Age Location Hydro ASNAG BA CWD GRM LTR SAPSD SHBVIN TH (m2 (m2 (m3 (stms (yrs.) ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) (%) (cm) ha-1) (%) (m)

JB 15 64C 1 2 23 3.8 5 7 3800 18 16 JB 15 W33 1 0 44 2 2 10 500 70 15 JB 15 17C 1 0 69 2.9 0 13 4200 100 18 JB 15 W44 1 7 37 7.4 2 8 900 85 20 JB 15 7C 2 5 44 18.9 15 9 5800 74 19 JB 15 12C 2 7 41 0.5 40 16 3100 0 19 JB 15 W26 2 2 21 3.5 10 8 1400 20 12 JB 15 W35 2 0 30 0.9 3 13 600 85 18 JB 15 W1 2 0 48 5.6 5 9 7400 11 18 JB 15 W36 2 5 39 5.8 20 10 300 15 18 JB 15 W31 2 2 48 7.4 35 13 1700 40 14 JB 15 W34 2 2 37 1.2 5 10 900 47 19 JB 15 W42 2 25 28 11.8 40 11 800 5 16 JB 15 W45 2 11 37 8.4 5 12 6600 5 18 JB 15 14C 2 2 18 76 3 10 500 30 21 JB 15 62C 3 2 25 9.1 20 10 400 40 18 JB 15 63C 3 18 32 2.8 15 8 12800 9 17 JB 15 W21 3 0 16 2.8 100 10 0 0 15 JB 15 W2 3 0 50 0.5 2 14 4100 10 20 JB 15 9D 3 18 11 3.7 35 10 7000 2 13 JB 15 9C 3 0 28 1.3 50 13 600 0 12 JB 15 1D 3 16 7 7.8 70 15 3700 3 10 JB 15 1C 3 11 39 2.6 75 8 900 1 15 JB 15 3C 3 9 18 0.5 40 4 5700 12 16 JB 15 4C 3 16 2 31.3 65 17 9000 9 14

221

Site Age Location Hydro ASNAG BA CWD GRM LTR SAPSD SHBVIN TH (m2 (m2 (m3 (stms (yrs.) ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) (%) (cm) ha-1) (%) (m)

JB 15 15C 3 23 34 22.1 40 18 7400 10 15 JB 15 2C 4 18 18 2.2 80 16 3300 0 12 JB 15 65C 4 0 5 0 15 17 5800 0 5 JB 15 65D 4 0 0 0 25 25 2000 0 2 JB 15 W24 4 2 14 2.3 50 11 400 0 11 JB 15 5C 4 7 7 8.1 100 8 1500 0 14 JB 15 6C 4 2 2 0 95 13 0 0 6 JB 15 W7 4 21 32 27.6 35 9 0 0 17 JB 15 W14 4 23 18 2.2 75 14 100 0 14 JB 15 8C 4 0 5 0 35 28 2300 0 9 JB 15 8D 4 23 5 9.3 98 11 2300 0 12 JB 15 10C 4 18 37 2.8 40 20 9300 6 11 JB 15 11C 4 0 2 0 95 13 500 0 10 JB 15 13C 4 2 2 0 40 15 7500 0 7 JB 15 13D 4 2 5 0 45 13 5500 15 7 JB 15 16C 4 16 28 1 75 10 2300 0 12 JB 15 61C 4 0 30 0.6 85 15 2500 0 12 JB 15 66C 4 0 0 0 20 25 900 0 6 JB 15 67C 4 7 9 0 45 23 6000 0 8 JB 15 68C 4 0 2 0 5 32 2000 0 4 JB 15 68D 4 0 2 0 10 25 2500 0 4 JB 15 W43 4 0 0 0 35 33 5800 0 2 SM1 9 W1 2 0 0 0 100 4 3100 50 3 SM1 9 W4 2 0 5 0 95 3 60 32 4 SM1 9 W6 2 0 16 0 95 5 1300 60 11

222

Site Age Location Hydro ASNAG BA CWD GRM LTR SAPSD SHBVIN TH (m2 (m2 (m3 (stms (yrs.) ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) (%) (cm) ha-1) (%) (m)

SM1 9 T2.2 2 0 2 0 95 6 1400 65 7 SM1 9 T2.1 2 0 2 0 95 4 2000 85 8 SM1 9 W7 3 0 2 0 85 5 8000 100 9 SM1 9 W8 3 0 0 0 100 5 11200 30 4 SM1 9 W9 3 0 0 0 100 5 4600 57 3 SM1 9 W5 3 0 2 0 100 8 3500 56 5 SM1 9 W3 3 0 0 1 100 6 6200 50 4 SM1 9 W2 4 0 0 0 100 8 3500 20 4 SM1 9 T4.2 4 0 0 0 100 8 13300 30 3 SM1 9 T4.3 4 0 0 0 100 8 19700 32 3 TB 7 W2 2 0 5 0 100 5 1300 45 9 TB 7 W19 2 0 9 0 100 8 1600 45 6 TB 7 W14 2 0 0 0 100 3 2800 0 3 TB 7 W12 2 0 0 0 100 5 3400 10 7 TB 7 W13 2 0 0 0 100 3 2400 42 3 TB 7 W15 3 0 2 0 100 5 1900 12 4 TB 7 W16 3 0 0 0 100 5 1800 75 3 TB 7 W5 3 0 0 0 100 8 2500 5 6 TB 7 W8 3 0 7 0 70 5 1800 0 5 TB 7 W11 3 0 5 0 100 8 1600 50 5

223

APPENDIX E

R and SAS Code

224

R CODE:

1. Multiple Additive Model:

>mlr<-lm((Y) ~ (X1) + (X2), data =…)

2. Quadratic Model:

>mlr<-lm((Y) ~ (X1) + I(X^2), data =…)

3. Interactive Model:

>mlr<-lm((Y) ~ (X1) + (X2) + I(X1*X2), data =…)

SAS CODE:

1. Confidence Intervals:

proc means data = work.(data set) lclm uclm; class (group); var (Y); run;

2. ANOVA (balanced data):

proc glm data = work.(data set); class hydro; model (Y) = hydro; means hydro / tukey; run;

3. ANOVA (unbalanced data):

proc glm data = work.(data set); class hydro; model (Y) = hydro; lsmeans hydro / pdiff adjust = tukey; run;

4. ANCOVA (unbalanced data):

proc glm data = work.(data set); class hydro; model (Fepaint) = hydro Cmass; lsmeans hydro / pdiff adjust = tukey; run;

225

5. Linear Model: ( /noint statement = intercept set to zero)

proc glm data = work.(data set); model (Y) = (X)/noint; run;

6. Quadratic Model:

proc glm data = work.(data set); model (Y) = (X) (X*X)/noint; run;

7. Multiple Additive model:

proc glm data = work.(data set); model (Y) = (X1) (X2) (Xi); run;

8. Interactive model 1:

proc glm data = work.(data set); model (Y) = (X1) (X2) (X1*X2)/noint; run;

9. Interactive model 2:

proc glm data = work.(data set); model (Y) = (X1) (X2) (X3) (X1*X2*X3)/noint; run;

10. Nonlinear Regression:

proc nlin data = work.(data set) Plot = fit; parms a = …. k = ….; model litter = a * (1-exp(-k*age)); run;

11. T-Test:

proc ttest = work.(data set); class (group); var (Y); run;

226

APPENDIX F

Site Maps and Photographs

227

Fig AF 1. Sample locations at Arabia Bay.

228

Arabia Bay

Before the entire site “wetted” up

(03/05/2020)

229

Arabia Bay

After the entire site “wetted” up

(07/15/2020)

230

AB1 AB2

AB3 AB4

231

AB5 AB6

AB7 Fragic Properties 232

AB9 AB8

AB10 AB11

233

Fig AF 2. Sample locations at Barra Farms (Harrison Bay).

234

Hydrologic Group 1 Hydrologic Group 2

Hydrologic Group 3 Reference Like Area

235

BFW13 - Hydro.1 BFVC1.1 - Hydro.1

BFVC1.3 - Hydro.1 BFW2 - Hydro.2

236

BFW6 - Hydro.2 BFW7 - Hydro.2

BFW4 - Hydro.3 BFW9 - Hydro.3

237

BFW10 - Hydro.3 Organic Bodies

Reference Like Area

238

Fig AF 3. Sample locations at Dover Bay.

239

Hydrologic Group 1 Hydrologic Group 2

Hydrologic Group 3 Hydrologic Group 4

240

DBVC1.3 - Hydro. 1 DBVC1.4 - Hydro. 1

DBVC1.5 - Hydro. 1 DBW13 - Hydro. 2

241

DBT2.2 - Hydro. 2 DBT2.5 - Hydro. 2

DBT3.1 - Hydro. 3 DBT3.2 - Hydro. 3

242

DBT3.4 - Hydro. 3 DBW14 - Hydro. 4

DBW15 - Hydro. 4 DBW16 - Hydro. 4

243

Fig AF 4. Sample locations at Dowd Dairy.

244

Hydrologic Group 1 Hydrologic Group 2

Hydrologic Group 3 Hydrologic Group 4

245

DDW2 - Hydro. 1 DDW4 - Hydro. 1

DDW13 - Hydro. 1 DDW7 - Hydro. 2

246

DDW34 - Hydro. 2 DDW35 - Hydro. 2

DDNR2 - Hydro. 2 DDW8(orig) - Hydro. 2

247

DDW9 - Hydro. 3 DDW14 - Hydro. 3

DDW15 - Hydro. 4 DDW17 - Hydro. 4

248

DDW20 - Hydro. 4

249

Fig AF 5. Sample locations at Hillcrest Bay.

250

Hydrologic Group 1 Hydrologic Group 2

251

HC3 - Hydro. 1 HC4 - Hydro. 1

HC10 - Hydro. 1

252

HC1 - Hydro. 2 HC2 - Hydro. 2

HC5 - Hydro. 2

253

Fig AF 6. Sample locations at Juniper Bay.

254

Hydrologic Group 1 Hydrologic Group 2

Hydrologic Group 3 Hydrologic Group 4

255

JB1C - Hydro. 3 JB1D

JB3C - Hydro. 3 JB3D

256

JB4C - Hydro. 3 JB4D

JB5C - Hydro. 4 JB5D

257

JB6C - Hydro. 4 JB6D

JB7C - Hydro. 2 JB7D

258

JB8*C - Hydro. 4 JB8D

JB9C - Hydro. 3 JB9D

259

JB10C - Hydro. 4 JB10D

JB11D JB11C - Hydro. 4 260

JB13*C - Hydro. JB13D 4

JB14C - Hydro. 2 JB14D

261

JB15C - Hydro. 3 JB15D

JB16C - Hydro. 4 JB16D

262

JB17D JB17C - Hydro. 1

JB61C - Hydro. 4 JB61D

263

JB62C - Hydro. 3 JB62D

JB63C - Hydro. 3 JB63D

264

JB65*C - Hydro. 4 JB65D

JB66*C - Hydro. 4 JB66D

265

JB67C - Hydro. 4 JB67D

JB68C - Hydro. 4 JB68D

266

Fig AF 7. Sample locations at Sliver Moon 1.

267

Hydrologic Group 2 Hydrologic Group 3

Hydrologic Group 4

268

SM1W1 - Hydro. 2 SM1W4 - Hydro. 2

SM1W6 - Hydro. 2 SM1W3 - Hydro. 3

269

SM1W5 - Hydro. 3 SM1W8 - Hydro. 3

SM1W2 - Hydro. 4 SM1T4.2 - Hydro. 4

270

Fig AF 8. Sample locations at Sliver Moon 2.

271

272

SM2Pa1 SM2Pa1.5

SM2Pa2 SM2Pa2.5

273

SM2Pa3 SM2Pa3.5

SM2Ra1 SM2Ra1.5

274

SM2Ra2 SM2Ra2.5

SM2Ra3 SM2Ra4

275

SM2Ra5

276

Table AF 9. Sample locations at Twin Bays.

277

TBW2 - Hydro. 2 TBW14 - Hydro. 2

TBW19 - Hydro. 2

278

TBW8 - Hydro. 3 TBW11 - Hydro. 3

TBW15 - Hydro. 3

279

Appendix G

Pedon Descriptions

(Colors are for moist soil)

280

Arabia Bay Pedons

Sampled on 03/05/2020; cloudy and rainy conditions; site was recently planted (seedlings/ very small saplings), and ditches were plugged.

AB1:

Ap1--0 to 3 inches; very dark gray (5Y 3/1) sandy loam; weak coarse granular structure. Ap2--3 to 9 inches; very dark gray (5Y 3/1) sandy loam; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% mixed subsurface material within horizon. Btg--9 to 14+ inches; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) clay loam; common medium faint gray (10YR 6/1) iron depletions along pores; 20% distinct light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); about 4% strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) plinthite nodules. 30% A horizon material at the top of horizon

AB2:

Ap1--0 to 6 inches; gray (10YR 5/1) sandy loam; weak coarse granular structure Ap2--6 to 14 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. 5% mixed subsurface material. Btg--14 to 16+ inches; gray (10YR 6/1) loam; about 4% (2mm-5mm) strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) plinthite nodules; charcoal fragments are present.

AB3:

Ap1--0 to 5 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) loam; 2% mixed subsurface soil Ap2--5 to 11.5 inches: dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) loam; 20% mixed subsurface soil Btg--11.5-15+ inches; light grayish brown (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam; common medium faint gray (2.5Y 6/1) iron depletions in old root channels; common prominent red (2.5YR 4/6) masses of oxidized iron; 20% mixed A horizon material; about 4% strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) and strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) plinthite nodules; 2% ironstone nodules ; charcoal fragments are present.

AB4:

Ap1--0 to 5 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) loam; weak coarse granular structure; 5% mixed subsurface soil Ap2--5 to 11 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 15% mixed subsurface soil. Btg--11 to 15 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam; common medium faint gray (2.5Y 6/1) iron depletions in old root channels; common prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron; about 4% (2-5mm) strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) plinthite nodules; 10% mixed A horizon material.

AB5:

Ap1--0 to 3 inches; very dark gray (3/1) sandy loam; weak coarse granular structure.

281

Ap2--3 to 12 inches; very dark gray (3/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% mixed subsurface material. Btg--12+ inches; gray (2.5Y 6/1) sandy clay loam; 40% dark gray (2.5Y 4/1); many coarse light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) bodies of possible mixed subsoil; charcoal fragments are present.

AB6:

Ap1--0 to 3 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure. Ap2--3 to 11.5 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 20% mixed subsurface soil. Btg--11.5 to 14+ inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam; common medium faint gray (2.5Y 6/1) iron depletions in old root channels; common medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron; 10% A horizon material on ped surfaces and in old root channels.

AB7:

Ap1--0 to 3 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam; weak coarse granular structure. Ap2--3 to 10 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 20% mixed subsurface soil. Bt/Btx--10 to 14+ inches; 70% pale brown (2.5Y 6/3) clay loam (Bt); moderate medium subangular blocky structure; 30% strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam (Btx); moderate fine prismatic structure; 30% brittle; common distinct gray (2.5Y 6/1) iron depletions in old root channels; common prominent red (2.5YR 4/6) iron concentrations; few gray clay zones; about 4% (2-5mm) strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) plinthite nodules.

AB8:

Ap1--0 to 3 inches; gray (5Y 4/1) sandy loam; weak coarse granular structure. Ap2--3 to 11 inches; very dark gray (5Y 3/1) sandy loam; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 20% 2-10mm mixed subsurface soil Bt--11 to 16+ inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) clay loam; common faint light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) iron depletions in old root channels; many strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) zones; about 4% strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) plinthite nodules; 30% A horizon material present

AB9:

Ap1--0 to 3 inches; very dark gray (5Y 3/1); weak coarse granular structure; 5% mixed subsurface soil Ap2--3 to 8 inches; very dark gray (5Y 3/1); weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 15% mixed subsurface soil Bt--8 to 14 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) clay loam; common prominent light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) iron depletions in old root channels and common prominent light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) iron depletions in old root channels; about 4% (2-5mm) strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) plinthite nodules; 10% A horizon material present; charcoal fragments are present.

282

AB10:

Ap1--0 to 3 inches; very dark gray (5Y 3/1) sandy loam; weak coarse granular structure. Ap2--3 to 10 inches; very dark gray (5Y 3/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. --10 to 15+ inches; very dark gray (N 3/) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; many fine to coarse light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) bodies of subsurface soil; charcoal present.

AB11: Water table 9.5” from soil surface. Only location where a water table was found.

Ap1--0 to 5 inches; dark gray (4/1) sandy loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure. Ap2--5 to 11.5 inches; dark gray (4/1) sandy loam; subangular blocky structure --11.5-16.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1 and N 2.5/); 10% pale yellow (2.5Y 7/4) bodies of mixed subsurface soil; very dark gray (3/1) diffusing off black (N 2.5/); fine to medium charcoal fragments are present.

Barra Farms (Harrison Bay)

BFW1: Sampled on (01/30/2020); partly sunny conditions;

Oi--0 to 4.5 inches; partially decomposed leaves and twigs. Oe--4.5 to 5.5 inches; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs. Oa1--5.5 to 8.5 inches; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; weak medium granular structure; 80% organic coated sand grains. Oa2--8.5 to 13 inches; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; weak medium subangular blocky structure; 90% coated grains. OA--13 to 21+ inches: very dark brown (10YR 2/2) mucky sandy loam; 1-2cm moderate medium subangular blocky structure; common medium gray (10YR 6/1) zones; charcoal fragments are present.

BFW4: Sampled on (01/31/2020); cloudy conditions; ponded 11”.

Oi--0 to 7 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon was colored during summer 2020. Oe--7 to 8.5 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs infused in a root mat; horizon was colored during summer 2020. Oa1--8.5 to 12.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; broken face and rubbed; weak coarse granular structure; soil is structureless massive at the top horizon boundary. Oa2--12.5 to 19.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; few strong very coarse very dark brown (10YR 2/2) rounded sapric bodies (almost like nodules); common fine organic bodies. OA--19.5 to 23 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) mucky sandy loam; rotten wood and charcoal present.

283

BFW6: Sampled on (01/30/2020); partly sunny conditions.

Oi--0 to 4; partially decomposed leaves and twigs Oe--4 to 5 inches; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs OA--5 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loamy sand; weak medium granular structure; few uncoated sand grains. Ap--8 to 14 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; very few uncoated sand grains. A--14 to 19 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; common medium distinct gray (10YR 5/1) iron depletions in linings of pores; common fine and medium distinct and prominent dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) and (5YR 3/4) masses of oxidized iron; possible bodies of ortstein at 15”.

BFW7: Sampled on (01/30/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table 8” below the OA;

Oi--0 to 3.5 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) and black (10YR 2/1); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon was colored during summer 2020. Oe--3.5 to 5 inches; reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; root mat present; horizon was colored during summer 2020. OA--5 to 10 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure. Oa--10 to 14.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. O’A--14.5 to 20+ inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular structure; 5% (5mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) zones.

BFW9: Sampled on (01/31/2020); cloudy conditions; 9.5” ponded; trees creating microtopography.

Oi--0 to 5.5 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon was colored during summer 2020. Oe--5.5-6.5 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon was colored during summer 2020. OA1--6.5-12.5 inches: black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak medium to very coarse granular structure; structureless massive at the immediate surface. OA2--12.5 to 17.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. OA3--17.5 to 23+ inches; black (2.5Y 2.5/1) mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal wood fragments are present; roots to bottom.

BFW10: Sampled on (01/31/2020); cloudy conditions; 10” ponded.

Oi--0 to 5 inches; (5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--5 to 7 inches; (5YR 3/3); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs mixed in a root mat; horizon colored during summer 2020.

284

Oa1--7 to 11 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak medium and coarse granular structure; structureless massive at the immediate surface.

Oa2--11 to 16 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; few (5mm) black (2.5Y 2.5/1) organic bodies present. OA--11 to 24 inches; (2.5Y 2.5/1) mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present; roots to bottom.

BFW13: Sampled on (01/30/2020); partly sunny conditions;

Oi--0 to 4 inches; partially decomposed pine needles Oe--4 to 7 inches; moderately decomposed pine needles A1--7 to 13 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. A2--13 to 21 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; likely mixed subsurface material-- 4% (2-5mm) dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4); 2% (2mm) gray (2.5Y 5/1); 10% (5-10mm) light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) mixed in plow layer; IRIS tube data suggest features are relict. --21-23 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) sandy loam; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; 5% (3-5mm) gray (2.5Y 5/1) zones; coarse fragment found.

BFVC1.3: Sampled on (01/31/2020); cloudy conditions; spodic horizon at 23”.

Oi--0 to 4 inches; partially decomposed pine needles Oe--4 to 8 inches; moderately decomposed pine needles A1--8 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 75% organic coated sand grains. A2--12 to 16 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; 65% organic coated sand grains; 5% nearly 100% coated black (10YR 2/1) organic films. E--16 to 20+ inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; 10% dark brown (7.5YR 3/2); moderate fine subangular blocky structure.

BFVC1.1: Sampled on (01/30/2020); partly sunny conditions; thin 1.5” Bh at 14”.

Oi--0 to 2inches; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Oe--2 to 3 inches; moderately decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. A1--3 to 5 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) and gray (10YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; 5% 2mm light gray (10YR 7/1) zones; 50% organically coated sand grains. A2--5 to 9 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loamy sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. A3--9 to 14 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1); loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure. Bw/Bh--14 to 20+ inches; 60% dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) and 40% dark brown (7.5YR 3/2); loamy sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% 10mm grayish brown (10YR 5/2) zones; very thin Bh at top horizon boundary; ortstein nodules are present within the Bh at the top horizon boundary. 285

BFREF: Sampled on 01/20/2020; sunny; water table 35” below top of Oi horizon.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; partially decomposed pine needles. Oe--3 to 6 inches; moderately decomposed pine needles. Oa--6 to 11 inches; highly decomposed wood, pine needles, and leaves mixed within a root mat. A1--11 to 15 inches; black (N 2.5/0) loamy sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 85% organic coated sand grains. A2--15 to 19 inches; black (N 2.5/0) loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; 4% (5-10mm) gray (10YR 6/1); 80% organic coated sand grains. Eg--19 to 25+ inches; gray (2.5Y 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; 2% mm (10YR 7/1) oval splotches of organic matter depletions; 30% (1X3”) black (N 2.5/0).

Dover Bay Pedons

DB1.3: Sampled on 02/07/2020; partly sunny conditions; water table 5.5” from mineral surface

Oi--0 to 2 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); partially decomposed pine needles and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Ap--2 to 4 inches; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 50% organic coated sand grains. Bh/E--4 to 9.5 inches; (50% 7.5YR 4/1 and 50% 7.5YR 6/1) sand; weak medium subangular structure; 20% very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) bodies; 60% organic coated sand grains. --9.5 to 16+ inches: black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure.

DB1.4: Sampled on 02/07/2020; partly sunny conditions; water table 8” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 1 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/3); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Ap--1 to 2.5 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/2) sand; structureless single grain. Eg--2.5 to 5.5 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain. Bh1--5.5 to 9.5 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1); sandy loam; 2-3cm moderate subangular blocky structure; firm; 5% black (10YR 2/1) organic films. Bh2--9.5 to 15.5+ inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sandy loam; 1-2cm weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure.

DB1.5: Sampled on 02/07/2020; partly sunny conditions; water table 6” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; brown (7.5YR 5/4); partially decomposed pine needles and twigs. Ap--2 to 5.5 inches; dark gray (7.5YR 4/1) sand; weak medium granular structure. Bh/E--5.5 to 15.5 inches; 65% dark gray (7.5YR 4/1) and 30% gray (7.5YR 6/1) sand; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; 5% (5-10mm) very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) bodies.

286

DB2.2: Sampled on (02/20/2020); freezing rain; cloudy conditions; water table at mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; brownish yellow(10YR 6/6); partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--2 to 5 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; root mat present; horizon colored during summer 2020. --5-10.5 inches; dark gray (7.5YR 4/1) sand; 10% 2-5mm (7.5YR 5/2) zones; 60% organic coated sand grains --0.5-18+ inches; 30% very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) and 30% dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand; 40% 1-2” wide black (10YR 2/1); 15% strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron.

DB2.5: Sampled on (02/07/2020); little sun from canopy cover; water table 2” from the surface.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--2 to 5 inches; black (5YR 2.5/1); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. OA1--5 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loamy sand; weak medium and coarse granular structure. OA2--8 to 13 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure. --13-18+ inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-5mm) grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) zones.

DBW13: Sampled on (02/07/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table at mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3); partially decomposed sphagnum moss fibers; horizon colored during summer 2020. A--3 to 6 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak medium and coarse granular structure; nearly 100% organic coated sand grains. Eg--6 to 11 inches; gray (2.5Y 5/1) sand; structureless single grain; 5% (5-10mm) black (10YR 2/1). Bh--11 to 16 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1) loamy sand; 1-2cm weak subangular blocky structure. E’g--16 to 19 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) sand; structureless single grain.

DB3.1: Sampled on (02/20/2020); freezing rain and cloudy conditions; water table 3” below surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; very dusky red (2.5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--3 to 5 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. A--5 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; structureless massive. OA1--8 to 17 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; structureless massive; 10% (2-5mm) brown (7.5YR 5/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

287

OA2--17 to 22 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; structureless massive; 5% (2-5mm) (7.5YR 5/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

DB3.2: Sampled on (02/20/2020); freezing rain and cloudy conditions.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; partially decomposed leaves and twigs. Oe--2 to 5 inches; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; root mat present. OA1--5 to 8.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky loamy sand. OA2--8.5 to 17 inches; (10YR 2/1); mucky loamy sand; 10% (2-5mm) gray (7.5YR 6/1) zones. --17-22+ inches; 70% black (7.5YR 2.5/1) and 30% gray (7.5YR 5/1); 15% (10mm) gray (7.5YR 6/1) zones.

DB3.4: Sampled on (03/03/2020); partly cloudy conditions; water table below Oi; microrelief common ~50% inundation in micro-lows.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--3 to 8 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; root mat present; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oa1--8 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1); sapric material; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure. Oa2--12 to 18 inches; black (10YR 2/1); sapric material; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% (10mm) black (N 2.5/0) organic films on ped surfaces and in linings of pores. A--18 to 22 inches; black (10YR 2/1); sandy loam; 10% (2-5mm) dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) zones.

DBW14: Sampled on (03/03/2020); partly cloudy conditions; water table at surface.

Oi1--0 to 1 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/6); partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oi2--1 to 9 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed sphagnum fibers, leaves, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oa1--9 to 14 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa2--14 to 20 inches; black (10YR 2/1); sapric material; 1-3cm moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa3--20 to 25 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1); sapric material; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

DBW15: Sampled on (02/20/2020); cloudy and rainy; water table at 8” below the surface.

Oi--0 to 6 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--6 to 8 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020.

288

OA1--8 to 11 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky mineral; structureless massive. OA2--11 to 16.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky mineral; weak medium subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-5mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa--16.5 to 23+ inches; black (10YR 2/1); sapric material; 5% (2-5mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

DBW16: Sampled on (02/20/2020); cloudy and rainy; ponded 9”.

Oi--0 to 7 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves and twigs; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6 ) Oe horizon present at slightly different location during summer 2020. Oa1--7 to 11 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Oa2--11 to 16 inches; (10YR 2/1) sapric material; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. Oa3--16 to 22 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1) sapric material; 5% (2-5mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) zones.

Dowd Dairy Pedons

DDW2: Sampled on (01/07/2020); partly sunny conditions; Btg horizon with concentrations present under OA2 horizon.

Oi--0 to 1.5 inches; partially decomposed leaves and twigs. Oe--1.5 to 2 inches; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs. Oa--2 to 5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak and moderate medium and coarse granular structure. OA1--5 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2-4% dark red and/or dark red masses of oxidized iron. OA2--12 to 20+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) mucky loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (2mm) gray (10YR 5/1 and 6/1) iron depletions; 2-4% orange red and yellowish red masses of oxidized iron; 8% mixed subsoil with chroma <2 matrix; IRIS tube data suggest redoximorphic features are relict.

DDW4: Sampled on 01/28/2020; partially sunny conditions.

Oi--0 to 3.5 inches; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs Oe--3.5 to 4 inches; moderately decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs A1--4 to 7.5 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure. A2--7.5 to 14 inches; very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) sandy loam; 1-2cm moderate fine and medium subangular blocky structure; 15% mixed subsoil present. Bt--14 to 18+ inches; light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) sandy clay loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular block structure; 2% strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron; 4% dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6).

289

DDN4: Sampled on 11/23/2019; cloudy and rainy conditions; original location georeferenced in Google Earth.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. A1--2 to 4 inches; dark grayish brown (4/2) sandy loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure. A2--4 to 10 inches; grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; few faint brown (7.5YR 4/4) masses of oxidized iron; 15% 10mm gray (2.5Y 5/1) possible mixed subsurface material. Bt--10 to 17+ inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) clay loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (2-3mm) light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) iron depletions; 10- 20% yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) and (10YR 5/8) masses of oxidized iron; (1 out of 5) positive reactions with alpha, alpha dipyridal dye.

DDW7: Sampled on 01/07/2020; partly sunny conditions; water table 7.5” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/4); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--3 to 5 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs. A1--5 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak coarse granular blocky structure; 2% (10YR 6/1) zones at immediate surface; direct surface 85% organic coated sand grains; mid- horizon nearly 100% organic coated sand grains. A2--8 to 16 inches; black (10YR 2/1); loamy sand; weak medium and coarse subangular block structure. A3--16 to 20+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1); loamy sand; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% gray (10YR 5/1) zones.

DDW8 (orig): Sampled on 11/23/2019; cloudy and rainy conditions; original location georeferenced in Google Earth.

Oi1--0 to 2 inches; brown; fresh leaf litter from hardwood species. Oi2--2 to 5 inches; black; partially decomposed leaves and twigs. Oe--5 to 7 inches; very dark brown; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; root mat. OA1--7 to 10 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky loam; moderate coarse and very coarse granular structure. OA2--10 10 17 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (1-3mm) gray (10YR 5/1) iron depletions; 2% (1-2mm) dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) masses of oxidized iron; 2% dark gray (10YR 4/1) and gray (5/1) mixed subsurface material. OA3--17-20+ inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky loam; 2cm moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% gray (10YR 5/1) iron depletions; 2% (1-4mm) dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) masses of oxidized iron; 10-20mm charcoal fragments.

290

DDW8 (actual): Sampled on 07/22/2020; partly sunny; almost full canopy cover.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); partially decomposed leaves and twigs. Oe--2 to 3 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs. OA1--3-8 inches; black (10YR 2/1): mucky loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure. OA2--8-18 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky loam; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% mixed (2mm-10mm) dark gray (10YR 4/1) and gray (5/1) mixed subsurface material. OA3--18+ inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure.

DDW9: Sampled on 01/26/2020; partly cloudy conditions; sunset; ponded 0.5” ponded; adjacent areas ponded 4”.

Oi--0 to 4 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--4 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; weak coarse granular structure; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye. A2--8 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. A3--12 to 18+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1); loamy sand/ sandy loam line; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (2-3mm) (10YR 5/2) zones.

DDW13: Sampled on 01/26/2020; partly sunny conditions.

Oi--0 to 3.5 inches; partially decomposed leaves and twigs. Oe--3.5 to 4 inches; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs. A1--4 to 6.5 inches; black (N 2.5/0); loamy sand; weak coarse granular structure; 75% organic coated sand grains. A2--6.5 to 13 inches; black (N 2.5/0); loamy sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% (2-15mm) gray and light gray (10YR 6/1) and (7/1) zones; 75% organic coated sand grains. E--13 to 20 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; 3% (2-3mm) light gray (10YR 7/1) zones; top boundary 40% A material; bottom boundary 30% Bh material. Bh--20 to 25 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1); loamy sand; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; 5% dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) bodies.

DDW14: Sampled on 01/26/2020; partly sunny conditions; water table 3” below mineral surface; microtopography common; micro-lows ponded 1-2”; sphagnum moss present.

Oi--0 to 2.5 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR4/2); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--2.5 to 4.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs mixed in root mat; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--4.5 to 8 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridyl dye.

291

A2--8 to 16.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; 1-2cm moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure.

DDW15: Sampled on 01/26/2020; partly sunny conditions; ponded 5”; area may have been scraped.

Oi--0 to 4 inches; black; partially decomposed leaves and twigs Oe--4 to 5 inches; dark brown; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; root mat present. Ag--5 to 12 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy loam; granular structure; positive reaction with alpha alpha dipyridyl. Btg--12 to 19 inches; gray (10YR 5/1) heavy sandy loam; subangular blocky structure; 4% (2mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron depletions.

DDW17: Sampled on 01/26/2020; partly sunny conditions; ponded 12”.

Oi--0 to 6.5 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed leaves; root mat present; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--6.5 to 12.5 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam; granular structure. A2--12.5 to 18.5 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loam; 2% (2-5mm) dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) depletions; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridyl dye. Btg--18.5-24.5 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loam; 2% (2-5mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) iron depletions; thin very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) layer.

DDW20: Sampled on 01/26/2020; partly sunny conditions; ponded 11.5”.

Oi--0 to 6 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--6 to 7.5 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--7.5 to 16.5 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridyl dye. A2--16.5 to 25.5 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam; 2% (1-2mm) dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) and grayish brown (10YR 5/2) iron depletions; charcoal fragments are present. Btg--25.5 to 29.5 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loam; 10% (2-10mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) iron depletions.

DDW29: Sampled on 01/26/2020; partly sunny conditions; ponded 11.5”.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; black (10YR 2/1); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--3 to 5 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; root matt present; horizon colored during summer 2020. OA1--5 to 9 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); mucky sandy loam; weak medium granular structure; subsurface material mixed in horizon. OA2--5 to 19 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); mucky loam; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; subsurface material mixed in horizon.

292

DD34: Sampled on 01/07/2020; partly sunny conditions; water table 16” below mineral surface.

Oi--0-2.5 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--2.5-3 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--3 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular and moderate fine and medium subangular blocky structure; 2% (2-5mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 85% organic coated sand grains. A2--8 to 14 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; 1-2cm weak and moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-5mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 95% organic coated sand grains. A3--14 to 20+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loamy sand; 1-3 weak subangular blocky structure; 5% 2-5mm (10YR 7/1) zones; nearly 100% organic coated sand grains.

DDW35: Sampled on (01/07/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table 5” below mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--3 to 5 inches; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--5 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; 2-5mm weak medium and coarse granular structure; 2% (2-5mm) gray (10YR 5/1 and 6/1) zones; 90% organic coated sand grains. A2--8 to 16 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (2-5mm) gray (10YR 5/1 and 6/1) zones; 95% organically coated sand grains. Eg--16 to 20 inches; gray (10YR 6/1); sand; structureless single grain; 2% (2-5mm) (10YR 7/1) oval splotches of organic matter depletions; during IRIS tube installation (~mid feb. 2020) E horizon was not present, E horizon looked like a Bh; area was ponded (~1”); during summer 2020 an E horizon was found with a lower value; the topography of the horizon boundary might be wavy, irregular, and/or broken at this plot.

DDNR1: Sampled on (11/23/2019); cloudy and rainy conditions; location near the NW rim in between well 4 and well 8; adjacent to (DDNR2) location.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; partially decomposed leaves and twigs. A1--2 to 4 inches; black (N 2.5/0) loamy sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 2% (1-3mm) gray (10YR 6/1) and light gray (10YR7/1) zones; 90% organic sand grains. A2--4 to 13 inches; black (N 2.5/0); sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 3% (1-3mm) gray (10YR 5/1) iron depletions; 10% (1-5mm) yellowish red (5YR 4/6) and dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) masses of oxidized iron; 10% black organic films in linings of pores; 15% mixed subsurface material (/2 /4); 95% organic coated sand grains. --13-17+ inches; loamy sand/mucky loamy sand line; structureless massive; 10% yellowish red (5YR 4/6) and dark reddish brown (5YR ¾) masses of oxidized iron; nearly 100% organic coated sand grains.

293

DDNR2: Sampled on (01/27/2020); partly sunny conditions; location near the NW rim in between well 4 and well 8; adjacent to (DDNR1) location.

Oi--0 to 4 inches; partially decomposed leaves and twigs. A--4 to 6.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak medium and coarse granular structure; immediate surface 50% organic coated grains; remainder of horizon 70% organic coated sand grains. --6.5-14.5 inches; 40% black (10YR 2/1) and 40% black (7.5YR 2.5/1) loamy sand; 20% dark brown (7.5YR 3/4, 4/4, and 2.5/2); few mottles may be iron concentrations (7.5YR 4/4); 90% organic coated sand grains; charcoal fragments are present. --14.5-19.5+ inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; 2cm moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% mixed subsurface material (/3 and /2); charcoal fragments are present.

Hillcrest Bay Pedons

HCW1: Sampled on (02/14/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table 5” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); partially decomposed pine needles, leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--3 to 5 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/3); moderately decomposed pine needles; leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--5 to 10 inches; very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) sandy loam; 2-5mm; weak medium and coarse granular structure; 2% mixed subsurface material. A2--10 to 15 inches; very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% mixed subsurface material. Btg--15 to 20+ inches; gray (2.5Y 6/1) clay loam; 10% brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) in root channels; some yellow (10YR7/6) in matrix; 5% 10mm very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1).

HCW2: Sampled on (02/14/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table 6” from mineral surface; faint water marks and burn scars on trees.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); partially decomposed pine needles, leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--3 to 4 inches; brown (10YR 4/3); moderately decomposed pine needles, leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--4 to 7.5 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) sandy loam; weak coarse granular structure. A2--7.5 to 12.5 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye; episaturated; 10% mixed subsurface material. Btg--12.5 to 18+ inches; gray (2.5Y 6/1) clay loam; 2% (2mm) light gray (2.5Y 7/1) iron depletions around plinthite and some in root channels; 20% yellow (10YR 7/6) iron concentrations; 10% (2-5mm) brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) plinthite nodules; 2% (3mm) red (2.5YR 4/6) ironstone nodules; no reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye.

294

HCN3: Sampled on (02/14/2020); partly sunny conditions; water marks with dried algae on all trees.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); partially decomposed pine needles, leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--3 to 5 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3); moderately decomposed pine needles, leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--5 to 9 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) sandy loam; weak coarse granular structure; 5% (2mm) gray (2.5Y 6/1) mixed subsurface material. A2--9 to 15 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% gray (2.5Y 6/1) mixed subsurface material; 5% strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) in mixed subsurface material. Btg--15 to 20+ inches; gray (2.5Y 6/1) clay loam; 10% strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron in root channels; 5% (2-5mm) brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) plinthite nodules; brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) and yellow (10YR 7/6) zones.

HCN4: Sampled on (02/14/2020); partly sunny conditions; value 3’s were marginal.

HCW5: Sampled on (02/14/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table 10” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) and dark brown (7.5YR 3/3); partially decomposed pine needles, leaves and twigs. Oe--3 to 5 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4); partially decomposed pine needles, leaves and twigs. A1--5 to 9 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) sandy loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure; 1% (1-2mm) yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron in root channels. A2--9 to 14 inches; very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (1-2mm) yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron in root channels; 10% (1-5mm) gray (2.5Y 6/1); 2% (5mm) rounded quartz gravel. Eg--14 to 20 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (1-2mm) strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron in root channels.

295

HCN10: Sampled on (02/14/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table 4” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3); partially decomposed leaves and twigs. Oe--3 to 4 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs. A1--4 to 7 inches; dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) sandy loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure; 2% mixed subsurface material. A2--7-12.5 inches; (2.5Y 3/1); sandy loam; 1-2cm moderate subangular blocky structure; 5% 1- 2cm mixed subsurface material. Btg--12.5-18+ inches; gray (2.5Y 6/1) clay loam; 5% strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron; 10% brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) masses of oxidized iron in root channels; 10% yellow (10YR 7/6) in the matrix; 10% brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) (1-5mm) plinthite; 5% (2- 5mm) very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) in root channels.

Juniper Bay Pedons

**Most mineral particle size data was verified by pairing horizons to samples collected by Ewing et al. (2012).

JB1C: Sampled on 07/03/2019 by CMM; water table 17” from surface; partly sunny; closed canopy.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; partially decomposed leaves and twigs Oe--2 to 3 inches; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs. OA1-- 3 to 5.5 inches; black (N 2.5/) mucky loamy sand; weak coarse and very coares granular structure; 5% (3mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 90% organic coated grains. OA2-- 5.5 to 11.5; black (N 2.5/) mucky loamy sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 95% coated grains. OA3-- 11.5 to 14.5 inches; black N(2.5/) mucky sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 30% gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 90% organic coated grains. Bh1--14.5 to 19.5 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 30% gray (7.5YR 6/1) zones. Bh2-- 19.5 to 26 inches; (7.5YR 3/3) sand; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; 15% (2-3mm) brown (7.5YR 5/2) zones; charcoal present; roots stop in middle of horizon. Bw--26 to 36.5 inches; (10YR 4/4) sand; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; 10% (1-2mm) pale brown (10YR 6/3) zones; wood fragments are present. C--36.5 to 39.5 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand; structureless single grain; 5% (1- 2mm) pale brown (10YR 6/3) zones.

JB1D: Sampled on 6/27/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; described at crest location in a closed canopy; water table 2cm from surface.

Oi1--0 to 2 inches; mossy peat; partially decomposed sphagnum fibers Oi2--2 to 5 inches; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs

296

Oa1--5 to 10 inches; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure and moderate fine and medium subangular blocky structure; few (5-10mm) organic bodies; wood fragments are present. Oa2-- 10 to 19 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky and moderate medium prismatic structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal fragments and wood fragments are present. Oa3-- 19 to 23 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; structureless massive; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal). OA--23 to 29 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2 - 3/3) mucky sandy loam; structureless massive. C1--29 to 34 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) sandy loam; structureless massive. Roots stop within horizon. C2-- 34 to 39 cm; brown (7.5YR 4/4) loamy sand; structureless single grain. 10% (2-3mm). pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2) iron depletions (rapid color change).

JB2C: Sampled on 06/19/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; described in nearby closed canopy; ponded 2cm.

Oi--0 to 1 inch; partially decomposed leaves and twigs Oe--1 to 6 inches; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs Oa1--6 to 10 inches; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa2--10 to 13 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa3--13 to 17 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal). Charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa4--17 to 30 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sapric material; structureless massive; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal). C--30 to 33 inches; (10YR 3/3) sandy loam; structureless massive.

JB2D: Sampled on 06/26/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; described at crest location in a closed canopy; ponded 5cm; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 4 inches; dominantly partially decomposed graminoids. Oa1--4 to 8 inches; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; moderate coarse and very coarse granular structure and moderate fine and medium subangular blocky structure. Oa2--8 to 13 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal). Oa3--13 to 22 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; structureless massive; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal). OA--22 to 27 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) mucky sandy loam; structureless massive.

JB3C: Sampled on 06/25/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; closed canopy; many fine roots to 22cm. Oi--0 to 2 inches; partially decomposed leaves and twigs A1--2 to 4 inches; black (N 2.5/) sand; weak medium and coarse granular structure; 60% organic coated sand grains.

297

A2--4 to 9 inches; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 75% organic coated sand grains Eg--9 to 14 inches; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sand; structureless single gain; top boundary contains 10% A-horizon material; bottom boundary contains 15% Bh material. Bh--14 to 22 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure. 10% gray (10YR 6/1) zones at the top horizon boundary. Bw1--22 to 32 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure. Bw2--32+ inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand.

JB3D: Sampled on 06/25/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; closed canopy; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 1 inch; partially decomposed pine needles, leaves and twigs. A1--1 to 7 inches; black (N 2.5/); weak medium and coarse granular; 50% organic coated sand grains. A2--7 to 14 inches; black (N 2.5/0); moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (5mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 15% 95% coated black organic films in linings of pores. Eg--14 to 25 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sand; common fine and medium faint light gray (10YR 7/1) oval splotches of organic matter depletions; structureless single grain; 2cm layer of A horizon material near middle of horizon with 85% organic coated sand grains. Bh--25 to 32 inches; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure. Bw--32 to 41 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure. Very thin spodic horizon is likely mixed within the horizon; wood fragments are present. B’h--41 to 50+ inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) loamy sand/sandy loam line; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; wood fragments are present.

JB4C: Sampled on 07/30/2019 by CMM; partly sunny and partial canopy cover. Water table 12” below Oa1.

Oi--0 to 6 inches; partially pine needles, leaves and, twigs. Oe--6 to 6.5 inches; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs. Oa1--6.5 to 19 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak medium and coarse granular structure; 3% fine and medium very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) organic bodies; charcoal fragments are present. Oa2--19 to 28 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky and moderate fine and medium prismatic structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa3--28 to 33 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; structureless massive; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. C1--33 to 37.5 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loam; structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present. C2--37.5 to 44+ inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam/sandy loam line; 10% (2-10mm) pale brown (10YR 6/3) zones; structureless massive; roots to bottom.

298

JB4D: Sampled on 07/30/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; water table 3” from surface. --0 to 4 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); on the line between sapric and hemic material. OA--4 to 10 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) mucky loam; structureless massive; 3% fine organic bodies; charcoal fragments are present. A/Bw--10 to 17 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam; pale brown (10YR 6/3) zones. C1--17 to 23 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) sandy loam; structureless massive; 3% light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones. C2--23 to 30+ inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) loamy sand/sand (line); 1.5” band of dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) near the top of the horizon boundary.

JB5C: Sampled on 08/02/2019 by CMM; cloudy and closed canopy; water table 9.5” below the top of the Oa1.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; partially decomposed leaves, twigs, and graminoids. Oe--2 to 3 inches; moderately decomposed leaves, twigs, and graminoids. Oa1--3 to 7.5 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sapric material; weak very fine and fine granular structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa2--7.5 to 13.5 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa3--13.5 to 20.5 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa4--20.5 to 26 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); weak coarse subangular blocky structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa5--26 to 31 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sapric material; structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present. C--31 to 36 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; structureless massive; wood fragments are present.

JB5D: Sampled on 08/02/2019 by CMM; cloudy and partially closed canopy. Water table 6” from the top of the Oa1.

Oi--0 to 0.5 inches; partially decomposed leaves and twigs. Oe--0.5 to 2.5 inches; moderately decomposed leaves and twigs. Oa1--2.5 to 7 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal fragments are present. Oa2--7 to 17 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa3--17 to 21 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sapric material; structureless massive; charcoal fragments are present. C1--21 to 29 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; structureless massive; charcoal fragments are present.

299

C2--29 to 34+ inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; structureless massive; 3% (4mm) faint pale brown (10YR 6/3) and light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones.

JB6C: Sampled on 08/01/2019 by CMM and ARW; sunny. Water table 9”below the top of the OA.

Oi--0 to 4 inches; partially decomposed cattails. Oe--4 to 5 inches; moderately decomposed cattails. OA--5 to 11 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loamy sand; very fine and fine granular structure; 3% (3mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa1--11 to 17 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; moderate very coarse granular and medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa2--17 to 24 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; strong medium and coarse rounded organic nodules; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa3--24 to 28 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1) sapric material; structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present. O’A--28 to 33 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) mucky sandy loam; 2% (3mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present; roots to bottom boundary. C--33 to 40+ inches; dark yellowish brown (7.5YR 3/4) sandy loam; 2% (3mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

JB6D: Sampled on 08/01/2019 by CMM and ARW; sunny and partial canopy cover; water table 5.5” below the top of the OA1; possible salamander found in the Oi horizon.

Oi--0 to 3.5 inches; partially decomposed leaves, twigs, and graminoids; very thin (<1cm) possible aquatic vegetative mat at immediate surface. OA1--3.5 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; charcoal fragments are present. OA2--12 to 16.5 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) mucky sand loam/loamy sand (line) (almost sapric material); moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal fragments are present. Bw--16.5 to 22.5 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (3mm) distinct gray (7.5YR 6/1); charcoal fragments are present. C1--22.5 to 25 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand; structureless single grain; charcoal fragments are present C2--25 to 34+ inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand; structureless single grain.

JB7C: Sampled on 06/25/2019 by CMM; shaded conditions; full canopy cover; water table 55cm below mineral surface; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3); partially decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020.

300

Oe--2 to 4 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); dominantly partially decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--4 to 6 inches; black (N 2.5/) sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 5% (2mm) prominent gray (10YR 6/1) zones at the upper horizon boundary; few (10%) black organic films in linings of pores; 65% organic coated sand grains. A2--6 to 11 inches; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (3mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; 80% organic coated sand gains. A3--11 to 21 inches; black (N 2.5/) sand; coarse subangular blocky structure; 25% (1mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; 90% organic coated sand grains; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Bh/Eg--21 to 28 inches; 60% dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand and 40% brown (7.5YR 5/2) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. Bh1--28 to 34 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2mm) pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2) zones. Bh2--34 to 39+ inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure.

JB7D: Sampled on 06/25/2019 by CMM; shaded conditions; water table 35cm below mineral surface; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 2cm; mixture of partially decomposed pine needles, leaves, and twigs. Oe-- 2 to 5cm; mixture of moderately decomposed pine needles, leaves, and twigs. A1--5 to 10cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 60% organic coated sand grains. A2--10 to 32cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 75% organic coated sand grains. Eg--32 to 49cm; gray (10YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; common (3%) medium faint light gray (10YR 7/1) oval splotches of organic matter depletions. Bh1--49 to 68cm; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-3mm) distinct gray (7.5YR 6/1) zones. Bh2--68 to 77cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. Bw--77 to 100+cm; brown (7.5YR 4/4) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure.

JB8C: Sampled on 07/02/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; ponded 10” above Oi horizon; ponded 20”. Oi and Oe horizons resampled (06/2020).

Oi--0 to 20cm; partially decomposed leaves, twigs, and mix of possible aquatic vegetation. Oi horizon resampled and measured in (06/2020); (0 to 8 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4); partially decomposed leaves, twigs, and graminoids. Oe--20 to 28cm; dark brown; moderately decomposed leaves, twigs, and graminoids. Oe horizon resampled and measured in (06/2020); (8 to 11 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/4); moderately decomposed leaves, twigs, and graminoids. OA--28 to 38cm; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; structureless massive. A--38 to 48cm; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure.

301

Bw1--48 to 54cm; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy clay loam; coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% (3-4mm) dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) zones. Bw2--54 to 63cm; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy clay loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure. C1-- 63 to 82cm; brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam; structureless massive; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) bodies are present. C2--82 to 94cm; light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) sandy loam; structureless massive; 2% grayish brown (10YR 5/2) zones. --94 to 104cm; dark gray (10YR 4/1) to gray (10YR 5/1) (rapid color change) sandy clay loam; many (20%) medium faint grayish brown (10YR 5/2) iron depletions; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye); roots to bottom.

JB8D: Sampled on 07/02/2019 by CMM; sunny; water table below the Oi1 horizon.

Oi1-- 0 to 8 inches; partially decomposed sphagnum fibers. Oi2--8 to 12 inches; brown and dark brown fibric material; partially decomposed pine needles and graminoids mixed with root mat. OA1--12 to 14 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; structureless massive. OA2--14 to 18.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure. OA--18.5 to 31 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) mucky loam/clay loam (line); structureless massive. --31 to 34 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy clay loam; structureless massive; roots to bottom.

JB9C: Sampled on 07/03/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; closed canopy; water table 2 cm below surface.

Oi1--0 to 1 inch; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed leaves, twigs, and graminoids; very thin layer of duckweed at immediate surface; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oi2--1 to 5 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2); partially decomposed leaves, twigs, and graminoids; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oa1--5 to 10 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak very coarse granular structure and moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal fragments are present. Oa2--10 to 15.5 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky and medium prismatic structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal fragments are present. Oa3--15.5 to 29.5 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal fragments are present. C1--29.5 to 39.5 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loam; structureless massive; very dark brown zones are present; charcoal and wood fragments are present. C2--39.5 to 46+ inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam; structureless massive; charcoal fragments are present.

302

JB9D: Sampled on 07/03/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; closed canopy; water table 5.5” from mineral soil surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, twigs, and graminoids. A1--3 to 4 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. A2--4 to 9 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure. A3--9 to 15.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 95% organic coated sand grains. --15.5 to 20 inches; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) and dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) loamy sand. C1--20 to 26 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand; structureless massive. C2--26 to 35.5 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loamy sand; structureless massive; wood fragments present. C3--35.5 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loamy sand; structureless massive; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye.

JB10C: Sampled on 08/01/2019 by CMM and ARW; partly sunny; full canopy cover; water table 12” from the top of the Oap.

Oi--0 to 6 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--6 to 8 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3); moderately decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oa1--8 to 15 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure and moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure near the lower horizon boundary; charcoal and rotted wood fragments are present. Horizon is on the line between organic and mucky modified. Oa2--15 to 23 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa3--23 to 35.5 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; structureless massive; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa4--35.5 to 43 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) sapric material; structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

JB10D: Sampled on 08/01/2019 by CMM and ARW; sunny; ponded 13”.

Oi--0 to 13 inches; dominantly partially decomposed graminoids and mix of possible aquatic vegetation. Oa1--13 to 17 inches; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; wood fragments are present; roots to bottom boundary. Oa2--17 to 22 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2) sapric material; very coarse granular structure; charcoal fragments are present. C--22 to 32.5 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) clay loam; structureless massive; charcoal fragments are present. Cg1--32.5 to 42 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) clay loam; structureless massive; reduced matrix (positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye).

303

Cg2--42 to 46+ inches; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) loam; structureless massive; 10% (3mm) faint light gray (10YR 7/1) zones.

JB11C: Sampled on 07/17/2019 by CMM; sunny; water table 1cm from the surface.

Oi--0 to 5 inches; (4/4); partially decomposed graminoids; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oa1--5 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa2--8 to 11.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; few (5-10mm) very dark brown (10YR 2/2) organic bodies; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa3--11.5 to 21 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; organic material has a pate-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa4--21 to 26.5 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) sapric material; structureless massive; subangular blocky structure; organic material has a pate-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. Bw--26 to 30.5 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. C--30.5 to 37.5+ inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand; structureless single grain; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) zones are present; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridyl dye.

JB11D: Sampled on 07/17/2019 by CMM; sunny; water table 1cm from the surface.

Oi--0 to 4.5 inches; dominantly partially decomposed graminoids. A--4.5 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; structureless massive; 5-10% (1cm) prominent light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; OA--8 to 13 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (1cm) prominent light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; charcoal fragments are present. Bw--13 to 18.5 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; dark brown (10YR 3/2) bodies are present. C1--18.5 to 23.5 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) loamy sand; structureless. C2--23.5 to 30+ inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loamy sand; structureless; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye; roots to bottom.

JB12C: Sampled on 06/19/2019 by CMM; cloudy and rainy; closed canopy; water table 16 cm below mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 6 cm; brown; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--6 to 16cm; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2); moderately decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. OA--16 to 27cm; black (N 2.5/) mucky loamy sand; moderate coarse and very coarse granular structure; 15% light gray (10YR 7/1) zones; 95% organic coated grains.

304

A--27 to 38cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; 90% organic coated grains; charcoal fragments are present. Bh1--38 to 49cm; black (10YR 2/1) sand; 35% light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; charcoal fragments are present. Bh2--49 to 60cm; dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand; wood fragments are present; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye; roots to bottom boundary. Bw--60 to 82cm; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand; wood fragments are present; reduced matrix; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye. B’h--82 to 98+cm; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loamy sand; wood fragments are present.

JB12D: Sampled on 06/19/2019 by CMM; cloudy and rainy; closed canopy; water table 60 cm from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 7cm; dominantly partially decomposed pine needles. Oe--7 to 11cm; dominantly moderately decomposed pine needles. A1--11 to 18cm; black (N 2.5/) loamy sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 10% (1cm) prominent light gray (10YR 7/1) zones; 60% organic coated sand grains. A2--18 to 26cm; black (N 2.5/) loamy sand; moderate very coarse granular structure; 20% (5mm) prominent light gray (10YR 7/1) zones; 80% organic coated sand grains. A3--26 to 35cm; black (N 2.5/) loamy sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% (3mm) prominent light gray (10YR 7/1) zones; 90% organic coated sand grains. A4--35 to 52cm; black (N 2.5/) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 20% (5mm) prominent light gray (10YR 7/1) zones; 90% organic coated sand grains. Bh--52 to 70cm; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; 30% (5-10mm) prominent gray (10YR 6/1) zones. Bw--70 to 82cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 30% (5-10mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; (~10mm) layer of very dark gray (10YR 3/1). Cg--82 to 96cm; gray (10YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; common (10%) medium faint light gray (10YR 7/1) iron depletions; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye; (~10mm) band of very dark gray (10YR 3/1).

JB13C: Sampled on 07/25/2019 by CMM; sunny; ponded 8” where sphagnum moss is not present; ponded directly below sphagnum moss where present. Oi horizon(s) were resampled in 06/2020--dark brown (10YR 3/3) ~30cm (used in litter analyses).

Oi2--0 to 4 inches; partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, sphagnum, and twigs; possible aquatic vegetation mixed within horizon. Oi2--4 to 6 inches; moderately decomposed graminoids, leaves, sphagnum, and twigs. OA1--6 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; charcoal fragments are present. OA2--12 to 22 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky silt loam; 10% (3-4mm) dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) and grayish brown (10YR 5/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --22 to 31 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam; (2-3mm) brown (10YR 5/3) zones; charcoal fragments are present. Cg--31 to 38.5 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam; (2-3mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) zones.

305

--38.5 to 43 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam.

JB13D: Sampled on 07/25/2019 by CMM; sunny; ponded 6”.

Oi1--0 to 3 inches; partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Oi2--3 to 5 inches; partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs; Oa--5 to 10.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; charcoal fragments are present. OA--10.5 to 17 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; charcoal fragments are present. Bw1--17 to 23 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam; charcoal fragments are present. Bw2--23 to 30.5 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam; 2-3mm light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) and pale brown (10YR 6/3) zones; charcoal fragments are present; roots to lower horizon boundary. --30.5 to 36+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) mucky sandy loam/loamy sand (line); charcoal fragments are present; horizon on the line between a mucky modified and mineral texture.

JB14C: Sampled on 06/14/2019 by CMM and MJV; sunny; partial canopy cover; water table 68cm below mineral surface.

Oi1--0 to 4 cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); partially decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oi2--4 to 9 cm; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); partially decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--9 to 10 cm; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3); moderately decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020. A-- 10 to 25cm; black (N 2.5/) loamy sand/sandy loam (P.S. analysis from Ewing et al. 2012); weak coarse granular structure; 80% organic coated sand grains; ~60% organic coated sand grains with few (1-5mm) gray zones at near the surface. A/E--25 to 35cm; 60% black (N 2.5/) and 40% gray (N 5/) sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; few 5% black (N 2.5/) dark organic films in root channels with 90% organic coated sand grains; matrix contains 80% organic coated sand grains. Eg1--35 to 50cm; light gray (N 7/) sand; structureless single grain. Eg2--50 to 61cm; gray (2.5Y 5/1) sand; structureless single grain. Bh1--61 to 70cm; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; wood fragments are present. Bh2--70 to 84cm; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); weak medium subangular blocky structure. Bh3--84 to 90cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2); weak medium subangular block structure. Bh4--90 to 106+cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3).

JB14D: Sampled on 06/13/2019 by CMM and MJV; sunny; partial canopy cover; water table 43cm below mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 4cm; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Oe--4 to 6cm; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs.

306

Ap1--6 to 12cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate coarse granular structure; 90% organic coated sand grains; ~60% organic coated sand grains with few (1-5mm) gray zones at the immediate surface. A--12 to 24cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; 5% distinct gray (N 6/) zones; 85% organic coated sand grains. E/A--24 to 28cm; 60% gray (N 6/) and 40% black (N 2.5/); weak medium subangular blocky structure. E--28 to 39cm; light gray (N 7/) sand; structureless single grain. Bh1--39 to 46cm; brown (7.5YR 4/2) sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; 20% gray prominent (2.5Y 6/1) zones. Bh2--46 to 66cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure. Bh and Bw--66 to 96+cm; 70% dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) and 30% (7.5YR 4/4) sand; weak medium subangular blocky.

JB15C: Sampled on 07/14/2019 by CMM; sunny; full canopy cover; water table 8” from mineral surface; charcoal and wood fragments throughout profile; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 1 inch; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2); dominantly partially decomposed pine needles and sphagnum moss; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oi2--1 to 4 inches; brown (10YR 4/3); dominantly partially decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--4 to 7 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) dark brown; dominantly moderately decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oa1--7 to 10 inches; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; (2-3mm) prominent gray (10YR 6/1) zones at the surface. Oa2--10 to 19.5 inches; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure. Oa3--36.5 to 46.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) and very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; moderate very coarse subangular blocky and very coarse prismatic structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal). OA--36.5--46.5 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) mucky sandy loam. C--46.5 to 50.5 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3) loamy sand.

JB15D: Sampled on 07/14/2019 by CMM; sunny; full canopy cover; water table 26” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; brown; partially decomposed pine needles and twigs. Oe--3 to 5 inches; dark brown; moderately decomposed pine needles and twigs. A1--5 to 10 inches; black (N 2.5/) sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 5% (2- 3mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 65% organic coated sand grains. A2--10 to 16 inches; black (N 2.5/) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% (10mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 5-10% black organic films in linings of pores; 80% organic coated sand grains. Bh1--16 to 22 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; moderate coarse and very coarse subangular blocky structure; 15% (1cm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 95% organic coated sand grains.

307

Bh2--22 to 29 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1) and very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1); moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (2mm) (6/2) and (5/2) zones; replicates contain up to 40% (6/2) and (5/2) zones. Bh3--29 to 33.5 inches; dark brown (3/3) loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; 3% (2-3mm) gray (5/1) and (6/1) zones; roots to lower boundary. Bw--33.5 to 41+ inches; (3/4) sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure.

JB16C: Sampled on 06/19/2019 by CMM; cloudy; full canopy cover; 16cm ponded; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 4cm; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs; horizon was colored during summer 2020. Oe--4 to 10cm; dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2); moderately decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs; horizon was colored during summer 2020. Oa1--10 to 24cm; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; weak and moderate coarse and very coarse granular structure; few (10mm) black (10YR 2/1) organic bodies. Oa2--24 to 31cm; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; strong coarse and very coarse granular structure; wood fragments are present. Oa3--31 to 52cm; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure and fine prismatic structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa4--52 to 69cm; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; structureless massive; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal and wood fragments are present. OA--69 to 76+cm; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

JB16D: Sampled on 06/19/2019 by CMM; cloudy; full canopy cover where described; 4cm ponded.

Oi--0 to 8cm; dark brown; partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Oe--8 to 15cm; dark brown; moderately decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs. OA--15 to 28cm; black (N 2.5/) mucky sandy loam/loamy sand (line); weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Oa1--28 to 42cm; black (N 2.5/) sapric material; moderate coarse and very coarse granular and fine and medium subangular blocky structure; (5mm) black (10YR 2/1) organic bodies; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa2--42 to 52cm; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sapric material; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal fragments are present. Oa3--52 to 64cm; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sapric material; structureless massive; organic material has a paste-like or slick feel (colloidal); charcoal fragments are present. O’A--64 to 78cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) mucky loamy sand; structureless massive; charcoal fragments are present.

308

JB17C: Sampled on 06/18/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; full canopy cover; water table 46cm from mineral surface; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 6cm; reddish brown (5YR 4/4); dominantly partially decomposed pine needles. Horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe1--6 to 10cm; dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2); moderately decomposed pine needles. Horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe2--10 to 12.5cm; dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2); moderately decomposed pine needles. Horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--12.5 to 18cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; few (1- 2mm) prominent gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 80-85% organic coated sand grains. A2--18 to 31cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate medium structure; 30% prominent gray (10YR 6/1) zones near the lower horizon boundary; 90% organic coated sand grains. Eg--31 to 58cm; gray (10YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; common medium faint light gray (10YR 7/1) oval splotches of organic matter depletions; 20% black (N 2.5/) zones at the upper horizon boundary. Bh1--58 to 68cm; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) sand. Bh2--68 to 85cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --85 to 100cm; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --100 to 118+cm; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loamy sand; structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

JB17D: Sampled on 06/18/2019 by CMM; partly sunny; full canopy cover; water table 41cm from mineral surface; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 3cm; brown; dominantly partially decomposed pine needles. Oe--3 to 4cm; dark brown; dominantly moderately decomposed pine needles. A1--4 to 11 cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 5% (2mm) prominent gray (10YR 6/1) zones near the surface; 70% organic coated sand grains. A2--11 to 23cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; 80% organic sand grains. A3--23 to 39cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; 90% organic coated sand grains. Eg1--39 to 62cm; gray (10YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; common medium faint gray (10YR 7/1) oval splotches of organic matter depletions; 5% black (N 2.5/) zones within the horizon. Eg2--62 to 75cm; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand; structureless single grain; common medium faint light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) oval splotches of organic matter depletions. Bh1--75 to 85cm; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) sand. Bh2--85 to 104cm; very dark grayish brown (7.5YR 3/2); weak coarse subangular blocky structure; wood fragments are present. --104 to 118+cm; black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; structureless massive; very few (4%) black (N 2.5/) dark organic films; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

309

JB61C: Sampled on 08/01/2019 by CMM and ARW; sunny; full canopy cover; water table 19” from OAp surface; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 3.5 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--3.5 to 6 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4); moderately decomposed graminoids, leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Horizon colored during summer 2020. OA1--6 to 17.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky loamy sand; coarse and very coarse granular structure; 95% organic coated sand grains; charcoal fragments are present. OA2--17.5 to 24 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) mucky loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% (3-8mm) gray (7.5YR 6/1) zones; charcoal fragments are present. Bh1--24 to 28 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal fragments are present. Bh2--28 to 31 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2mm) pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2) zones; charcoal fragments are present. Bh3--31 to 36 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye; charcoal fragments are present. C--36 to 41 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand; structureless single grain; common medium light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron depletions.

JB61D: Sampled on 08/01/2019 by CMM and ARW; sunny; microtopography present; micro- lows are ponded; micro-highs water table 3” below surface; roots to bottom.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; fibric material. Oa1--3 to 8.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; coarse and very coarse granular structure; charcoal fragments are present. Oa2--8.5 to 13 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); moderate coarse granular structure; charcoal fragments are present. OA--13 to 18 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); structureless massive; charcoal present. C1--18 to 24 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam; structureless massive; 2% (2mm) pale brown (10YR 6/3) and light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; charcoal present. C2--24 to 30+inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand; structureless massive; wood fragments are present.

JB62C: Sampled on 06/27/2019; sunny; full canopy cover; water table 64cm from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 8cm; reddish brown (5YR 4/4); dominantly partially decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--8 to 10cm; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2); moderately decomposed pine needles.; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--10 to 20cm; black (N 2.5/) loamy sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; few (3-5mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones at the surface; 60% organic coated sand grains.

310

A2--20 to 30cm; black (N 2.5/) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 30% prominent gray (10YR 6/1) zones at the lower horizon boundary; 75% organic coated sand grains. Eg--30 to 38cm; gray (10YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; common medium faint light gray (10YR 7/1) and white (10YR 8/1) oval splotches of organic matter depletions. Bh/Eg--38 to 44cm; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) and gray (7.5YR 5/1 and 6/1) sand; weak coarse subangular blocky structure. Bh1--44 to 52cm; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. Bh2--52 to 57cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. Bh and Bw--57 to 77cm; very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1), dark brown (7.5YR 3/4), and brown (10YR 4/3) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; few (2cm) light gray (10YR 7/1) and white (10YR 8/1) zones. --77 to 85cm; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy clay loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. --85 to 100cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay loam/sandy loam (line); moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure.

JB62D: Sampled on 06/27/2019 by CMM; sunny; partial canopy cover; water table 100cm from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 5cm; reddish brown (5YR 4/4); dominantly partially decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--8 to 10cm; brown (10YR 4/3); moderately decomposed pine needles; horizon colored during summer 2020. A1--7 to12cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 10% (3mm) prominent gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 50% organic sand grains. A2--12 to 34cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; common fine and medium prominent dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) masses of oxidized iron; 10% (4mm) prominent light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; few black (N/2.5/) organic films; 75% organic coated sand grains. A/E--34 to 49cm; black (N 2.5/) and gray (10YR 6/1) sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; common medium light gray (10YR 7/1) zones; few black (N 2.5/) organic films. Bh/E--49 to 66cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) and pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2) sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure. Bh1--68 to 82cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; Bh2--82 to 97cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3 and 3/4); moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. --97 to 110+cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; wood fragments are present; roots to bottom.

311

JB63C: Sampled on 06/26/2019 by CMM; partly cloudy; almost full canopy cover; water table 22 cm from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 6cm; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Oe--6 to 8cm; moderately decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. OA1--8 to 16cm; black (N 2.5/) mucky sandy loam; moderate coarse and very coarse granular structure OA2--16 to 32cm; black (N 2.5/) mucky sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky and medium prismatic structure; 95% organic coated sand grains. --32 to 50cm; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky and medium prismatic structure; 30% gray (10YR 6/1) and (10YR 5/1) zones near bottom boundary. --50 to 68cm; dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky and medium prismatic structure; 40% gray (10YR 6/1) and (10YR 5/1) zones. --68 to 81cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; roots to lower boundary. --81 to 99+cm; pale brown (10YR 6/3) and light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sand; structureless; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye.

JB63D: Sampled on 06/26/2019 by CMM; cloudy; full canopy cover; water table 22 cm from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 5cm; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Oe--5 to 12cm; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. --12 to 17cm; black (N 2.5/) mucky sandy loam/ sandy loam (line); moderate coarse and very coarse granular structure; 95% organic coated sand grains. A--17 to 27cm; black (N 2.5/) sandy loam; coarse subangular blocky structure and medium prismatic structure; 95% organic coated sand grains. OA1--27 to 35cm; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) mucky loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 40% gray (10YR 5/1) zones; 95% organic coated sand grains. OA2--35 to 51cm; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) mucky loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure and medium prismatic structure. --51 to 61cm; dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy sand; moderate coarse subangular block structure; 15% (2mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) and light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones. --61 to 80cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy clay loam/sandy loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure. --80 to 99+cm; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3 and 6/4) sand; structureless; 15% (2mm) light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) iron depletions; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye.

JB64C: Sampled on 06/13/2019 by CMM and MJV; sunny; canopy cover; water table at 57 cm.

Oi--0 to 4cm; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4); partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Horizon colored during summer 2020. Oe--4 to 7cm; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); moderately decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Horizon colored during summer 2020.

312

A1--7 to 22cm; black (N 2.5/) loamy sand; coarse granular structure; 5% (2-3mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; 5% light gray (N 7/) zones; 10% black (N 2.5/) 95% coated organic films in root channels; 85% organic coated sand grains. A2--22 to 27cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; 30% gray (N 6/) zones; 5% black (N 2.5/) 95% coated organic films in root channels; 85% organic coated grains. Eg/Bh--27 to 41cm; 60% gray (2.5Y 6/1) and 40% black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand; weak coarse subangular blocky structure. Bh1--41 to 47cm; black (10YR 2/1) sand; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; 10% dark gray (10YR 4/1) zones. Bh2--47 to 69cm; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sand; moderate medium subangular blocky structure. Bh3--69 to 90cm; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) zones are present. --90-101+cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4); weak medium subangular blocky structure.

JB64D: Sampled on 06/13/2019 by CMM and MJV; partly sunny; canopy cover.

Oi--0 to 3cm; partially decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs. Oe--3 to 3.5cm; moderately decomposed leaves, pine needles, and twigs A1--3.5 to 18cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 80% organic coated sand grains. A2--18 to 23cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (1cm) dark brown (7.5YR 3/2); 10% (1-4cm) light gray (2.5Y 7/1) zones; 70% organic coated sand grains. A3--23 to 30cm; black (N 2.5/) sand; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; 40% (1- 5cm) light gray (2.5Y 7/1) zones; black (N 2/5) organic films in root channels; 80% organic coated sand grains; 5% charcoal fragments. E1--30 to 41cm; light gray (10YR 7/1) sand; structureless single grain; 10% (10mm) white (10YR 8/1) zones. E2--41 to 51cm; gray (7.5YR 6/1) sand; structureless single grain; 5% (10mm) light gray (10YR 7/1) zones. Bh/E--51 to 63cm; 70% brown (7.5YR 4/2) and 30% light gray (10YR 7/1) sand; structureless single grain. Bh1--63 to 72cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) sand; weak coarse subangular blocky structure. Bh2--72 to 80cm; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. Bh3--80 to 96cm; dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure.

JB65C: Sampled on 07/31/2019 by CMM and ARW; sunny; water table directly under sphagnum.

--0 to 7.5 inches; sphagnum Oi1--7.5 to 12 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4); partially decomposed graminoids; horizon colored during summer 2020.

313

Oi2--12 to 14 inches; dark brown (7.4YR 3/4); partially decomposed graminoids; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oa--14 to 19.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; charcoal fragments are present. OA1--19.5 to 23.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 3% (5mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) zones; (5mm-10mm) very dark brown (10YR 2/2) organic bodies; charcoal and wood fragments are present. OA2--23.5 to 28.5 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2); 5% (5mm); light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --28.5 to 36 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); 7% (5-10mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --Cg--36 to 43+ inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2); structureless; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) zones; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

JB65D: Sampled on 07/31/2019 by CMM; sunny; ponded 10”; dead fish found.

Oi--0 to 10 inches; partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs. A1--10 to 15 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; weak medium and coarse granular structure; 10% (2-5mm) grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) zones; possible subsoil material from ditch maintenance mixed in horizon; charcoal fragments are present. A2--15 to 19 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 2% (2mm) gray (10YR 6/1) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --19 to 23 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) sandy loam; structureless massive; (2-4mm) pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --23 to 32.5 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam; structureless massive; 5% light brownish gray (10YR 6/2); charcoal and wood fragments are present. --32.5 to 37+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1); common (2%) fine dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) masses of oxidized iron and common (3%) yellowish red (5YR 4/6) masses of oxidized iron; common (15%) coarse (5mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) iron depletions.

JB66C: Sampled on 07/25/2019 by CMM; sunny; ponded 15”; area adjacent to open water; roots to bottom.

Oi1--0 to 8 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3); partially decomposed graminoids; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oi2--8 to 10 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3); partially decomposed graminoids; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oa--10 to 12.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; very coarse weak granular structure. OA1--12.5 to 18 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky silt loam; medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal fragments are present. OA2--18 to 22 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) mucky sandy loam; structureless massive; charcoal fragments are present. --22 to 31 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam; structureless massive; charcoal fragments are present. --31 to 37.5 inches; very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) sandy loam; structureless massive.

314

--37.5 to 41+ inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loamy; structureless massive.

JB66D: Sampled on 07/25/2019 by CMM; sunny; ponded 17”; area adjacent to open water.

Oi1--0 to 7 inches; partially decomposed graminoids. Oi2--7 to 9 inches; partially decomposed graminoids. Oa1--9 to 16 inches; black (10YR 2/1); sapric material; structureless massive. Oa2--16 to 21.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1); sapric material; structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --21.5 to 30 inches; very dark brown (10YR 3/2); structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --30 to 40.5 inches; very dark brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam; structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present; roots to lower boundary. C--40.5 to 45 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam; structureless massive; 10% light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) and grayish brown (10YR 5/2) iron depletions rapid color change to chroma 3.

JB67C: Sampled on 07/01/2019 by CMM; sunny; ponded 9”.

Oi--0 to 9 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4); partially decomposed graminoids; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oa1--9 to 18.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; immediate surface structureless massive; lower boundary weak medium subangular blocky structure. Oa2--18.5 to 27 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1); moderate coarse subangular blocky structure. A--27 to 31.5 inches; very dark brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure. C1--31.5 to 35.5 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) sandy loam; structureless massive. C2--35.5 to 41+ inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) rapid color change to yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam; structureless massive; positive reaction to alpha alpha dypridal dye.

JB67D: Sampled on 07/01/2019 by CMM; sunny; 4” layer of sphagnum moss present; water table directly underneath sphagnum layer.

Oi--0 to 5 inches; partially decomposed graminoids. OA--5 to 8.5 inches; black (N 2.5/) mucky sandy loam; weak very coarse granular structure. A1--8.5 to 12 inches; black (N 2.5/) sandy loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure. A2--12 to 15.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam. A3--15.5 to 21 inches; very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loamy sand; structureless massive. C1--21 to 25 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loamy sand; structureless massive. C2--25 to 30 inches; light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) loamy sand; structureless massive. C3--30 to 34 inches; light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) loamy sand; structureless massive; 4% (2mm) light gray (10YR 7/2) iron depletions. Cg--34 to 39 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loamy sand; structureless massive; 2% (2mm) light gray (10YR 7/1) iron depletions; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye.

315

JB68C: Sampled on 07/31/2019 by CMM and ARW; sunny; ponded 12.5”.

Oi--0 to 12.5 inches; partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs. Oa1--12.5 to 20 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; coarse and very coarse granular structure; 2% black (5mm) organic bodies; charcoal fragments are present. Oa2--20 to 24.5 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1) sapric material; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Oa3--24.5 to 28 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) sapric material; structureless massive; charcoal and wood fragments are present. Ag--28 to 46+ inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam; structureless massive; 2% light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present; roots to bottom.

JB68D: Sampled on 07/31/2019 by CMM and ARW; sunny; ponded 10”.

Oi--0 to 10 inches; partially decomposed graminoids. Oa1--10 to 15 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Oa2--15 to 29 inches; black (7.5YR 2.5/1); structureless massive; charcoal fragments are present. Oa3--29 to 33 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) sapric material; charcoal and wood fragments are present. C1--33 to 44 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam; structureless massive; 4% (5mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present. C2-- 44 to 48 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam; structureless massive; (3mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron depletions; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal dye; charcoal fragments are present; roots to bottom.

Sliver Moon 1 Pedons

SM1W1: Sampled on (02/18/2020); partly sunny conditions.

Oi--0 to 1.5 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/3); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Ap1--1.5 to 4.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate coarse and very coarse granular structure. Ap2--4.5 to 7.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. A--7.5 to 11 inches; black (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. --11-15 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) light sandy loam; 1-3cm weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 15% (5mm) (10YR 4/2) zones in root channels; 10% (10YR 5/2) zones; 20% (5-20mm) very dark brown (10YR 2/2) organic films.

316

SMW2: Sampled on (02/18/2020); partly sunny conditions; ponded 4”.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; black (5YR 2.5/1); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oap--3 to 7 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. --7 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam/ sapric material (line); moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal fragments are present. OA--12 to 17+ inches; black (2.5Y 2.5/1); mucky sandy loam; 1-3cm moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

SMW3: Sampled on (02/18/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table 0.5” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 2.5 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oap--2.5 to 5.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Oa--5.5 to 12.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1); sapric material; 1-3cm moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. Oa--12.5 to 15.5+ inches; black (2.5Y 2.5/1); sapric muck; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

SM1W4: Sampled on (02/18/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table 11” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 1 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oap--1 to 4 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Oa--4 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sapric material; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. OA--12 to 16+ inches; black (2.5Y 2.5/1) mucky loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% gray (10YR 5/1) zones; 10% 1-2mm grayish brown (10YR 5/2) and 5% dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) mixed subsurface material; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

SM1W5: Sampled on (02/18/2020); partly sunny conditions; water table 7” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Oap--3 to 7 inches; black (10YR 2/1); sapric material; moderate coarse and very coarse granular structure. Oa--7 to 18+ inches; black (10YR 2/1); sapric material; moderate medium and coarse granular structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

317

SM1W6: Sampled on (02/18/2020); cloudy conditions; water table 12” from mineral surface.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) ; partially decomposed leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. OAp--2 to 6 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. OA--6 to 11.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (5mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) mixed subsurface material. A--11.5 to 16.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure.

SM1W8: Sampled on (02/18/2020); cloudy conditions; ponded 2.5”.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; black (5YR 2.5/1); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. OAp--2 to 6 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. OA--6 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal fragments are present. A--12 to 16+ inches; (2.5Y 2.5/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure.

SMT4.2: Sampled on (02/18/2020); partly sunny conditions; ponded 5”.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. OAp--3 to 6 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. OA--6 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. A--12 to 18+ inches; black (2.5Y 2.5/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 15% (1-2mm) brown (7.5YR 4/2) mixed subsurface material; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

SM1T4.3: Sampled on (02/18/2020); partly sunny conditions; ponded 3”.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. OAp--3 to 6 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. OA1--6 to 13 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal fragments are present. OA2--13 to 17+ inches; black (2.5Y 2.5/1) mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

318

Sliver Moon 2 Pedons

SM2Pa1: Sampled on (02/18/2020); cloudy conditions.

OAp1-- 0 to 3.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. OAp2--3.5 to 7 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. OA--7 to 13 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) mucky sandy loam; 1-3cm moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) mixed subsurface material.

SM2Pa1.5: Sampled on (02/18/2020); cloudy conditions; water table 10” from surface.

OAp--0 to 3 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Ap--3 to 7 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; 1-3cm moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. --7-15 inches; 65% very dark brown (10YR 2/2) and 35% very brown (10YR 4/3); 10% (1-5mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron depletions; 10% (1-5mm) dark reddish brown (5YR ¾) masses of oxidized iron; 5% black (10YR 2/1) organic films in old root channels; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

SM2Pa2: Sampled on (02/18/2020); cloudy conditions.

Ap1--0 to 5 inches; black (10YR 2/1); sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Ap2--5 to 9 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; 1-3cm moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. A--9 to 16 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; 1-3cm moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% black (10YR 2/1) organic films in linings of pores.

SM2Pa2.5: Sampled on (02/18/2020); cloudy conditions.

OAp1--0 to 4 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam; 15% crop residue. OAp2--4 to 10 inches; black (10YR 2/1); mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. A--10 to 15+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (1-4mm) dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4) masses of oxidized iron in linings of pores; 10% (2-10mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) and grayish brown (10YR 5/2) mixed subsurface material; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

SM2Pa3: Sampled on (02/18/2020); cloudy conditions; water table 10” below surface.

Ap1--0 to 5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 5% crop residue.

319

Ap2--5 to 9 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. A--9 to 11.5 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loamy sand; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% brown (10YR 5/3) mixed subsurface material. --11.5 to 16+ inches; brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-5mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones.

SM2Pa3.5: Sampled on (02/18/2020); cloudy conditions; water table 11” below surface.

Ap1--0 to 6 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 10% crop residue. Ap2--6 to 11 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (5mm) brown (10YR 5/3) mixed subsurface material. --11 to 15+ inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy loam; 5% (2-5mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones; 10% (5-10mm) black (10YR 2/1).

SM2Ra1: Sampled on (02/23/2020); sunny conditions; water table 6” from surface.

OAp1--0 to 3 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. OAp2--3 to 9 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. A--9 to 17+ inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-5mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2); charcoal fragments are present.

SM2Ra1.5: Sampled on (02/23/2020); sunny conditions; water table 10” from surface.

OAp1--0 to 4 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 10% crop residue. OAp2--4 to 8.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; 2% (1-2mm) pale brown (10YR 6/3) mixed subsurface material; charcoal and wood fragments are present. --8.5 to 16+ inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-3mm) (10YR 5/2) zones; 5% (2-3mm) (10YR 6/1) mixed subsurface material.

SM2Ra2: Sampled on (02/23/2020); water table 9.5” from surface.

Ap--0 to 3.5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse subangular blocky structure. Ap2--3.5 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (3mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) mixed subsurface material. --8-15+ inches; very dark brown (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% (2-5mm) gray (10YR 5/1); 5% (3mm) grayish brown (10YR 5/2) mixed subsurface material; charcoal fragments are present.

320

SM2Ra2.5: Sampled on (02/23/2020); sunny conditions; ponded 5”.

OAp--0 to 3 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; 5-10mm weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Ap--3 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. Btg--8 to 16 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy clay loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% (2-5mm) gray (10YR 5/1) zones; 5% (2mm) black (10YR 2/1); charcoal and wood fragments are present.

SM2Ra3: Sampled on (02/23/2020); sunny conditions; 9” from surface.

OAp1--0 to 4 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure; 10% crop residue. OAp2--4 to 10 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure. A--10-15+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-3mm) dark reddish brown (2.5YR 2.5/3) masses of oxidized iron; 2% (3mm) rounded quartz; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

SM2Ra4: Sampled on (02/23/2020); sunny conditions.

OAp1--0 to 5 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. OAp2--5 to 11 inches; black (10YR 2/1) mucky sandy loam; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure and moderate medium and coarse angular blocky structure; 5% (2mm) dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/3) masses of oxidized iron. OA--11 to 16+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) mucky sandy loam; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (2-3mm) dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) zones; charcoal and wood fragments are present.

SM2Ra5: Sampled on (02/23/2020); sunny conditions; water table 9” below surface.

Ap1--0 to 3 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Ap2--3 to 9 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-5mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) zones. --9 to 16+ inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 10% (2-10mm) light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron depletions; 5% (2-3mm) brown (10YR 4/3) masses of oxidized iron in root channels; 5% black (10YR 2/1) in linings of pores.

321

TWIN BAY PEDONS

Sampled on (02/25/2020); sunny conditions; bed and mound topography present throughout site; most beds are ponded.

TBW2: Sampled on the mound; water table 9” from surface.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Ap1--2 to 6 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Ap2-- to 6 to 16+ inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 5% (2-5mm) gray (10YR 5/1) iron depletions in linings of pores; 10% dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) masses of oxidized in linings of pores and 15% yellowish red (5YR 4/4) masses of oxidized iron in linings of pores; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridyl dye; 5% (2-5mm) gray (10YR 5/1) mixed subsurface material within the matrix.

TBW5: ponded 4”.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3); partially decomposed rush straw; horizon colored during summer 2020. Ap1--3 to 6 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy loam. Ap2--6 to 13 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; 20% (1-2mm) brown (7.5YR 4/4) masses of oxidized iron; 30% mixed subsurface material. Btg--13 to 21+ inches; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy clay loam; 20% strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) and 30% strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron; 2% (2mm) light gray (10YR 7/2) iron depletions; reaction to alpha alpha dipyridal; 5% very dark gray (10YR 3/1) in pores; 30% mixed subsurface material.

TBW11: Sampled on mound; water table at the surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/4) and black (10YR 2/1); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Ap1--3 to 6.5 inches; brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam. Ap2--6.5 to 12.5 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) and dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam; 2% (2mm) light gray (10YR 7/1) iron depletions in linings of pores; 10% (1mm) brown (7.5YR 4/4) masses of oxidized iron; 30% mixed subsurface material. Btg--12.5 to 17.5+ inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam; 20% strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) and 30% (7.5YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron.

TBW14: Sampled on mound; water table 10” below surface.

Oi--0 to 1 inches; brown (10YR 4/3); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Ap--1 to 10 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) fine sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure.

322

A/E--10 to 15+ inches; very dark brown (10YR 3/1) and grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fine sandy loam; weak medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; 2% (2mm) pale brown (10YR 6/3); 5% (3mm) yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), 10% (1-2mm) yellowish red (5YR 4/6), 2% (1mm) reddish brown (5YR 4/4) masses of oxidized iron; 1” band of E horizon material; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridyl dye.

TBW15: Sampled in bed; ponded 7”.

Oi--0 to 2 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/4); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Ap--2 to 11 inches; black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam. A/Eg--11 to 15.5 inches; 50% black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam and gray (10YR 6/1) fine sandy loam; 10% strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron in linings of pores; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridyl dye. Eg--15.5 to 20+ inches; gray (10YR 6/1); fine sandy loam; 2% (2mm) light gray (10YR 7/1) oval splotches of organic matter depletions in root channels; 10% (2-3mm) strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) and 15% strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron.

TBW19: Sampled on mound; water table 9” below surface.

Oi--0 to 3 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/3); partially decomposed graminoids, leaves, and twigs; horizon colored during summer 2020. Ap1--3 to 7 inches; black (10YR 2/1) fine sandy loam; weak coarse and very coarse granular structure. Ap2--7 to 12 inches; black (10YR 2/1) fine sandy loam; weak subangular blocky structure. Eg--12-17+ inches; gray (10YR 6/1) fine loamy sand; weak medium subangular blocky structure; 2% (2mm) light gray (10YR 7/1) oval splotches of organic matter depletions; positive reaction to alpha alpha dipyridyl dye; spodic horizon within 50cm.

323