USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Quantifying soil organic carbon (SOC) in wetlands impacted by groundwater withdrawals in west-central Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Quantifying soil organic carbon (SOC) in wetlands impacted by groundwater withdrawals in west-central Florida
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Powell, Katherine Moore
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Hydrology
Cypress domes
Hydric soils
Isotopes
Nitrogen
Dissertations, Academic -- Geology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Saturated for most of the year, wetlands accumulate large amounts of biomass in thick organic soil horizons with slow rates of decomposition due to anaerobic conditions. Wetland soils thereby sequester large amounts of organic carbon in relative long-term storage. Municipal water demands in west-central Florida are largely met through extensive groundwater pumping. These withdrawals can impact ecosystems dependent on surface water levels that are ultimately linked to confined aquifers. Soils in a subset of cypress swamps that are monitored by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) were sampled and analyzed to ascertain the health of the wetlands impacted by groundwater pumping. Soil water content, bulk density, and carbon and nitrogen content were systematically measured on replicate samples from three elevations in transects through the wetlands. "Healthy" wetlands were found to have higher soil water retention and consequently higher soil organic carbon (SOC) content in the top 30 cm of soil than "harmed" and "significantly harmed" cypress domes. However this trend was only significant at the lowest, central elevation of the wetland, at an elevation of the normal pool level minus 12 inches. These results provide quantitative evidence to support the notion that saturation of soils during most of the year is required to maintain the conditions that are conducive to the accumulation of soil organic matter. Conversely, unsaturated soils appear to be mineralizing large quantities of their stores of organic carbon. Since soil moisture and organic carbon contents are well correlated in the wetlands that were sampled, monitoring of soil water content may prove a convenient proxy for determining the organic carbon stores and thus the relative health of the wetland.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Katherine Moore Powell.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 108 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002001116
oclc - 319611815
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002590
usfldc handle - e14.2590
System ID:
SFS0026907:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 002001116
003 fts
005 20090429110117.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090429s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002590
035
(OCoLC)319611815
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
QE26.2 (Online)
1 100
Powell, Katherine Moore.
0 245
Quantifying soil organic carbon (SOC) in wetlands impacted by groundwater withdrawals in west-central Florida
h [electronic resource] /
by Katherine Moore Powell.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 108 pages.
502
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: Saturated for most of the year, wetlands accumulate large amounts of biomass in thick organic soil horizons with slow rates of decomposition due to anaerobic conditions. Wetland soils thereby sequester large amounts of organic carbon in relative long-term storage. Municipal water demands in west-central Florida are largely met through extensive groundwater pumping. These withdrawals can impact ecosystems dependent on surface water levels that are ultimately linked to confined aquifers. Soils in a subset of cypress swamps that are monitored by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) were sampled and analyzed to ascertain the health of the wetlands impacted by groundwater pumping. Soil water content, bulk density, and carbon and nitrogen content were systematically measured on replicate samples from three elevations in transects through the wetlands. "Healthy" wetlands were found to have higher soil water retention and consequently higher soil organic carbon (SOC) content in the top 30 cm of soil than "harmed" and "significantly harmed" cypress domes. However this trend was only significant at the lowest, central elevation of the wetland, at an elevation of the normal pool level minus 12 inches. These results provide quantitative evidence to support the notion that saturation of soils during most of the year is required to maintain the conditions that are conducive to the accumulation of soil organic matter. Conversely, unsaturated soils appear to be mineralizing large quantities of their stores of organic carbon. Since soil moisture and organic carbon contents are well correlated in the wetlands that were sampled, monitoring of soil water content may prove a convenient proxy for determining the organic carbon stores and thus the relative health of the wetland.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Jonathan G. Wynn, Ph.D.
653
Hydrology
Cypress domes
Hydric soils
Isotopes
Nitrogen
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Geology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2590



PAGE 1

Quantifying Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) in Wetlands Impacted by Groundwater Withdrawals in West-Central Florida by Katherine Moore Powell A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Geology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Jona than G. Wynn, Ph.D. Mark T. Stewart, Ph.D. Mark C. Rains, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 25, 2008 Keywords: hydrology, cypress domes, hydric soil s, isotopes, nitrogen, soil moisture Copyright 2008, Katherine Moore Powell

PAGE 2

Dedication This research is dedicated to the memory of Eugene David Powell, my friend and husband. A highly respected man by many during his life, his clear, objective thinking and disciplined behavior were an inspiration to me during my study.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Scott Emery for inspiring this study. His enthusiasm sparked my interest and kept me going through long, hot, muddy field days. I appreciate all of the hard work from EPC’s Gordon Leslie, Dave Watson and Chris Steins, and assistance SWFWMD’s John Emery and April Brenton. It’s always satisfying to share my interests with my children, so I would like to thank my daughters, Mary and Sarah, for their help building soil corers, collecting samples, and listening to my endless assessments. In addition, I am very grateful to Mark Stewar t’s son, Matt, for digging so many pits in the hot sun and doing so without complaint. Thanks to Dr. Jack Ma for helping to develop my GIS skills and my final poster. My rewa rding experiences here at USF have been chiefly because of support from all of the Geology department office staff, faculty, and students and I would like to thank everyone for their help and companionship. I am grateful to the family members who supported me and especially to my brother, Jerry, for his coaching. Finally, I cannot show my appreciation enough to my entire committee, Jonathan Wynn, Mark Stewart and Mark Rain s. Each has been a wonderful mentor and friend, and collectively they have been th e greatest graduate committee I could have imagined.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................ ..... iiiList of Figures ............................................................................................................... .......vAbstract ...................................................................................................................... ....... viiIntroduction .................................................................................................................. ........1Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 1Wetlands in west-central Florida ............................................................................ 2Soil Organic Carbon ............................................................................................... 5Methods and Materials ......................................................................................................... 7Study Area .............................................................................................................. 7Soil Collection Protocol ........................................................................................ 13Sample Preparation ............................................................................................... 18Elemental and Stable Isotopic Analysis ................................................................ 19Soil Moisture Meter .............................................................................................. 21Wetland Well Data ................................................................................................ 21Calculations........................................................................................................... 22

PAGE 5

ii Results ....................................................................................................................... .........24Soil Water Content ................................................................................................ 24Bulk Density ......................................................................................................... 26Carbon Content ..................................................................................................... 28Nitrogen Content ................................................................................................... 32C:N Ratio .............................................................................................................. 32Stable isotopic composition of Soil Organic Matter ............................................. 35Soil Moisture Meter .............................................................................................. 41Discussion .................................................................................................................... ......50Conclusion .................................................................................................................... .....56List of References ............................................................................................................ ..57Appendix Individual Wetland Sample Da ta, Computations of Water Content and Bulk Density, and IRMS Results ....................................................................61Appendix B Well Hydrographs for Six of the Eleven Cypress Domes Included in this Study ..................................................................................................... ......97Appendix C Soil Moisture Meter Readings Taken for Six of the Eleven Cypress Domes Included in this Study at Starkey Wilder ness Park on 5/23/2008 ...........104

PAGE 6

iii List of Tables Table 1. Sampled Wetland Sites, lo cation, and category of harm. ....................................12Table 2. Soil Series for Sampled Wetland Sites. ...............................................................16Table 3. IRMS Standards used to assess (C) carbon and (N) n itrogen content. ................20Table A-1a. Starkey D (Sig. Harm) Soil Collection Data..................................................62Table A-1b. Starkey D (Sig. Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results ..................................64Table A-2a. Starkey 1 (Health y) Soil Collection Data ......................................................66Table A-2b. Starkey 1 (Healthy) IRMS Bulked Sample Results .......................................68Table A-3a. Starkey U (Sig. Harm) Soil Collection Data..................................................70Table A-3b. Starkey U (Sig. Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results ..................................72Table A-4a. Starkey W (Har m) Soil Collection Data ........................................................73Table A-4b. Starkey W (Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results ........................................75Table A-5a. Section 21 (Sig. Harm) Soil Collection Data .................................................76Table A-5b. Section 21 (Sig. Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results .................................78Table A-6a. Blackwater Creek (H arm) Soil Collection Data ............................................80Table A-6b. Blackwater Creek (Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results ............................82Table A-7a. Green Swamp 7 (Heal thy) Soil Collection Data ............................................83Table A-7b. Green Swamp 7 (Healthy) IRMS Bulked Sample Results ............................85

PAGE 7

iv Table A-8a. Flatwoods (Har m) Soil Collection Data ........................................................86Table A-8b. Flatwoods (Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results .........................................88Table A-9a. Starkey R (Healt hy) Soil Collection Data ......................................................89Table A-9b. Starkey R (Healthy) IR MS Bulked Sample Results ......................................91Table A-10a. Starkey S75 (Harm) Soil Collection Data ....................................................92Table A-10b. Starkey S75 (Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results ....................................94Table A-11a. New River (Healthy) Soil Collection Data ..................................................95Table A-11b. New River (Healthy) IRMS Bulked Sample Results ..................................96Table C-1 Summary of the mean soil mo isture meter readings by wetland ....................105Table C-2 Starkey D (Sig. Harm) Indi vidual Moisture Meter Readings .........................106Table C-3 Starkey U (Sig. Harm) Indi vidual Moisture Meter Readings .........................106Table C-4 Starkey W (Harm) Indivi dual Moisture Me ter Readings ...............................107Table C-5 Starkey S75 (Harm) Indi vidual Moisture Meter Readings .............................107Table C6 Starkey R (Healthy) Individual Moisture Meter Readings ............................108Table C-7 Starkey 1 (Healthy) Indi vidual Moisture Meter Readings ..............................108

PAGE 8

v List of Figures Figure 1. Normal Pool Elevations illustration .................................................................... 8Figure 2. Study area with sampled wetland sites .............................................................. 10Figure 3. Soil Corer .......................................................................................................... 14Figure 4. Shatterbox and soil mill ..................................................................................... 19Figure 5. Soil water content comparison by “degree of harm” ......................................... 25Figure 6. Bulk density comparison by “degree of harm” ................................................. 27Figure 7. Soil carbon content comp arison by “degree of harm” ....................................... 29Figure 8. Water content versus %C for all sampled sites ................................................. 30Figure 9a. bulk density (db) versus %C and 9b. (1/ db) versus %C .................................. 31Figure 10. Soil nitrogen content comp arison by “degree of harm” ................................. 33Figure 11. C:N Ratios comparison by “degree of harm” .................................................. 34Figures 12a-c. Carbon Isotope results gra phed separately by NP elevations ................... 36Figure 13a-c. Carbon Isotope re sults plotted against a. 15N, b. %C, and c. C:N ratios ..................................................................................................... ..... 37Figure 14. The mean difference in 13C values between wetland categories ................... 38Figure 15a-c. Nitrogen Isotope results gra phed separately by NP elevations .................. 39

PAGE 9

vi Figure 16. The mean difference in 15N values within wetlands of different categories ........................................................................................................ ...... 40Figure 17. Soil Moisture Meter test results ....................................................................... 42Figure B-1. Hydrograph of well at Starkey D ................................................................... 98Figure B-2. Hydrograph of well at Starkey U ................................................................... 99Figure B-3. Hydrograph of well at Starkey W ................................................................ 100Figure B-4. Hydrograph of we ll at Blackwater Creek .................................................... 101Figure B-5. Hydrograph of we ll at Green Swamp 7 ....................................................... 102Figure B-6. Hydrograph of well at Starkey R ................................................................. 103

PAGE 10

vii Quantifying Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) in Wetlands Impacted by Groundwater Withdrawals in West-Central Florida Katherine Moore Powell ABSTRACT Saturated for most of the year, wetlands accumulate large amounts of biomass in thick organic soil horizons with slow rates of decomposition due to anaerobic conditions. Wetland soils thereby sequester large amounts of organic carbon in relative long-term storage. Municipal water demands in west -central Florida ar e largely met through extensive groundwater pumping. These withdr awals can impact ecosystems dependent on surface water levels that are ul timately linked to confined aqui fers. Soils in a subset of cypress swamps that are monitored by the S outhwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) were sampled and analyzed to asce rtain the health of the wetlands impacted by groundwater pumping. Soil water content, bulk density, and carbon and nitrogen content were systematically measured on re plicate samples from three elevations in transects through the wetlands. “Healthy” wetlands were f ound to have higher soil water retention and consequently hi gher soil organic carbon (SOC) c ontent in the top 30 cm of

PAGE 11

viii soil than “harmed” and “significantly harm ed” cypress domes. However this trend was only significant at the lowest, central elevation of the wetlan d, at an elevation of the normal pool level minus 12 inches. These results provide quantitative evidence to support the notion that saturation of so ils during most of the year is required to maintain the conditions that are conducive to the accumu lation of soil organic matter. Conversely, unsaturated soils appear to be mineralizing large quantities of thei r stores of organic carbon. Since soil moisture and organic ca rbon contents are well correlated in the wetlands that were sampled, monitoring of soil water content may prove a convenient proxy for determining the organic carbon stores and thus the relative health of the wetland.

PAGE 12

1 Introduction Problem Statement As demand for water continues to rise with population growth, increases in groundwater pumping threatens to disrupt freshwater ecosystems (Postel, 2000). Groundwater pumping in west-central Florida caus es declines in the water table that can lead to degradation of sensitive wetlands. In an effort to determine potential damage to wetlands, research targeting the hydro logy and ecology of wetlands is ongoing (McPherson et al., 1976; Mits ch and Ewel, 1979; Hull et al ., 1989; Bondavalli et al., 2000; Ewing and Vepraskas, 2006; Carr et al., 2006). The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) uses several indicators to establish the “degree of harm” wetlands have sustained from pumping to guide regulatory decision-making (Hull et al., 1989; Berryman and Henigar Inc. 1997; Carr et al., 2006). As pa rt of a larger study assessing vegetation changes within these we tlands, the goal of my research was to determine the relationship between amounts of soil organic carbon (SOC) in these wetlands and the estimated “degree of harm.” It is my hypothesis that declining water tables disrupt the processes that lead to organic matter accumulation in wetlands and that measurable stores of SOC are decomposed and CO2 released to the atmosphere. It was

PAGE 13

2 the objective of this thesis to measure differe nces in SOC content across the spectrum of “healthy,” “harmed,” and “significantly harmed ” cypress domes in order to quantify these changes in relation to hydrologic impact. Wetlands in west-central Florida The surficial, or unconfined, aquifer syst em throughout most of Florida exists in the thin layer of Pleistocene to Holocene de posits of sand, shells, si lts and clayey sands overlying older, thick limestone deposits of varying permeability and the confined Floridan aquifer system within (Miller, 1986). The confined and unconfined aquifers come in contact with each other intermittently due to the karstic terrain, and depressions at the surface bring the water table above land surface, inundating these areas for most of the year and forming wetlands. Wetlands are regions where the local hydrology causes the land to be saturated for long periods of time, developing hydric soils and supporting hydrophytic vegetation (Tiner, 1999). In Florida, we tlands occur as mangrove forests, various saltwater to freshwater swamps and marshes, tidal flats, we t prairies, and riparian areas. They provide valuable functions such as aquifer rech arge, water filtration, storm buffering, flood control, recreational uses, and wildlife ha bitats (McPherson et al., 1976; EPC, 2008). Cypress domes, or cypress swamps, are one class of wetland found in west-central Florida and were the focus of this stu dy. They are characterized primarily by Pond Cypress trees ( Taxodium ascendens ), occur frequently in poorly drained, depressional

PAGE 14

3 areas within pine flatwoods (Riekerk a nd Kohnak, 2000), and have associated wetland plant species including Lyonia ( Lyonia lucida ), mosses and lichens (epiphytic bryophytes), peelbark St. Johnswort ( Hypericum fasciculatum), and Saw Palmetto ( Serenoa repens ) (Carr et al., 2006). Thes e wetlands have a small footprint, from 1-10 hectares, and their geometry of larger central trees, possibly due to thick organic soils, tapering outward to smaller trees, give them the characteristic dome appearance (Mitsch and Ewel, 1979; Bondavalli et al., 2000). Wetlands are an important ecosystem that federal and local governments recognize the need to protect (US EPA, 2002; Dahl, 2006). Sensitive to changes in water table fluctuations, wetlands are of particular interest when permitting groundwater withdrawals as extractions from the aquifer can eventually lead to serious water table declines that can adversely affect wetlands Tampa Bay Water projects that water demand in its service area will increase from approximately 230 MGD (million gallons per day) in 2003 to about 300 MGD in 2025 (Hazen a nd Sawyer, 2004). The state of Florida charges the water management districts with monitoring and permitting water within their districts in order to balance water demands with ecosystem needs. The districts must therefore gather, analyze and update informa tion about the interaction between aquifers and ecosystems to make decisions affecting the areas’ water resources. Numerical models used to predict how groundwater pumping will affect the surficial aquifer are relied on for regulatory decision making, however they are approximations and have been found to underestimate the effect on the water table wh en compared to actual measurements once pumping has occurred for a period of time (Stewart and Langevin, 1999).

PAGE 15

4 The Southwest Florida Management Dist rict (SWFWMD) has identified rules (Chapter 40D-2.301(c) FAC) meant to pr event negative impacts on wetlands from groundwater withdrawals, and the Florida Department of Envi ronmental Protection (FDEP) as well as the Wetlands Management division of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPC) exer cise additional regulatory authority within their areas in Florida. In a 1999 white paper, SWFWMD identified minimum water levels for palustrine cypress wetlands. This paper discussed assessm ent of ecological parameters within the wetlands, such as vegetation changes and so il loss, which signaled an impact from groundwater withdrawals. A lthough a rating system was used to analyze several wetlands, the terminology “significant harm” was the focus of the assessments as it related directly to the rules (Chapter 40D-2.301(c) FAC). SWFWMD established minimum water levels for wetlands to avoi d “significant harm” based on the rating system and ecological parameters; howe ver the designation “harm” was deemed qualitative in nature and specific paramete rs were not defined for minimum levels. Currently SWFWMD is working to precisely define the parameters for the designation ”harm” (SWFWMD, 2001, 2002). In an effort to aid in the es tablishment of quantifiable regulatory parameters for “harm”, the wetlands involved in the study are categorized as “healthy”, “harmed” or “significantly harmed”.

PAGE 16

5 Soil Organic Carbon Soils are a dynamic interaction of organi c matter, minerals, gases, water, and dissolved constituents. The cycle of plant materi al that decays, accumulates, and is buried in a layer of soil sequesters large amounts of carbon, with a flux of about 60 Pg of C/yr from terrestrial biota and a total SOC pool of approximately 1500 Pg of C worldwide (Trumbore 1997; Houghton, R.A., 2007). As this cycle proceeds, the pools of organic carbon are metabolized by organi sms which either release CO2 or methane (CH4) into the atmosphere, and also produce increasingly hum ified organic matter as solid products of decomposition (Schlesinger and Andrews, 2000; Zhang et al., 2002). Residence times for the SOC pool vary depending on climate (T rumbore 1997; Knorr et al., 2005; Davidson and Janssens, 2006) type of vegetation (Schle singer and Andrews, 2000; Quideau et al., 2001), erosion or disturbance (Smith et al ., 2005; Rosenbloom et al., 2006), topography (Yoo et al., 2006), changes in hydrology (E wing and Vepraskas, 2006), geographic location (Wu et al., 2003; Guo et al., 2006) and land use changes (Zhang et al., 2007). Hydric soils are defined by the NRCS as “a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough dur ing the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.” Th e hydric soils found in wetlands frequently have a large concentration of biomass that accumulates into thick organic soils with slow rates of decomposition. Soils that are saturated long enough to have a predominantly anaerobic, or reducing, environment with slow er rates of decomposition will tend to hold their stores of carbon (Ewing and Vepraskas, 2006).

PAGE 17

6 Soils within the wetlands in west-central Florida are poor ly drained or very poorly drained and form in hydrophytic plant rema ins overlying sandy marine sediments in depressional landforms. Most hydric soils in this region belong to the Histosol, Mollisol, Entisol, Alfisol, or Inceptisol soil orders with Aquic moisture regimes for suborders (NRCS, 2008). Given these conditio ns, these soils represent a potential intermediate-term carbon sink (Richardson and Vepraskas, 2000).

PAGE 18

7 Methods and Materials Study Area The Southwest Florida Management Dist rict (SWFWMD) is on the west-central portion of the Florida peninsul a, encompassing all or portio ns of 16 counties, including the Tampa metro region. Climate within th e area is wet and mil d, with mean annual precipitation (MAP) of 55 inches, most occu rring during the wet season between June and September, and a mean annual temperat ure (MAT) of 72 degrees F (NRCS, 2008). In 2006, Dr. Scott Emery, Visiting Resear ch Professor, USF's Institute for Environmental Studies and President of Envir onment and Health Integrated (EHI), began a research project for SWFWMD assessing fl ora for specific indicators of wetland harm. His study area includes over 60 wetland sites (c ypress domes, swamps, wet prairies, etc.) within the SWFWMD distri ct boundary. Many sites are monitored by SWFWMD for water table changes and surveyed for biol ogical indicators of hydrology (Carr et al., 2006). This soil carbon study is a complement to Dr. Emery’s research project, with the aim of sampling sites utilizing several criteri a: 1) sites within Dr. Emery’s set of 60+ wetlands, 2) assessed for current status 3) sites that contain monitor we lls and 4) sites that are surveyed for hydrologic indicat ors of seasonal water levels.

PAGE 19

8 Previous research developed a method for determine historic water levels based on vegetation at the perimeter of the wetland and using these indicators for surveying in water level elevations within the wetlands (Carr et al., 2006). Th e method for surveying specific elevations within each wetland seems to be a reliable indicator of seasonal high water stands (SWFWMD WAP Manual, 2004; Ca rr et al., 2006). These elevations were defined as normal pool (NP), normal pool -6 inches (NP-6), and nor mal pool -12 inches (NP-12) (Figure 1). Figure 1. Normal Pool Elevations illustration NP NP 6 NP 12

PAGE 20

9 As it is one of SWFWMD’s objectives to improve the di stinction between “harm” and “significant harm” when identifying wetlands impacted by groundwater pumping (SWFWMD 1999), the SWFWMD categories of “healthy”, “harmed”, and “significantly harmed” were utilized for this soil study. For my study I found it was to further necessary to narrow the selected wetlands not only based on “degree of harm”, but also with regard to limiting as many other factors that could contribute to SOC inventories. For this reason, only isolated cypress domes were cons idered. A small set of such cypress domes within Dr. Emery’s study area were selected (Figure 2). Dr. Emery provided the “degree of harm” category for each cypress do me sampled within his study area.

PAGE 21

10 Figure 2. Study area with sampled wetland sites

PAGE 22

11 I selected a minimum of 3 representa tive cypress domes for each hydrologic impact category of “healthy”, “harmed” and “significantly harmed”. At each of these cypress domes, the three NP elevations were used for sample transects to further differentiate the changes with respect to seasonal water levels. In total I collected detailed soil sample s according to a standardized protocol described below from eleven (11) wetl ands between December 2007 and April 2008. A range of sites was chosen that reflected va rying levels of impact from “healthy” to “significantly harmed”. Wetlands were gi ven names relating to their location and SWFWMD designations. Locati ons were recorded on the date of sampling using a handheld GPS and coordinates are in deci mal degrees (using WGS84 datum). Table 1 contains a list of wetlands, date of sampling, category, and GPS coordinates.

PAGE 23

12 Table 1. Sampled Wetland Sites, location, and category of harm. Wetland ID Date Category GPS Coordinates Starkey D 12/06/07 Sig. Harm N28.25586, W082.63612 Starkey 1 12/11/07 Healthy N28.20629, W082.56398 Starkey U 01/23/08 Sig. Harm N28.25045, W082.62376 Starkey W 01/23/08 Ha rmed N28.24616, W082.61278 Section 21 01/29/08 Sig. Harm N28.12176, W82.509494 Blackwater Creek 02/05/08 Harmed N28.14588, W082.15249 Green Swamp 7 02/12/08 Healthy N28.31230, W082.30713 Flatwoods 02/14/08 Harmed N28.11380, W082.30713 Starkey R 02/26/08 Healthy N28.24916, W082.55637 Starkey S75 03/04/08 Harmed N28.25080, W082.56085 New River 04/10/08 Healthy N28.15189, W82.262444

PAGE 24

13 Soil Collection Protocol My soil sampling protocol involved replicat e extractions of a standardized volume of soil from the upper 30cm of the soil, irrespective, and w ithout knowing a priori of any soil horizon below the sampling location. Custom PVC soil corers were constructed from 1 1/4” diameter PVC pipes and 4-way PVC fittings (Figure 3). An approximately 40cm long section of PVC pipe was glued into one of the openings of the 4-way fitting and an approximately 10cm long section of pipe wa s glued into another opening of the 4-way fitting at a 900 angle from the longer pipe section, creating a handle. A line was drawn around the pipe 30cm from the sampling end of the longer pipe section and the opening was filed to create a beveled edge. The core rs were inexpensive and disposable allowing for breakage and damage, the use of multiple, un used corers at each new site to minimize cross-contamination between sampled sites. After removing surface litter, samples we re collected by holding the short PVC pipe section with one hand and pounded into th e soil with a mallet until the line was at land surface. Twisting, rotating and pulling up on the handle allowed the soil sample to be extracted and then emptied from the co rer into a Legend Tin Top 5" x 9.5" paper sample envelopes to facilitate rapid air-drying of moist samples. The base of the core was inspected for a clean surface representing 30 cm of soil depth without sample loss. Samples with visible soil loss were discar ded and another extraction was attempted within close proximity to the discarded core. When roots were encountered and a

PAGE 25

14 complete 30 cm soil depth could not be extr acted, the sample was discarded and a new extraction attempted as described previously. Figure 3. Soil Corer

PAGE 26

15 Fifteen (15) soil cores were taken at each of the three NP elevations within each wetland for a total of 45 soil cores per site. The only exception was the last sampled wetland, New River, which had 15 cores taken so lely from the NP-12 elevation as it had been decided to sample one additional site and it was determined that this elevation would provide the most benefit for the res ources expended in colle cting and processing more samples. Sample locations were chosen in a non-sy stematic order at least 1-meter intervals along the NP elevation transect. As they were collected, each sample envelope was labeled with the wetland ID abbreviati on, NP elevation, and a number from 1-15. Sampling locations were marked on the ground us ing flags at elevations surveyed with respect to known elevations at NP stakes or staff gages using a survey rod and Topcon AT-F4 automatic level. Soil series for each site were referenced using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) online Web So il Survey (WSS) system (Table 2).

PAGE 27

16 Table 2. Soil Series for Sampled Wetland Sites. Wetland ID Category Soil Series Starkey D Sig. Harm Chobee soils Starkey 1 Healthy Sellers mucky loamy fine sand Starkey U Sig. Harm Chobee soils Starkey W Harmed Sellers mucky loamy fine sand Section 21 Sig. Harm Basinger, Ho lopaw, Samsula soils, depressional Blackwater Harmed Basinger, Hol opaw, Samsula soils, depressional Green Swamp 7 Healthy Chobee soils Flatwoods Harmed Basinger, Hol opaw, Samsula soils, depressional Starkey R Healthy Sellers mucky loamy fine sand Starkey S75 Harmed Sellers mucky loamy fine sand New River Healthy Basinger, Hol opaw, Samsula soils, depressional

PAGE 28

17 There were 3 different soil series re presented in the 11 sites (NRCS, 2008): 1) Chobee soils : Fine-loamy, siliceous, superactiv e, hyperthermic Typic Argiaquolls very poorly drained, Mollic epipedon, Argillic horizon 5 to 54 inches. 2) Sellers mucky loamy fine sand: Sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic Cumulic Humaquepts very poorly drained, Umbric epipedon. 3) Basinger, Holopaw, and Samsula soils, depressional Basinger and similar soils: 35 percent, Hol opaw and similar soils: 31 percent, Samsula and similar soils: 18 percent, Minor components: 16 percent Basinger: Siliceous, hyperthermic Spodic Psammaquents poorly drained and very poorly drained, Ochric epipedon, S podic intergrade the zone from 18 to 36 inches (Bh/E horizon). Holopaw: Loamy, siliceous, active, hype rthermic Grossarenic Endoaqualfs poorly and very poorly drained, Ochric epip edon and grossarenic feature, Argillic horizon 45 to 58 inches (Btg) Samsula: Sandy or sandy-skeletal, siliceous dysic, hyperthermic Terric Haplosaprists very poorly drained, Sa pric soil materials

PAGE 29

18 Sample Preparation Samples were weighed as soon as possibl e after collection, air dried at room temperature, and weighed again. Samples we re grouped into 4 bulk samples for each NP elevation within each site: Bulk A – samples labeled 1-5 Bulk B – samples labeled 6-10 Bulk C samples labeled 11-15 Bulk-Bulk – a mixture of 1/3 of each Bulk A, Bulk B and Bulk C. Dry soil samples were emptied into a so il riffle splitter by bulk grouping, and one quarter (1/4) to one half (1/2) of the bulked sample was retained for further processing. One quarter (1/4) of each of the Bulk A-C sa mples were set aside dur ing the splitting and bulking process to homogenize and create the Bulk-Bulk sample. Bulk samples were then sieved to reta in particles <2mm. The remaining sieved bulk samples were split as needed to reduce volume. Bulked samples were powdered in a Spex shatterbox and 8” diameter soil mill (Figure 4).

PAGE 30

19 Figure 4. Shatterbox and soil mill Elemental and Stable Isotopic Analysis Powered bulked samples were weighed into Costech pressed tin capsules (5 X 9 mm), fed into a Costech Instruments Elementa l Combustion System coupled to a Thermo Scientific Delta V Advantage Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer (IRMS). Samples were analyzed for % C (carbon), % N (nitrogen), C:N ratio, 13C and 15N values. There were four standards used to assess carbon and ni trogen. The standards used with mean and maximum standard deviation () obtained during all IRMS r uns are listed in Table 3. Several replicate measurements of each bulked sample were made between 2/21/2008 and 4/22/2008 and 1-4 results for eac h bulked sample were averaged.

PAGE 31

20 Table 3. IRMS Standards used to asse ss (C) carbon and (N) nitrogen content. Standard Contains Measur ed Mean Std Dev ( ) Fergie CN Sucrose, KNO3, %C 15.01 0.374 Si, Kaolinite %N 1.42 0.080 13C -25.01 0.126 15N -0.017 0.447 B2151* High Organic Content %C 6.70 0.128 %N 0.50 0.015 13C -26.29 0.230 15N 4.401 0.393 B2153* Low Organic Content %C 1.64 0.030 %N 0.14 0.010 13C -27.36 0.070 15N 6.653 0.632 B2155* Protein %C 46.27 0.907 %N 12.33 0.276 13C -26.94 0.003 15N 7.672 0.482 *Elemental Microanalysis soil/sediment standards

PAGE 32

21 Soil Moisture Meter Upon review of the preliminary soil wate r content and %C and %N results from the mass spectrometer, it was surmised that a soil moisture probe could be used to quickly determine relative wetland health. A Ben Meadows portable soil moisture meter, with a moisture scale from 1-10, was util ized at several wetlands on two separate occasions in an attempt to develop a protoc ol for sampling and interpreting the results. The probe was calibrated in completely satura ted conditions to read 10. 5 to 10 readings were taken within a one square meter area, at a probe depth of 30cm. Sampling locations were along a transect from the wetland edge moving in towards the center at NP elevation stakes NP-6 and NP-12, and at the cen ter of the wetland close to the staff gage. Wetland Well Data The monthly records for water levels r ecorded in the wetland wells were cross referenced with SWFWMD and gathered for six of the eleven sampled sites and hydrographs were created. Review of the data and resulting graphs revealed that water levels at several sites had dropped below the bottom of the well for extended periods of time. Because of this, it was determined the information was of little value to this study, however the graphs are included in Appendix B.

PAGE 33

22 Calculations The sample volume (V) was calculated by measuring the diameter (D) of the corer, determining the area (A) of the ope ning, and multiplying the area by the sampled length (30 cm): D = 3.70 cm, r = 1.85 cm A = r2 = 10.75 cm2 V = 10.75 cm2 30 cm = 322.56 cm3 The bulk density (db) was calculated for every samp le by dividing the dry weight (m) by the volume V (computed above) and reported in units of g/cm3: dB = m/V The arithmetic mean ( ) and standard deviation () of the set of individual soil core values (xi) for bulk density (db) and water content for each elevation (NP, NP-6, NP12) within each wetland site were computed. The mean %C, %N, C:N ratio, 13C and 15N values for the bulked samples for each NP elevation within each site were cal culated. The number of values obtained by

PAGE 34

23 mass spectrometry for the bulked samples ranged from 4 8 for each elevation/site combination, so error was determined using the maximum and minimum values in each set rather than st andard deviation. Statistical comparisons between wetland categories of harm and NP elevations were computed for %C using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with an alpha level (pvalue) < 0.05. In addition, regressi on analysis was performe d for soil water content versus %C and %C versus bulk density. Carbon density was computed by multiplying the mean %C by the mean bulk density ( d b) for each NP elevation and then divi ding by 1000 to convert the units into mg/cm3. Isotopes were computed and reported in standard delta ( ) notation, relative differences in isotope ratios between the samp le and a standard, in units of ‰ (per mil): 13C = 1000 X ((13C/12C)sample / (13C/12C)standard – 1) 15N = 1000 X ((15N/14N)sample / (15N/14N)standard – 1)

PAGE 35

24 Results Soil Water Content Soil water content measured at the time of sampling was examined for replicate measurements taken from individual eleva tion and “degree of harm” categories. The mean water content ( w ) from the sampled cores for each elevation at each wetland site are plotted, with error bars repr esented by standard deviation () in Figure 5. The range of w values for all sampled NP (normal pool) elevations was 5.6% to 22.3%, demonstrating a slight trend of increasing w with healthier wetland sites. The transitional elevation of NP-6 was similar to the NP re sults with values ranging from 5.3% to 23.5% and an analogous trend with “degree of ha rm”. The most pronounced increase in soil water with “degree of harm” was obtained fr om the central NP-12 elevation values. The range of w for NP-12 was 5.3% to 62.6%, with 3 of the 4 “healthy” sites exhibiting a notable increase in soil water content as compar ed to either the “harm” or “significantly harmed” wetland sites.

PAGE 36

25 Comparison of Soil Water Content 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy Sampled Cypress Domes% Water NP NP-6 NP-12 Figure 5. Soil water content co mparison by “degree of harm”

PAGE 37

26 Bulk Density Bulk density (db) was calculated for every soil sample, the mean ( d b) and standard deviation ( db) values for each NP elevation a nd each wetland site are plotted in Figure 6. d b ranged from as low as 0.2 g/cm3 in the very organic rich soils, to as high as 1.76 g/cm3 in exposed surface mineral horizons. Ther e were very few trends, except in the NP-12 elevations where 2 of the 4 “healthy” sites were lower than all other sites.

PAGE 38

27 Comparison of Bulk Density0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy Sampled Cypres Domesdb (g/cm3) NP NP-6 NP-12 Figure 6. Bulk density comparison by “degree of harm”

PAGE 39

28 Carbon Content The mean (% C ) values for bulked samples representing each NP elevation at all wetland sites is plotted in Figure 7. % C in the “healthy”, “harm” and “significantly harmed” sites at the NP and NP-6 elevations were relatively low and varied little. The range of % C for the all sampled NP elevations was 1.14% to 3.91%, while at NP-6 % C ranged from 1.05% 4.8%. Across these categorie s of “harm”, distinctive increases were observed at the NP-12 elevations. The range of % C for this elevation was 1.43% to 23.08%, notably this range being represented wi thin the “healthy” we tland sites, although the overall trend was an increase in %C for 3 of the 4 “healthy” soils. Carbon density was calculated us ing the %C and bulk density (db) values (Appendix A). The carbon density showed no c onsistent trends between categories and within the same site across elevations. The Starkey R (“healthy”), Starkey S75 (“harm”), Blackwater (“harm”), and Secti on 21 (“significant harm”) s ites increase in carbon density from NP to NP-12 elevations. The Starke y 1 (“healthy”), Flatwoods (“harm”), and Starkey D (“significant harm”) sites demonstrated a slight increase from NP to NP-6, then a decrease at the NP-12 elevation. The Green Swamp 7 (“healthy”) and Starkey U (“significant harm”) sites had a small decrease from NP to NP-6 followed by an increase at NP-12. Starkey W (“harm”) showed a general decrease from NP to NP-12.

PAGE 40

29 Comparison of Carbon Content 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy Sampled Cypress Domes%C NP NP-6 NP-12 Figure 7. Soil carbon content co mparison by “degree of harm”

PAGE 41

30 Water content measurements were coupled with %C for all bulked groups and all wetland sites. Figure 8 shows the results of th e analysis and a relationship between these variables, with increasing water cont ent in the soil as %C increases. Water Content vs Carbon Content y = 1.4046e0.0347xR2 = 0.5750 5 10 15 20 25010203040506070%H2O%C Figure 8. Water content versus %C for all sampled sites Analysis of changes in bulk density with increasing carbon content were also conducted by bulk group and wetland site and th e results were plotte d. Figure 9a shows the relationship between bulk de nsity and %C and figure 9b u tilizes the inverse of bulk density (db) against %C in order to use linear re gression for finding the best fit line. In this case, as bulk density increases the %C decreases.

PAGE 42

31 Bulk Density vs Carbon Content y = 3.2174x-1.5482R2 = 0.86760 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0Bulk Density (g/cm3)%C (a) Bulk Density (1/bd) vs Carbon Contenty = 5.1804x 1.6116 R2 = 0.9686 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 01234561/bd%C (b) Figure 9a. bulk density (db) versus %C and 9b. (1/ db) versus %C

PAGE 43

32 Nitrogen Content The mean ( ) values for bulked samples repr esenting each NP elevation at all wetland sites was calculated and pl otted (Figure 10). Values for in the “healthy”, “harm” and “significantly harmed” sites at the NP and NP-6 elevations were extremely low. The range of for the all sampled NP elevations was 0.06% – 0.17%, and the NP-6 values ranged from 0.06% 0.24%. The NP-12 elevation values ranged from 0.09% 1.19%. Once again, it was this central elevat ion that demonstrated any trend. There was a prominent increase in for 3 of the 4 “healthy” wetland sites at the NP-12 elevation. It should be noted that these va lues were of such small quantities that they produced more variance than the values for %C. C:N Ratio Mean ( ) ratios for bulked samples repres enting each NP elevation at all wetland sites are plotted in Figure 11. There is a decreasing trend across all categories from NP to NP-12 elevations. %C and %N measurements were only made on replicate samples of “bulk” and “bulk-bulk” sa mples, so error bars are not determined for these data. However, replicate measuremen ts of %C and %N of standard reference materials are.

PAGE 44

33 Comparison of Nitrogen Content0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy Sampled Cypress Domes%N NP NP-6 NP-12 Figure 10. Soil nitrogen content comparison by “degree of harm”

PAGE 45

34 C:N Ratio Comparison0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy Sampled Cypress DomesC:N Ratio NP NP-6 NP-12 Figure 11. C:N Ratios comparison by “degree of harm”

PAGE 46

35 Stable isotopic compositi on of Soil Organic Matter Mean values for 13C and 15N for bulked samples at each site were calculated and plotted by wetland category, against each other, %C and C:N ratio. Differences between isotopic values within ea ch wetland were also examined. 13C for all bulk samples from NP elevations ranged from –27.4 to -21.8‰. This range of 13C values is consistent with C3 plan ts as the primary source of biomass contributing to the soil carbon, and is in agre ement with previous studies on the isotopic composition of soils with a moderate to high moisture content and C3 dominant flora (Yonghoon et al., 2001; Bird et al., 2003). The 13C values across NP elevations or wetland categories varied (Figur e 12), and plots comparing 13C with 15N values, %C, and C:N ratios showed an increasing variance in 13C values with increasing carbon content (Figure 13).

PAGE 47

36 NP Carbon Isotope Comparison-28.00 -27.00 -26.00 -25.00 -24.00 -23.00 -22.00 -21.00SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy 13C (a) NP-6 Carbon Isotope Comparison-28.00 -27.00 -26.00 -25.00 -24.00 -23.00 -22.00 -21.00SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy 13C (b) NP-12 Carbon Isotope Comparison-28.00 -27.00 -26.00 -25.00 -24.00 -23.00 -22.00 -21.00SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy 13C (c) Figures 12a-c. Carbon Isotope results gr aphed separately by NP elevations moving from wetland edge (NP) in toward s the center (NP-12) top to bottom, and “sig. harm” to “healthy” within each graph, left to right.

PAGE 48

37 Carbon vs Nitrogen Isotopes-5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00-28.00-27.00-26.00-25.00 -24.00-23.00-22.00-21.0013C15N (a) Carbon Isotopes vs %C0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 -28.00-27.00-26.00-25.00-24.00-23.00-22.00-21.0013C%C (b) Carbon Isotopes vs C:N Ratios0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 -28.00-27.00-26.00-25.00-24.00-23.00-22.00-21.0013CC:N Ratio Figure 13a-c. Carbon Isotope re sults plotted against a. 15N, b. %C, and c. C:N ratios

PAGE 49

38 There was a trend in the difference in 13C values between wetland categories. The mean difference in 13C was computed by taking the maximum and minimum 13C values for each wetland, finding the differen ce between these, and calculating the mean of those differences for every wetland categ ory. This mean difference increased with increasing wetland health (Figure 14). Difference Between Carbon Isotopes Within Wetlands Grouped by "Harm" Category0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0Sig. HarmedHarmedHealthydifference in 13C isotopes Figure 14. The mean difference in 13C values between wetland categories The average 15N ranged between –4.2 and 1.8‰ (Figure 15). Results were consistent with the range of values f ound in soils, which vary greatly, but tend to be slightly positive (Sharp, 2007) The plots with regard to NP elevation and wetland categories were also quite variable within this range.

PAGE 50

39 NP Nitrogen Isotope (d15N) Comparison-8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy 15N (a) NP-6 Nitrogen Isotope (d15N) Comparison-8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy 15N (b) NP-12 Nitrogen Isotope (d15N) Comparison-8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00SW-DSW-USect 21SW-WBWFWSW-S75GS 7SW-RSW-1NR Sig HarmSig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthyHealthyHealthy 15N (c) Figure 15a-c. Nitrogen Isotope results gr aphed separately by NP elevations

PAGE 51

40 Figure 16 is a plot of the mean difference in 15N values, calculated in the same manner as the mean difference in 13C values. The mean difference decreased from “significantly harmed” to “harmed”, however the “healthy” category had the largest mean difference. Difference Between Nitro g en Isotopes Within Wetlands Grouped by "Harm" Category0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Sig. HarmedHarmedHealthydifference in 15N Isotopes Figure 16. The mean difference in 15N values within wetlands of different categories

PAGE 52

41 Soil Moisture Meter There was a distinct correlation between replicate measurements taken with the soil moisture meter and “degree of harm” in the six wetlands that were measured on a single day under similar meteorological cond itions (5/23/2008) at Starkey Wilderness Park (Appendix C). Relative soil moisture in creased both along a transect from outer edge to center of the wetland and with incr easing wetland health (Figure 17). The 5-10 readings at each location within the wetland (wetland edge, NP-6, NP-12, and staff gage or wetland center) had standard deviations less than 0.5, ex cept for one highly variable spot that had a standard deviation of 2.3. Th is one sample location was in a “harmed” site and had 10 readings that ranged between 0 a nd 6 taken in a 1 square meter area at the staff gage (wetland center). It is possible th at the soil in the center of this wetland is especially heterogeneous with respect to te xture and there are pocke ts of moist and dry soil in close proximity.

PAGE 53

42 Soil Moisture Meter Results0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Sig HarmSig HarmHarmHarmHealthyHealthy Wetland edge NP-6 NP-12 Staff gage Figure 17. Soil Moisture Meter test results

PAGE 54

50 Discussion Measurements of % C were statistically significantly different for the “healthy” as compared to the “harmed” and “significant harmed” wetlands. In addition, both mean soil water content ( w ) (Figure 5) and %C (Figure 7) showed an increase in “healthy” wetlands over both “harmed” and “signi ficantly harmed” categories, and also demonstrated a trend related to wetland ge ometry, increasing from the wetland edge towards the center, with a pronounce increase at the NP-12 elevation. Using soil moisture and carbon as an indicator of organic matter cont ent, this is consiste nt with the thickest development of soil organic matter (SOM) in the center of the wetland dome (Mitsch and Ewel, 1979; Tiner, 1999; Bondavalli et al., 2000). Graphs of both water and bulk density ve rsus %C further de monstrate the link between organic matter content in soils with soil moisture (Figure 8). As soil water content increases, %C also increases. Coup ling the %C with bulk density (Figure 9) showed an increase in organic matter in the soil, as indicated by an increase in carbon content, with a decrease in bulk density. Thes e graphs showed an empirical relationship that could predict values of SOC given the water content or the bulk density of a soil sample.

PAGE 55

51 Values of mean bulk density at the NP-12 elevation correlate well with this trend as 3 of the 4 “healthy” we tlands ranged from 0.2 g/cm3 to 0.65 g/cm3, and the measurements at all other wetla nd sites ranged between 0.85 g/cm3 and 1.50 g/cm3. Higher concentrations of organic matter reduce soil bulk density because it contains less dense plant and animal remains as compared to more dense minerals, combined with the effect of processes involved in decompositi on, which open up numerous pores within the matrix (Juma, 2004). The highest measurements of water cont ent and carbon content, and conversely the lowest values for bulk density, would be in the wetlands wher e conditions exist to develop thick deposits of organi c rich soils. These were demons trated most vividly at the central NP-12 elevation, theref ore it follows that the center of the wetland is the most crucial indicator of wetland soil health. In addition, the soil nitrogen (Figure 10) and C:N ratio (Figure 11) values support the development of SOM at the NP-12 elev ations. Plant productiv ity and decomposition produces larger nitrogen pools in the soil, and decreasing C:N ratios are indications of a high organic content produced in soils that have accumulated over time (Juma, 2004). There is an increase in %N for the NP-12 el evation in the “healthy” wetlands. The C:N ratios between wetlands with different “degr ees of harm” was less indicative that the trend within each wetland, where the ratio d ecreased consistently from the wetland edge towards the center.

PAGE 56

52 The results of this study s uggest that water levels dur ing the growing season must be high enough to saturate the center of the wetland fo r prolonged periods, creating anaerobic conditions that allow for the accumu lation of soil organic matter (SOM). It is most likely that this central deposit of organic rich soils retains soil moisture during dry periods and sustains the wetland ecology. Conve rsely, if a wetland does not achieve high enough pooling in the central el evation during the wet seas on, unsaturated soils will decompose SOM and lose stores of organic carbon. Loss of SOM means that the wetland will be unable to retain water during dry seas ons and the biota will become impacted as water needs cannot be met. Since soil moisture and organic carbon c ontent are well correlated, tests of soil water content may prove a convenient proxy for determining the organic stores and thus the relative health of the wetland. Wetland s that do not have ade quate soil moisture throughout the year in the cente r may indicate they are “harmed” or impacted in some way. Preliminary tests using a soil moisture meter at six of the wetlands within the same geographic region were encouraging as a simple tool that can be used to quickly measure relative soil water content and therefore soil health (Figure 17). Transects from the wetland edge towards the center showed increase s in soil moisture for each site, except for the most “significantly harmed” (Starkey D). This would concur with the wetland center being the key elevation to retain water in the soil during dry periods. In addition, there was an increase in the moisture r eadings in wetlands of increasing “health”, indicating that these wetlands are retaini ng more water during the same period of time than are the impacted wetlands.

PAGE 57

53 Chaplot et al. (2001) developed a pro cedure for estimating the soil organic content using an index of soil colors in the upper horizons. Th is concept could potentially be adapted to conveniently test the wetland so ils and correlate soil colors with carbon content. The Green Swamp 7 site was the only “heal thy” wetland of the four that were sampled that diverged from the remainder of th e results. Soils at this site were observed to have had a higher sand content, less soil organic matter, and consequently lower soil moisture and higher bulk density as compared to the other “healthy” sites, especially at the NP-12 elevation. However, the biota wa s healthy and there we re no indication of hydrologic impact at the time of sampling. If the wetland is assessed as “healthy” due to vegetation and hydrology, one expl anation could be that the wate r table in that region is not impacted by groundwater pumping and water av ailability during the year is not yet an issue. Associated with this is the possibility is that the soils may be immature (Quideau et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2004) and the layer of organic matter is increasing but not yet thick enough to be correlated with the othe r “healthy” sites. In terpreting the carbon and nitrogen isotope measurements may provide more insight into this question (Amundson et al., 2003; Wynn et al., 2005). An analysis of stable carbon isotope values may indicate the state of decomposition of organic matter due to the magnitude of the differences between the highest and lowest 13C values within the same type of soil. Soils in “healthy” wetlands had a higher variance in 13C values than “harmed” wetlands which in turn had a higher variation than the “significantly harmed” wetlands. A study by Wynn et al. (2005) found

PAGE 58

54 that finer textured soils had a larger difference in 13C values than coarse textured soils of comparable soils forming regimes. They concluded that the processes that dominate decomposition in organic rich soils fractionated the 13C isotopes with increasing depth from the surface. A similar process of 13Cenrichment during humification may account for the trends observed from NP to NP-12, and for the increase in amplitude of this trend in “healthy” wetlands. The 13C values of SOC can be a quantitativ e indicator of the dominate plant community that contribute carbon to the soil, and of mixtures of C3 and C4 plants (Yonghoon et al., 2001). As invasive grasses and other plant speci es begin to take over an impacted wetland, the mean 13C values would be less depleted with respect to 12C to reflect increasing biomass cont ributions from C4 plant co mmunities. This may be the case with the “significantly harmed” S ection 21 wetland site, where the mean 13C values were the highest (Figure 12) and extensive invasive grasses were observed at all NP elevation on the day of soil sampling. Organic carbon plays an important role in denitrification in wetland soils (Hill and Cardaci, 2004). Nitrates (NO3 -) have nitrogen isotopes that are depleted with respect to other pools of nitrogen in the soil and may be a good indicator of the viability of the organic carbon pool (Davidsson and Stah l, 2000). The increasing variance in 13C values, along with a similar trend in 15N values with increasing health could indicate a more dynamic carbon and nitrogen interaction a nd SOM accumulation. A thorough isotopic analysis and additional data collection may be needed to fully utilize the 13C and 15N values from this study.

PAGE 59

55 Continued research may be needed to de velop a systematic approach to assessing wetlands for “harm” using soil carbon as the measure. Developing the soil moisture meter and other quick and practical techniques ha s the potential to provide SWFWMD with improved wetland evaluation procedures that de finitively categorize “harmed” wetlands. Results seem to indicate that future rese arch can focus on sampling from the central elevation of NP-12 and determining changes in soil water content and water retention potential in that area.

PAGE 60

56 Conclusion There is a connection between measur ements of the upper soil horizon’s water content and wetland health, as related to quant ities of soil organic carbon. There appears to be some validity to utilizing a soil mois ture meter in the upper 30 centimeters as a proxy for soil carbon stores, which should be hi gher in the center of a cypress wetland and more pronounced in the healthier sites. A sampling protocol using a soil moisture meter or soil moisture monitoring system should be developed if this will be utilized by entities in the assessment of wetlands. Further study of the 13C/12C and 15N/14N isotopic composition of decomposing organic matter in the “healthy” wetlands of west-central Florida could be conducted to contrast with the isotopic make up of impacted wetland soils.

PAGE 61

57 List of References Amundson, Ronald, A. T. Austin, E. A. G. Sc huur, K. Yoo, V. Ma tzek, C. Kendall, A. Uebersax, D. Brenner, and W. T. Bais den, 2003. Global patterns of isotopic composition of soil a nd plant nitrogen. Global Biogeochemical Cycles vol. 17, no. 1, 1031. Bird, M. I., E. M. Veenendaal, and J. J. Lloyd, 2003. Soil carbon inventories and 13C along a moisture gradient in Botswana. Global Change Biology vol. 9, 1-8. Bondavalli, Cristina, Robert E. Ulanowicz, Antonio Bodini, 2000. Insights into the processing of carbon in the South Florid a Cypress Wetlands: a whole-ecosystem approach using network analysis Journal of Biogeography vol 27, 697-710. Carr, D. W., D. A. Leeper, and T. F. Rochow. 2006. Comparison of six biologic indicators of hydrology and the landward ex tent of hydric soils in west-central Florida, USA cypress domes. Wetlands, vol 26, no. 4, 1012-1019. Chaplot, Vincent, Martial Bernoux, Christia n Walter, Pierre Curmi, and Uwe Herpin, 2001. Soil Carbon Storage Prediction in Temperate Hydromorphic Soils Using a Morphologic Index and Dgital Elevation Model. Soil Science vol. 166, no. 1, 4860. Conner, William H., Ioana Mihalia, and Jeff Wolfe, 2002. Tree community structure and changes from 1987 to 1999 in three Louisian a and three South Carolina forested wetlands. Wetlands vol. 22, 58-70. Dahl, T. E., 2006. Status and trends of we tlands in the conterminous United States 19982004. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washinton D.C., 112 pp. Davidson, Eric A., and Ivan A. Janssens, 2006. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature, vol. 440, 165-173.

PAGE 62

58 Davidsson, Torbjorn, Emil, Mattias Stahl, 2000. The Influence of Organic Carbon on Nitrogen Transformations in Five Wetland Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal vol. 64, 1129-1136. Ewing, J. M., and M. J. Vepraskas, 2006. Estimating primary and secondary subsidence in an organic soil 15, 20, and 30 years after drainage, Wetlands vol 26, no. 1, 119-130. FDEP. 1995. The Florida wetlands delinea tion manual. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL, USA. Guo, Yinyan, Peng Gong, Ronald Amundson, and Qian Yu, 2006. Analysis of Factors Controlling Soil Carbon in the Conterminous United States. Soil Science Society of America Journal vol. 70, 601-612. Hazen and Sawyer, 2004. The Tampa Bay Water Long-Term Demand Forecasting Model. Report produced for Tampa Bay Water. Hill, Alan R., Mia Cardaci, 2004. Denitrifi cation and Organic Carbon Availability in Riparian Wetland Soils and Subsurface Sediments. Soil Science Society of America Journal vol. 68, 320-325. Houghton, R.A., 2007. Balanci ng the Global Carbon Budget The Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 35:313-347. Hull, H. C. Jr., J. M. Post Jr., M. Lopez, and R. G. Perry. 1989. Analysis of water level indicators in wetlands: implications for the design of surface water management. systems. p. 195–204. In D. Fisk (ed.) Wetlands: Concerns and Successes. Proceedings of the American Water Re sources Association, Tampa, FL,USA. Juma, Noorallah G., The Pedosphere and its Dynamics A Systems Approach to Soil Science. Volume 1: Introduction to Soil Science and Soil Resources Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Salman Productions, 2004. Knorr, W., I. C Prentice, J.I. House, E. A. Holland, 2005. Long-term sensitivity of soil carbon turnover to warming. Nature, vol 433, 298-301. McPherson, B. F., C. Y. Hendrix, Howa rd Klein, and H. M. Tyus, 1976. The environment of South Florida A summa ry report: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1011. Mitsch, William J., and Katherine C. Ewel 1979. Comparative Biomass and Growth of Cypress in Florida Wetlands. American Mi dland Naturalist, vol. 101, no. 2, 417426.

PAGE 63

59 “NRCS Hydric Soils of the United States ”, 3/21/2008, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 6/11/2008, http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric “NRCS Web Soil Survey”, 3/15/2008, US DA Natural Resources Conservation Services, 6/20/2007, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Postel, Sandra l., 2000. Ente ring an Era of Water Scarc ity: The Challenges Ahead. Ecological Applications vol. 10, 941-948. Quideau, S. A., O. A. Chadwick, S. E. Trum bore, J. L. Johnson-Maynard, R. C. Graham, M. A. Anderson, 2001. Vegetation cont rol on soil organic matter dynamics. Organic Geochemistry vol 32, 247-252. Richardson, J. L. and M. J. Vepraskas, 2000. Wetland soils: genesis, hydrology, landscapes, and classification CRC Press. Riekerk, Hans, and Larry V. Korknak, 2000. The hydrology of cypress wetlands in Florida pine flatwoods. Wetlands vol. 20, no. 3, 448-460. Rosenbloom, Nan A., Jennifer W. Harden, Jaso n C. Neff, and David S. Schimel, 2006. Geomorphic control of landscape carbon accumulation. Journal of Geophysical Research vol. 111, G01004. Schlesinger, William H., Jeffrey A. Andr ews, 2000. Soil respiration and the global carbon cycle. Biogeochemistry vol. 48, 7-20. Sharp, Zachary. Principles of Stable Isotope Geochemistry The University of New Mexico, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007. Smith, S. V., R. O. Sleezer, W. H. Renwick, R. W. Buddmeier, 2005. Fates of eroded soil organic carbon: Mississi ppi basin case study. Ecological Applications vol. 15, 1929-1940. Southwest Florida Water Management Distri ct (SWFWMD). Establishment of Minimum Levels in Palustrine Cypress Wetlands In: Northern Tampa Bay minimum flows and levels white papers, March 18, 1999. Southwest Florida Water Management Distri ct (SWFWMD). Northern Tampa Bay Phase II Local Technical Peer Review Gr oup – Meeting 5, February 7, 2001. Southwest Florida Water Management Distri ct (SWFWMD). Northern Tampa Bay Phase II Local Technical Peer Review Gr oup – Meeting 10, January 11, 2002.

PAGE 64

60 Stewart, Mark and Christian Langevin, 1999. Post Audit of a Nume rical Prediction of Wellfield Drawdown in a Semiconfined Aquifer System. Ground Water vol. 37, no. 2, 245 – 252. Tiner, R. W. In Search of Swampland, A Wetland Resource Book and Field Guide. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London, 1998. Tiner, R. W. Wetland Indicators: a Gu ide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999. Trumbore, Susan E. 1997. Potential res ponses of soil organic carbon to global environmental change. Proceedings of the Natio nal Academy of Sciences, vol 94, 8284-8291. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wa shington, D.C. "Federal Water Pollution Control Act – As amended through P.L. 107-303", November 27, 2002. 33 U.S.C 1251 et seq. Wynn, Jonathan G., Michael I. Bird, and Va nessa N. L. Wong, 2005. Rayleih distillation and the depth profile of 13C/12C ratios of soil organic carbon from soils of disparate texture in the Iron Range National Park, Far North Queensland, Australia., Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta vol. 69, no. 8, 1961-1973. Wu, Haibin, Zhengtang Guo, and Changhui Pe ng, 2003. Distribution and storage of soil organic carbon in China. Global Biogeo chemical Cycles, vol. 17, no 2, 1048. Yonghoon, Choi, Wang Yang, Yuch-Ping Hsieh, and Larry Robinson, 2001. Vegetation succession and carbon sequestration in a co astal wetland in northwest Florida : Evidence from carbon isotopes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles vol. 15, no. 2, 311-319. Zhang, H. B., Y. M. Luo, M. H. Wong, Q. G. Zhao, G. L. Zhang, 2007. Soil organic carbon storage and changes with reduction in agricultural activities in Hong Kong. Geoderma vol. 139, 412-419.

PAGE 65

61 Appendix A Individual Wetland Sample Data Computations of Water Cont ent and Bulk Density, and IRMS Results

PAGE 66

62 Table A-1a. Starkey D (Sig. Harm) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 12/4 12/6/2007 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP 1 515.4 494.0 21.4 4.151.531 NP 2 441.7 405.5 36.2 8.201.257 NP 3 521.1 500.5 20.6 3.951.552 NP 4 498.5 471.6 26.9 5.401.462 NP 5 467.9 448.7 19.2 4.101.391 NP 6 456.9 434.4 22.5 4.921.347 NP 7 293.1 265.2 27.9 9.520.822 NP 8 379.2 355.7 23.5 6.201.103 NP 9 433.1 408.2 24.9 5.751.265 NP 10 397.8 377.9 19.9 5.001.172 NP 11 508.6 484.1 24.5 4.821.501 NP 12 370.9 350.0 20.9 5.631.085 NP 13 468.8 441.7 27.1 5.781.369 NP 14 516.6 493.5 23.1 4.471.530 NP 15 421.1 395.7 25.4 6.031.227 NP-6 1 351.4 329.8 21.6 6.151.022 NP-6 2 487.2 467.8 19.4 3.981.450 NP-6 3 432.8 408.6 24.2 5.591.267 NP-6 4 478.3 459.3 19.0 3.971.424 NP-6 5 434.5 404.4 30.1 6.931.254 NP-6 6 397.8 369.9 27.9 7.011.147 NP-6 7 451.9 427.7 24.2 5.361.326 NP-6 8 502.1 485.0 17.1 3.411.504 NP-6 9 426.4 402.5 23.9 5.611.248 NP-6 10 406.7 383.4 23.3 5.731.189 NP-6 11 442.0 416.4 25.6 5.791.291 NP-6 12 424.7 405.0 19.7 4.641.256 NP-6 13 446.1 424.0 22.1 4.951.314 NP-6 14 479.2 447.9 31.3 6.531.389 NP-6 15 496.1 475.3 20.8 4.191.474

PAGE 67

63 NP-12 1 482.2 454.8 27.4 5.681.410 NP-12 2 500.8 481.0 19.8 3.951.491 NP-12 3 421.1 400.8 20.3 4.821.243 NP-12 4 414.3 393.9 20.4 4.921.221 NP-12 5 504.4 483.3 21.1 4.181.498 NP-12 6 411.6 393.4 18.2 4.421.220 NP-12 7 477.8 448.2 29.6 6.201.389 NP-12 8 477.9 461.0 16.9 3.541.429 NP-12 9 390.8 371.1 19.7 5.041.150 NP-12 10 381.6 352.8 28.8 7.551.094 NP-12 11 415.8 396.0 19.8 4.761.228 NP-12 12 435.2 410.1 25.1 5.771.271 NP-12 13 420.4 400.2 20.2 4.801.241 NP-12 14 443.3 413.1 30.2 6.811.281 NP-12 15 417.7 388.8 28.9 6.921.205

PAGE 68

64 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-1b. Starkey D (Sig. Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N 13C 15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.439 0.120 1.6523.74mg/cm30.0811-24.40 -6.6920.382/21/2008 1.7625.32mg/cm30.1050-24.31 -7.8116.732/21/2008 Bulk B 1.142 0.201 2.8332.31mg/cm30.1015-24.83 -3.1827.902/21/2008 Bulk C 1.342 0.187 1.6622.28mg/cm30.0714-24.50 -5.8023.192/21/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.308 0.205 2.0727.07mg/cm30.0914-24.64 -4.3922.612/21/2008 2.0526.81mg/cm30.1035-24.65 -6.3119.782/21/2008 2.2429.29mg/cm30.0718-25.18 0.1931.223/10/2008 2.04 0.0578-24.72 0.3335.284/22/2008NP-6 Bulk A 1.283 0.171 2.7335.04mg/cm30.1338-23.76-2.7320.442/21/2008 Bulk B 1.283 0.141 2.9237.45mg/cm30.1412-23.96-2.1420.692/21/2008 Bulk C 1.345 0.087 2.7737.25mg/cm30.1427-23.92-3.4919.452/21/2008 2.9139.13mg/cm30.1168-24.230.6125.023/10/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.304 0.131 2.7736.11mg/cm30.1440-23.62-3.5619.232/21/2008 2.7035.19mg/cm30.1652-23.66-4.4216.342/21/2008 2.5933.76mg/cm30.1009-23.861.2225.673/10/2008 2.61 0.0922-23.881.0128.354/22/2008

PAGE 69

65 NP-12 Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N 13C 15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.373 0.133 2.1629.65mg/cm30.1435-24.61 -3.7515.072/21/2008 2.2030.20mg/cm30.1014-24.51 1.2621.683/10/2008 Bulk B 1.256 0.147 2.6232.92mg/cm30.1695-24.55 -3.8115.462/21/2008 Bulk C 1.245 0.031 3.0137.48mg/cm30.1971-25.09 -2.0115.252/21/2008 BulkBulk 1.291 0.123 1.9625.31mg/cm30.1456-24.54 -5.1813.442/21/2008 2.2128.54mg/cm30.1417-24.92 1.6915.583/10/2008 2.08 0.0947-24.76 -0.1622.014/22/2008

PAGE 70

66 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-2a. Starkey 1 (Health y) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 12/11/2007 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP 1 424.4 363.6 60.8 14.331.127 NP 2 437.6 375.8 61.8 14.121.165 NP 3 426.3 358.4 67.9 15.931.111 NP 4 407.8 349.8 58.0 14.221.084 NP 5 435.6 377.1 58.5 13.431.169 NP 6 417.1 355.7 61.4 14.721.103 NP 7 354.0 295.3 58.7 16.580.915 NP 8 288.0 237.7 50.3 17.470.737 NP 9 408.1 341.2 66.9 16.391.058 NP 10 419.6 361.0 58.6 13.971.119 NP 11 460.1 395.1 65.0 14.131.225 NP 12 465.8 404.3 61.5 13.201.253 NP 13 459.3 394.6 64.7 14.091.223 NP 14 404.7 342.3 62.4 15.421.061 NP 15 442.3 378.4 63.9 14.451.173 NP-6 1 528.7 446.2 82.5 15.601.383 NP-6 2 488.5 389.8 98.7 20.201.208 NP-6 3 486.0 395.5 90.5 18.621.226 NP-6 4 294.7 194.2 100.5 34.100.602 NP-6 5 391.9 284.6 107.3 27.380.882 NP-6 6 395.7 316.1 79.6 20.120.980 NP-6 7 293.5 230.2 63.3 21.570.714 NP-6 8 369.4 289.3 80.1 21.680.897 NP-6 9 376.7 300.1 76.6 20.330.930 NP-6 10 477.5 380.1 97.4 20.401.178 NP-6 11 422.8 328.0 94.8 22.421.017 NP-6 12 314.4 242.1 72.3 23.000.751 NP-6 13 446.7 363.6 83.1 18.601.127 NP-6 14 423.3 337.0 86.3 20.391.045 NP-6 15 504.2 410.8 93.4 18.521.274

PAGE 71

67 NP-12 1 120.6 31.8 88.8 73.630.099 NP-12 2 72.7 19.8 52.9 72.760.061 NP-12 3 161.5 55.6 105.9 65.570.172 NP-12 4 140.2 37.5 102.7 73.250.116 NP-12 5 98.3 39.2 59.1 60.120.122 NP-12 6 124.7 54.8 69.9 56.050.170 NP-12 7 270.8 170.7 100.1 36.960.529 NP-12 8 138.7 45.3 93.4 67.340.140 NP-12 9 378.1 288.0 90.1 23.830.893 NP-12 10 105.6 31.3 74.3 70.360.097 NP-12 11 107.3 35.9 71.4 66.540.111 NP-12 12 108.9 41.7 67.2 61.710.129 NP-12 13 151.4 55.4 96.0 63.410.172 NP-12 14 133.1 36.0 97.1 72.950.112 NP-12 15 93.7 24.2 69.5 74.170.075

PAGE 72

68 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-2b. Starkey 1 (Healthy) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N 13C 15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.131 0.036 5.5863.18mg/cm3 0.2216-24.57-2.2225.192/21/2008 Bulk B 0.986 0.161 3.9338.74mg/cm3 0.1829-25.13-5.2221.472/21/2008 4.0940.34mg/cm3 0.1483-25.282.9427.583/10/2008 Bulk C 1.187 0.076 3.4140.50mg/cm3 0.1548-24.42-5.3422.042/21/2008 3.2338.35mg/cm3 0.1162-24.763.8227.813/10/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.102 0.131 3.4538.05mg/cm3 0.1568-24.54-4.2122.032/21/2008 3.7040.76mg/cm3 0.2238-25.05-6.6816.552/21/2008 3.74 0.1168-24.871.4332.034/22/2008NP-6 Bulk A 1.060 0.314 5.2855.99mg/cm3 0.2371-24.61 -0.9922.283/10/2008 Bulk B 0.940 0.167 5.2849.67mg/cm3 0.2820-24.01 -4.1318.742/21/2008 Bulk C 1.043 0.191 5.0852.93mg/cm3 0.2968-24.82 -3.4217.102/21/2008 4.4246.08mg/cm3 0.1927-24.45 1.4422.943/10/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.014 0.223 4.9350.01mg/cm3 0.2870-24.06 -3.8517.182/21/2008 4.2543.11mg/cm3 0.2963-23.98 -5.9414.362/21/2008 4.3544.12mg/cm3 0.1751-24.21 1.5524.853/10/2008 4.46 0.1650-24.22 2.1427.044/22/2008

PAGE 73

69 NP-12 Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N 13C 15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 0.114 0.040 31.7136.16mg/cm3 1.6474-27.57-1.3819.252/21/2008 30.4434.71mg/cm3 1.5660-27.72-1.5819.442/21/2008 Bulk B 0.366 0.341 14.1751.84mg/cm3 0.7223-26.71-2.1819.622/21/2008 Bulk C 0.120 0.035 24.6929.57mg/cm3 1.2641-27.72-2.1519.532/21/2008 Bulk-Bulk 0.200 0.221 18.9337.83mg/cm3 0.9639-27.40-2.3519.642/21/2008 18.5337.04mg/cm3 0.9633-27.25-1.8719.232/21/2008 24.40 4/22/2008

PAGE 74

70 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-3a. Starkey U (Sig. Harm) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 1/23 *1/29/2008 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP 1 368.1 316.3 51.8 14.070.981 NP 2 378.8 336.4 42.4 11.191.043 NP 3 363.1 326.6 36.5 10.051.013 NP 4 417.5 392.6 24.9 5.961.217 NP 5 343.6 296.8 46.8 13.620.920 NP 6 325.2 282.2 43.0 13.220.875 NP 7 393.5 348.6 44.9 11.411.081 NP 8 472.2 422.2 50.0 10.591.309 NP 9 374.0 342.9 31.1 8.321.063 NP 10 419.6 368.5 51.1 12.181.142 NP 11 379.0 327.5 51.5 13.591.015 NP 12 255.6 211.8 43.8 17.140.657 NP 13 417.8 380.7 37.1 8.881.180 NP 14 375.6 328.1 47.5 12.651.017 NP 15 418.9 360.1 58.8 14.041.116 NP-6 1 412.2 370.3 41.9 10.161.148 NP-6 2 379.7 344.4 35.3 9.301.068 NP-6 3 484.1 439.5 44.6 9.211.363 NP-6 4 363.3 346.8 16.5 4.541.075 NP-6 5 448.7 406.8 41.9 9.341.261 NP-6 6 434.3 412.0 22.3 5.131.277 NP-6 7 476.4 449.7 26.7 5.601.394 NP-6 8 455.5 434.2 21.3 4.681.346 NP-6 9 533.9 509.8 24.1 4.511.580 NP-6 10 283.3 245.1 38.2 13.480.760 NP-6 11 456.0 427.0 29.0 6.361.324 NP-6 12 416.1 389.7 26.4 6.341.208 NP-6 13 511.4 467.1 44.3 8.661.448 NP-6 14 416.1 388.3 27.8 6.681.204 NP-6 15 421.5 367.7 53.8 12.761.140

PAGE 75

71 NP-12 1 473.4 431.3 42.1 8.891.337 NP-12 2 422.2 375.8 46.4 10.991.165 NP-12 3 363.9 317.2 46.7 12.830.983 NP-12 4 435.6 383.5 52.1 11.961.189 NP-12 5 406.7 371.8 34.9 8.581.153 NP-12 6 406.0 363.7 42.3 10.421.128 NP-12 7 531.5 490.3 41.2 7.751.520 NP-12 8 405.2 370.1 35.1 8.661.147 NP-12 9 366.0 315.9 50.1 13.690.979 NP-12 10 319.6 277.5 42.1 13.170.860 NP-12 11 300.9 268.3 32.6 10.830.832 NP-12 12 408.9 371.6 37.3 9.121.152 NP-12 13 298.1 250.8 47.3 15.870.778 NP-12 14 421.7 366.2 55.5 13.161.135 NP-12 15 438.4 381.1 57.3 13.071.181 broken items re-sampled on 1/29/08

PAGE 76

72 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-3b. Starkey U (Sig. Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N d13C d15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.035 0.112 3.6437.65mg/cm30.1842-26.30 0.7619.752/21/2008 Bulk B 1.094 0.156 2.8330.93mg/cm30.1502-26.28 1.2518.822/21/2008 Bulk C 0.997 0.203 3.4834.68mg/cm30.1752-26.38 0.5819.852/21/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.042 0.155 3.1933.21mg/cm30.1610-26.27 0.7419.792/21/2008NP-6 Bulk A 1.183 0.127 2.3928.32mg/cm30.1619-27.27 -4.3114.792/21/2008 Bulk B 1.272 0.307 1.6721.28mg/cm30.1163-26.93 -3.9114.392/21/2008 2.0526.07mg/cm30.1066-27.31 1.2119.223/10/2008 Bulk C 1.265 0.122 1.9724.93mg/cm30.1545-27.07 -2.9312.762/21/2008 2.0926.43mg/cm30.1252-27.36 1.3516.683/10/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.240 0.194 1.9023.56mg/cm30.1476-26.90 -4.1812.882/21/2008 1.96 0.1012-27.24 0.4319.394/22/2008NP-12 Bulk A 1.165 0.126 2.9934.88mg/cm30.2199-27.27 -2.3413.612/21/2008 2.7131.58mg/cm30.1739-27.42 0.9715.603/10/2008 Bulk B 1.127 0.249 2.5328.53mg/cm30.1897-27.22 -0.9613.352/21/2008 Bulk C 1.016 0.194 3.3734.20mg/cm30.2413-27.14 -2.5113.962/21/2008 3.2633.11mg/cm30.1885-27.18 1.0217.273/10/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.103 0.193 2.8931.87mg/cm30.1900-27.25 -1.3815.212/21/2008 3.0233.30mg/cm30.2851-26.88 -4.9710.582/21/2008 2.67 0.1507-27.32 1.1917.734/22/2008

PAGE 77

73 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-4a. Starkey W (Har m) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 1/23 1/29/2008 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2O Density NP 1 381.3 352.7 28.6 7.501.093 NP 2 444.4 402.6 41.8 9.411.248 NP 3 438.7 400.6 38.1 8.681.242 NP 4 416.8 373.7 43.1 10.341.159 NP 5 379.7 340.1 39.6 10.431.054 NP 6 393.2 356.7 36.5 9.281.106 NP 7 394.1 342.4 51.7 13.121.061 NP 8 411.1 368.4 42.7 10.391.142 NP 9 442.3 401.2 41.1 9.291.244 NP 10 497.3 456.6 40.7 8.181.416 NP 11 426.9 393.0 33.9 7.941.218 NP 12 400.0 370.7 29.3 7.331.149 NP 13 313.8 278.8 35.0 11.150.864 NP 14 351.9 327.3 24.6 6.991.015 NP 15 365.8 342.8 23.0 6.291.063 NP-6 1 425.6 379.3 46.3 10.881.176 NP-6 2 403.3 361.6 41.7 10.341.121 NP-6 3 457.1 406.9 50.2 10.981.261 NP-6 4 477.8 437.2 40.6 8.501.355 NP-6 5 462.0 405.9 56.1 12.141.258 NP-6 6 475.4 420.3 55.1 11.591.303 NP-6 7 448.6 397.8 50.8 11.321.233 NP-6 8 439.3 390.6 48.7 11.091.211 NP-6 9 462.1 404.2 57.9 12.531.253 NP-6 10 466.5 414.4 52.1 11.171.285 NP-6 11 347.1 298.6 48.5 13.970.926 NP-6 12 428.8 378.0 50.8 11.851.172 NP-6 13 504.5 457.8 46.7 9.261.419 NP-6 14 448.4 398.1 50.3 11.221.234 NP-6 15 417.5 369.2 48.3 11.571.145

PAGE 78

74 NP-12 1 442.2 385.0 57.2 12.941.194 NP-12 2 519.9 473.3 46.6 8.961.467 NP-12 3 461.6 426.9 34.7 7.521.323 NP-12 4 421.9 391.1 30.8 7.301.212 NP-12 5 510.4 470.9 39.5 7.741.460 NP-12 6 449.0 411.1 37.9 8.441.274 NP-12 7 445.6 405.6 40.0 8.981.257 NP-12 8 424.0 388.1 35.9 8.471.203 NP-12 9 472.9 434.6 38.3 8.101.347 NP-12 10 554.0 511.3 42.7 7.711.585 NP-12 11 557.7 516.0 41.7 7.481.600 NP-12 12 445.6 406.4 39.2 8.801.260 NP-12 13 439.0 413.1 25.9 5.901.281 NP-12 14 485.5 444.6 40.9 8.421.378 NP-12 15 483.6 441.2 42.4 8.771.368

PAGE 79

75 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-4b. Starkey W (Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N d13C d15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.159 0.087 2.9634.30mg/cm30.0816-25.55 1.9636.263/20/2008 Bulk B 1.194 0.141 3.1437.45mg/cm30.1098-25.61 -0.0928.583/20/2008 Bulk C 1.062 0.135 3.7339.62mg/cm30.0995-26.14 3.0437.483/20/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.138 0.128 2.8131.97mg/cm30.0899-25.77 1.1131.243/20/2008 3.26 0.0855-25.93 3.1038.144/22/2008NP-6 Bulk A 1.234 0.090 1.8723.14mg/cm30.0800-25.57 -0.4023.423/20/2008 Bulk B 1.257 0.037 2.8736.12mg/cm30.1200-25.67 0.5723.943/20/2008 Bulk C 1.179 0.178 3.0335.70mg/cm30.1095-26.45 0.9027.653/20/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.224 0.113 2.4329.74mg/cm30.0919-25.86 1.3226.443/20/2008 2.18 0.0681-25.92 3.5231.944/22/2008NP-12 Bulk A 1.331 0.131 1.6321.69mg/cm30.0951-26.47 -2.5117.133/20/2008 Bulk B 1.334 0.150 1.7723.65mg/cm30.0910-26.58 -0.4619.503/20/2008 Bulk C 1.377 0.135 1.5621.49mg/cm30.0944-26.28 -2.3716.533/20/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.347 0.130 1.5220.55mg/cm30.0809-26.57 -1.5018.853/20/2008 1.63 0.0666-26.58 0.6524.504/22/2008

PAGE 80

76 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-5a. Section 21 (Sig. Harm) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 1/29/2008 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP 1 542.5 504.0 38.5 7.101.562 NP 2 503.4 470.9 32.5 6.461.460 NP 3 487.1 451.8 35.3 7.251.401 NP 4 585.5 552.2 33.3 5.691.712 NP 5 497.0 467.4 29.6 5.961.449 NP 6 559.3 528.2 31.1 5.561.638 NP 7 504.5 471.4 33.1 6.561.461 NP 8 530.4 493.7 36.7 6.921.531 NP 9 554.5 518.0 36.5 6.581.606 NP 10 538.1 499.5 38.6 7.171.549 NP 11 523.3 484.1 39.2 7.491.501 NP 12 419.0 382.8 36.2 8.641.187 NP 13 533.7 500.8 32.9 6.161.553 NP 14 533.4 498.9 34.5 6.471.547 NP 15 522.9 490.0 32.9 6.291.519 NP-6 1 525.3 470.1 55.2 10.511.457 NP-6 2 466.6 421.2 45.4 9.731.306 NP-6 3 521.6 474.0 47.6 9.131.469 NP-6 4 495.4 446.8 48.6 9.811.385 NP-6 5 526.6 487.6 39.0 7.411.512 NP-6 6 490.9 454.4 36.5 7.441.409 NP-6 7 543.8 497.7 46.1 8.481.543 NP-6 8 546.7 499.9 46.8 8.561.550 NP-6 9 540.4 498.5 41.9 7.751.545 NP-6 10 328.5 300.7 27.8 8.460.932 NP-6 11 519.6 480.2 39.4 7.581.489 NP-6 12 518.7 481.4 37.3 7.191.492 NP-6 13 520.8 484.8 36.0 6.911.503 NP-6 14 504.0 463.2 40.8 8.101.436 NP-6 15 524.1 485.5 38.6 7.371.505

PAGE 81

77 NP-12 1 538.3 476.4 61.9 11.501.477 NP-12 2 500.9 444.1 56.8 11.341.377 NP-12 3 484.8 420.5 64.3 13.261.304 NP-12 4 503.9 440.5 63.4 12.581.366 NP-12 5 522.4 467.3 55.1 10.551.449 NP-12 6 547.1 490.5 56.6 10.351.521 NP-12 7 529.1 478.2 50.9 9.621.483 NP-12 8 566.9 511.8 55.1 9.721.587 NP-12 9 570.6 520.3 50.3 8.821.613 NP-12 10 568.5 511.8 56.7 9.971.587 NP-12 11 549.8 497.1 52.7 9.591.541 NP-12 12 582.6 526.7 55.9 9.591.633 NP-12 13 562.1 502.2 59.9 10.661.557 NP-12 14 540.3 492.3 48.0 8.881.526 NP-12 15 552.4 500.0 52.4 9.491.550

PAGE 82

78 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-5b. Section 21 (Sig. Harm ) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N d13C d15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.517 0.124 1.4221.52mg/cm30.0843-22.11 -2.4616.822/21/2008 1.4021.24mg/cm30.0697-22.15 0.1020.043/10/2008 Bulk B 1.557 0.069 1.1618.03mg/cm30.0738-21.25 -3.1315.692/21/2008 Bulk C 1.461 0.155 1.1817.19mg/cm30.0700-22.05 -4.3216.802/21/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.512 0.119 1.2518.88mg/cm30.0854-21.52 -3.2914.632/21/2008 1.1917.99mg/cm30.0630-21.88 2.6618.903/10/2008 1.19 0.0520-21.51 0.7122.824/22/2008NP-6 Bulk A 1.426 0.081 1.8926.94mg/cm30.1265-22.41 -1.6214.942/21/2008 1.8426.24mg/cm30.1023-22.41 1.6418.013/10/2008 Bulk B 1.396 0.266 1.5321.31mg/cm30.1156-21.73 -1.6313.212/21/2008 Bulk C 1.485 0.028 1.3920.57mg/cm30.1018-21.14 -2.0013.602/21/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.436 0.154 1.5321.92mg/cm30.1166-21.64 -2.0313.092/21/2008 1.4320.53mg/cm30.0858-22.00 2.9016.713/10/2008 1.35 0.0730-21.82 1.0818.544/22/2008

PAGE 83

79 NP-12 Bulk A 1.394 0.069 2.1830.40mg/cm30.1589-23.48 -2.2713.722/21/2008 2.3132.21mg/cm30.1249-23.43 2.1518.523/10/2008 Bulk B 1.558 0.054 1.5323.90mg/cm30.1196-22.51 -3.3512.832/21/2008 Bulk C 1.561 0.042 1.4122.08mg/cm30.1220-22.51 -3.9411.592/21/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.505 0.096 1.7125.74mg/cm30.1326-22.82 -3.6712.902/21/2008 1.6925.43mg/cm30.0998-22.90 2.6116.943/10/2008 1.67 0.0865-22.92 1.1619.274/22/2008

PAGE 84

80 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-6a. Blackwater Creek (Harm) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 2/5/2008 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP 1 598.9 512.8 86.1 14.381.590 NP 2 516.0 440.6 75.4 14.611.366 NP 3 450.2 380.2 70.0 15.551.179 NP 4 472.5 401.9 70.6 14.941.246 NP 5 524.3 453.3 71.0 13.541.405 NP 6 497.5 417.2 80.3 16.141.293 NP 7 363.7 293.2 70.5 19.380.909 NP 8 416.1 328.9 87.2 20.961.020 NP 9 462.6 383.5 79.1 17.101.189 NP 10 507.5 425.1 82.4 16.241.318 NP 11 540.5 459.9 80.6 14.911.426 NP 12 550.7 470.1 80.6 14.641.457 NP 13 545.5 467.8 77.7 14.241.450 NP 14 490.3 399.9 90.4 18.441.240 NP 15 528.7 444.0 84.7 16.021.376 NP-6 1 348.4 276.1 72.3 20.750.856 NP-6 2 493.5 395.4 98.1 19.881.226 NP-6 3 357.3 276.5 80.8 22.610.857 NP-6 4 395.0 307.1 87.9 22.250.952 NP-6 5 418.2 324.5 93.7 22.411.006 NP-6 6 153.5 102.6 50.9 33.160.318 NP-6 7 593.7 488.3 105.4 17.751.514 NP-6 8 256.3 188.4 67.9 26.490.584 NP-6 9 221.6 158.3 63.3 28.560.491 NP-6 10 557.9 457.6 100.3 17.981.419 NP-6 11 500.5 398.1 102.4 20.461.234 NP-6 12 273.9 200.7 73.2 26.730.622 NP-6 13 372.3 283.2 89.1 23.930.878 NP-6 14 319.8 243.9 75.9 23.730.756 NP-6 15 408.0 327.5 80.5 19.731.015

PAGE 85

81 NP-12 1 593.9 477.9 116.0 19.531.482 NP-12 2 469.1 341.4 127.7 27.221.058 NP-12 3 145.1 80.4 64.7 44.590.249 NP-12 4 492.0 360.9 131.1 26.651.119 NP-12 5 474.9 348.3 126.6 26.661.080 NP-12 6 483.2 349.3 133.9 27.711.083 NP-12 7 530.4 396.8 133.6 25.191.230 NP-12 8 442.1 311.4 130.7 29.560.965 NP-12 9 512.8 386.6 126.2 24.611.199 NP-12 10 408.4 273.4 135.0 33.060.848 NP-12 11 496.3 371.1 125.2 25.231.150 NP-12 12 291.7 192.6 99.1 33.970.597 NP-12 13 500.7 379.5 121.2 24.211.177 NP-12 14 494.0 369.3 124.7 25.241.145 NP-12 15 276.4 196.0 80.4 29.090.608

PAGE 86

82 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-6b. Blackwater Creek (Har m) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N d13C d15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.357 0.159 2.1228.79mg/cm30.0860-23.68 -0.8024.683/20/2008 Bulk B 1.146 0.177 3.9345.08mg/cm30.1661-23.25 -0.0823.683/20/2008 Bulk C 1.390 0.090 2.1229.50mg/cm30.0955-24.33 -0.7722.223/20/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.298 0.176 2.5933.61mg/cm30.1053-23.74 0.5624.613/20/2008 2.48 0.0888-23.62 0.7827.944/22/2008NP-6 Bulk A 0.979 0.152 4.8947.88mg/cm30.2307-23.78 0.3921.193/20/2008 Bulk B 0.865 0.558 3.9434.12mg/cm30.2038-24.65 -1.3819.363/20/2008 Bulk C 0.901 0.236 5.1346.20mg/cm30.2407-23.45 0.1921.303/20/2008 Bulk-Bulk 0.915 0.338 4.6242.27mg/cm30.2306-23.87 -0.3520.033/20/2008 5.05 0.2082-24.01 0.0224.264/22/2008NP-12 Bulk A 0.998 0.453 4.9749.59mg/cm30.2698-25.78 -2.0818.423/20/2008 Bulk B 1.065 0.160 5.0854.10mg/cm30.2544-26.12 -1.5819.973/20/2008 Bulk C 0.935 0.304 4.5142.18mg/cm30.2723-26.13 -2.2016.563/20/2008 Bulk-Bulk 0.999 0.309 4.2242.13mg/cm30.2316-25.93 -1.2318.203/20/2008 4.02 0.2065-25.92 -0.2319.484/22/2008

PAGE 87

83 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-7a. Green Swamp 7 (H ealthy) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 2/12/2008 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP 1 597.1 500.7 96.4 16.141.552 NP 2 525.0 426.4 98.6 18.781.322 NP 3 465.7 374.8 90.9 19.521.162 NP 4 234.5 178.4 56.1 23.920.553 NP 5 348.1 295.5 52.6 15.110.916 NP 6 443.9 379.1 64.8 14.601.175 NP 7 325.9 262.3 63.6 19.520.813 NP 8 606.5 502.4 104.1 17.161.558 NP 9 476.8 398.1 78.7 16.511.234 NP 10 594.0 495.4 98.6 16.601.536 NP 11 630.8 542.4 88.4 14.011.682 NP 12 544.6 459.3 85.3 15.661.424 NP 13 526.2 449.0 77.2 14.671.392 NP 14 799.6 671.8 127.8 15.982.083 NP 15 622.7 518.4 104.3 16.751.607 NP-6 1 554.7 448.0 106.7 19.241.389 NP-6 2 665.6 554.7 110.9 16.661.720 NP-6 3 689.2 582.0 107.2 15.551.804 NP-6 4 718.2 587.6 130.6 18.181.822 NP-6 5 777.0 636.5 140.5 18.081.973 NP-6 6 727.1 585.7 141.4 19.451.816 NP-6 7 687.0 560.7 126.3 18.381.738 NP-6 8 716.2 589.5 126.7 17.691.828 NP-6 9 681.7 557.4 124.3 18.231.728 NP-6 10 708.8 584.7 124.1 17.511.813 NP-6 11 688.7 572.2 116.5 16.921.774 NP-6 12 920.9 740.8 180.1 19.562.297 NP-6 13 624.8 498.6 126.2 20.201.546 NP-6 14 698.3 574.1 124.2 17.791.780 NP-6 15 556.6 447.2 109.4 19.661.386

PAGE 88

84 NP-12 1 453.4 293.8 159.6 35.200.911 NP-12 2 789.0 584.8 204.2 25.881.813 NP-12 1 482.0 338.4 143.6 29.791.049 NP-12 2 554.5 423.5 131.0 23.621.313 NP-12 2 542.1 377.5 164.6 30.361.170 NP-12 6 624.4 491.2 133.2 21.331.523 NP-12 7 643.6 499.4 144.2 22.411.548 NP-12 8 629.2 474.0 155.2 24.671.469 NP-12 9 579.5 431.7 147.8 25.501.338 NP-12 10 780.9 610.4 170.5 21.831.892 NP-12 11 564.2 430.9 133.3 23.631.336 NP-12 12 633.0 505.2 127.8 20.191.566 NP-12 13 674.5 526.2 148.3 21.991.631 NP-12 14 763.0 615.7 147.3 19.311.909 NP-12 15 696.1 554.7 141.4 20.311.720

PAGE 89

85 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-7b. Green Swamp 7 (Health y) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N d13C d15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.101 0.384 2.3726.08mg/cm30.1736-26.19 1.7213.643/10/2008 2.2724.97mg/cm30.0796-26.20 -0.8428.503/10/2008 Bulk B 1.263 0.305 1.8223.01mg/cm30.1802-26.25 1.3110.113/10/2008 Bulk C 1.637 0.277 1.1618.98mg/cm30.1868-25.50 0.736.203/10/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.334 0.380 1.4018.62mg/cm30.1129-25.96 0.2712.373/10/2008 1.4018.64mg/cm30.0661-25.89 -0.7721.133/10/2008 1.39 0.0526-25.85 1.8426.414/22/2008NP-6 Bulk A 1.742 0.217 0.9115.80mg/cm30.0594-26.13 -2.7215.283/10/2008 Bulk B 1.784 0.047 0.9016.02mg/cm30.0500-26.69 -0.9317.963/10/2008 Bulk C 1.756 0.344 1.4024.51mg/cm30.0767-26.20 -2.6018.203/10/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.761 0.220 1.0318.22mg/cm30.0667-26.29 -3.0615.523/10/2008 1.0117.87mg/cm30.0801-26.24 -6.3412.673/10/2008 1.05 0.0460-26.31 -0.1322.784/22/2008NP-12 Bulk A 1.251 0.347 1.8322.96mg/cm30.1324-25.70 -1.7413.863/10/2008 Bulk B 1.554 0.206 1.6525.71mg/cm30.1438-25.94 -4.3411.503/10/2008 Bulk C 1.632 0.210 0.9615.75mg/cm30.1158-25.89 -6.238.333/10/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.479 0.297 1.3219.58mg/cm30.1175-25.83 -4.1511.263/10/2008 1.3920.62mg/cm30.1327-25.83 -5.2010.513/10/2008 1.49 0.0821-26.01 -0.2918.134/22/2008

PAGE 90

86 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-8a. Flatwoods (Harm) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 2/14/2008 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP 1 359.0 313.9 45.1 12.560.973 NP 2 410.3 363.2 47.1 11.481.126 NP 3 344.2 287.3 56.9 16.530.891 NP 4 374.5 330.4 44.1 11.781.024 NP 5 445.2 385.9 59.3 13.321.196 NP 6 477.6 416.1 61.5 12.881.290 NP 7 468.9 407.9 61.0 13.011.265 NP 8 393.4 345.4 48.0 12.201.071 NP 9 388.4 320.8 67.6 17.400.995 NP 10 385.5 325.5 60.0 15.561.009 NP 11 379.8 322.8 57.0 15.011.001 NP 12 445.4 383.7 61.7 13.851.190 NP 13 316.4 271.3 45.1 14.250.841 NP 14 344.4 287.5 56.9 16.520.891 NP 15 376.8 316.4 60.4 16.030.981 NP-6 1 407.1 327.9 79.2 19.451.017 NP-6 2 390.2 335.8 54.4 13.941.041 NP-6 3 407.0 378.8 28.2 6.931.174 NP-6 4 440.8 344.8 96.0 21.781.069 NP-6 5 408.2 342.9 65.3 16.001.063 NP-6 6 400.8 342.5 58.3 14.551.062 NP-6 7 474.9 409.0 65.9 13.881.268 NP-6 8 421.4 347.6 73.8 17.511.078 NP-6 9 420.6 338.2 82.4 19.591.048 NP-6 10 508.6 422.2 86.4 16.991.309 NP-6 11 460.5 394.5 66.0 14.331.223 NP-6 12 450.4 378.8 71.6 15.901.174 NP-6 13 464.8 394.5 70.3 15.121.223 NP-6 14 369.6 306.5 63.1 17.070.950 NP-6 15 482.7 405.5 77.2 15.991.257

PAGE 91

87 NP-12 1 469.2 392.8 76.4 16.281.218 NP-12 2 521.1 433.6 87.5 16.791.344 NP-12 1 490.9 393.7 97.2 19.801.221 NP-12 2 483.4 387.7 95.7 19.801.202 NP-12 2 473.2 366.9 106.3 22.461.137 NP-12 6 475.8 373.2 102.6 21.561.157 NP-12 7 352.1 284.4 67.7 19.230.882 NP-12 8 503.8 410.8 93.0 18.461.274 NP-12 9 387.1 292.8 94.3 24.360.908 NP-12 10 388.2 295.9 92.3 23.780.917 NP-12 11 433.3 339.5 93.8 21.651.053 NP-12 12 383.8 291.9 91.9 23.940.905 NP-12 13 428.4 322.6 105.8 24.701.000 NP-12 14 386.7 285.1 101.6 26.270.884 NP-12 15 338.7 261.7 77.0 22.730.811

PAGE 92

88 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-8b. Flatwoods (Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N d13C d15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.042 0.121 2.4025.00mg/cm30.0820-26.81 0.5629.283/25/2008 Bulk B 1.126 0.141 2.3426.38mg/cm30.0833-25.95 2.0028.113/25/2008 Bulk C 0.981 0.134 3.2431.73mg/cm30.1118-26.17 2.4228.953/25/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.050 0.137 2.8429.84mg/cm30.0960-26.72 1.2829.613/25/2008 2.65 0.0970-26.45 2.1727.374/22/2008NP-6 Bulk A 1.073 0.060 3.1333.54mg/cm30.1452-26.41 1.0121.543/25/2008 Bulk B 1.153 0.125 2.5128.98mg/cm30.1295-25.95 0.6619.403/25/2008 Bulk C 1.166 0.124 3.2738.16mg/cm30.1517-24.32 1.9821.593/25/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.130 0.108 3.1035.00mg/cm30.1485-25.73 1.9320.853/25/2008 3.60 0.1577-25.87 2.5622.854/22/2008NP-12 Bulk A 1.224 0.075 Bulk B 1.027 0.177 Bulk C 0.931 0.096 3.1529.35mg/cm30.1679-26.31 1.4918.793/25/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.061 0.171 3.1433.33mg/cm30.1663-25.97 0.5418.893/25/2008 3.19 0.1654-25.67 1.5119.274/22/2008

PAGE 93

89 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-9a. Starkey R (Healthy) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 2/26/2008 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP 1 377.8 0.0 377.8 0.000.000 NP 2 423.1 0.0 423.1 0.000.000 NP 3 444.6 0.0 444.6 0.000.000 NP 4 534.6 0.0 534.6 0.000.000 NP 5 646.3 0.0 646.3 0.000.000 NP 6 488.7 394.7 94.0 19.231.224 NP 7 410.6 295.8 114.8 27.960.917 NP 8 573.7 448.4 125.3 21.841.390 NP 9 566.9 443.1 123.8 21.841.374 NP 10 483.4 366.2 117.2 24.241.135 NP 11 599.7 475.7 124.0 20.681.475 NP 12 576.8 447.8 129.0 22.361.388 NP 13 591.0 460.8 130.2 22.031.429 NP 14 589.5 460.6 128.9 21.871.428 NP 15 496.5 392.7 103.8 20.911.217 *Highlighted cells represent loss of data ; soil was processed w ithout being weighed. NP-6 1 716.6 578.1 138.5 19.331.792 NP-6 2 692.1 552.4 139.7 20.181.713 NP-6 3 683.1 545.3 137.8 20.171.691 NP-6 4 703.9 560.9 143.0 20.321.739 NP-6 5 660.0 528.4 131.6 19.941.638 NP-6 6 612.4 489.0 123.4 20.151.516 NP-6 7 559.6 427.4 132.2 23.621.325 NP-6 8 640.8 492.0 148.8 23.221.525 NP-6 9 584.2 434.0 150.2 25.711.345 NP-6 10 536.9 400.0 136.9 25.501.240 NP-6 11 636.7 506.9 129.8 20.391.571 NP-6 12 622.2 476.2 146.0 23.471.476 NP-6 13 463.2 327.8 135.4 29.231.016 NP-6 14 583.2 420.5 162.7 27.901.304 NP-6 15 565.0 373.7 191.3 33.861.159

PAGE 94

90 NP-12 1 468.8 198.2 270.6 57.720.614 NP-12 2 437.8 162.5 275.3 62.880.504 NP-12 1 425.8 190.1 235.7 55.350.589 NP-12 2 397.1 148.4 248.7 62.630.460 NP-12 2 489.0 196.7 292.3 59.780.610 NP-12 6 463.1 167.4 295.7 63.850.519 NP-12 7 409.5 141.2 268.3 65.520.438 NP-12 8 443.4 154.8 288.6 65.090.480 NP-12 9 363.3 142.9 220.4 60.670.443 NP-12 10 398.1 195.1 203.0 50.990.605 NP-12 11 355.6 160.3 195.3 54.920.497 NP-12 12 550.5 228.0 322.5 58.580.707 NP-12 13 484.1 184.7 299.4 61.850.573 NP-12 14 374.6 134.4 240.2 64.120.417 NP-12 15 455.8 213.1 242.7 53.250.661

PAGE 95

91 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-9b. Starkey R (Healthy) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N d13C d15N C:N MS Date Bulk A mg/cm3 Bulk B 1.208 0.194 2.1125.54mg/cm30.1056-27.01 0.2120.033/25/2008 Bulk C 1.387 0.100 1.4720.43mg/cm30.0756-25.67 1.0219.483/25/2008 Bulk-Bulk 0.865 0.648 1.5013.02mg/cm30.0801-26.69 0.5618.783/25/2008 1.84 0.0590-26.57 2.5531.244/22/2008NP-6 Bulk A 1.714 0.057 0.8414.36mg/cm30.0856-25.96 -3.349.793/25/2008 Bulk B 1.390 0.125 1.7924.86mg/cm30.0765-25.56 -1.4823.383/25/2008 Bulk C 1.305 0.226 2.0226.37mg/cm30.1191-24.98 -2.1116.973/25/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.470 0.231 1.7525.67mg/cm30.1102-25.19 -1.7015.853/25/2008 1.83 0.0892-25.05 1.9520.464/22/2008NP-12 Bulk A 0.555 0.070 8.7148.37mg/cm30.3902-26.75 1.2222.323/25/2008 Bulk B 0.497 0.069 12.3361.27mg/cm30.5309-26.84 0.5923.233/25/2008 Bulk C 0.571 0.118 9.7755.75mg/cm30.4853-26.84 0.5920.133/25/2008 Bulk-Bulk 0.541 0.088 9.0448.90mg/cm30.4350-26.75 1.1720.783/25/2008 9.95 0.4556-26.70 2.1321.844/22/2008

PAGE 96

92 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-10a. Starkey S75 (Harm) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 3/4/2008 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP 1 577.3 473.1 104.2 18.051.467 NP 2 508.2 404.4 103.8 20.431.254 NP 3 474.9 387.8 87.1 18.341.202 NP 4 564.0 459.6 104.4 18.511.425 NP 5 470.8 382.3 88.5 18.801.185 NP 6 615.7 510.0 105.7 17.171.581 NP 7 631.0 520.1 110.9 17.581.612 NP 8 422.7 342.9 79.8 18.881.063 NP 9 542.7 445.4 97.3 17.931.381 NP 10 386.0 310.0 76.0 19.690.961 NP 11 686.8 578.2 108.6 15.811.793 NP 12 374.0 316.0 58.0 15.510.980 NP 13 432.1 360.6 71.5 16.551.118 NP 14 631.2 514.7 116.5 18.461.596 NP 15 636.1 531.4 104.7 16.461.647 NP-6 1 562.8 434.9 127.9 22.731.348 NP-6 2 262.2 192.0 70.2 26.770.595 NP-6 3 446.4 337.5 108.9 24.401.046 NP-6 4 650.4 544.3 106.1 16.311.687 NP-6 5 541.1 430.8 110.3 20.381.336 NP-6 6 496.4 395.1 101.3 20.411.225 NP-6 7 595.8 480.0 115.8 19.441.488 NP-6 8 581.3 466.9 114.4 19.681.447 NP-6 9 552.2 437.4 114.8 20.791.356 NP-6 10 594.6 488.4 106.2 17.861.514 NP-6 11 512.6 407.7 104.9 20.461.264 NP-6 12 541.9 423.3 118.6 21.891.312 NP-6 13 571.5 450.7 120.8 21.141.397 NP-6 14 559.8 456.2 103.6 18.511.414 NP-6 15 213.3 158.9 54.4 25.500.493

PAGE 97

93 NP-12 1 382.6 249.1 133.5 34.890.772 NP-12 2 368.9 255.5 113.4 30.740.792 NP-12 1 385.3 278.2 107.1 27.800.862 NP-12 2 338.3 225.3 113.0 33.400.698 NP-12 2 274.1 169.8 104.3 38.050.526 NP-12 6 345.6 230.8 114.8 33.220.716 NP-12 7 420.2 312.2 108.0 25.700.968 NP-12 8 404.9 272.7 132.2 32.650.845 NP-12 9 342.1 229.7 112.4 32.860.712 NP-12 10 319.8 214.3 105.5 32.990.664 NP-12 11 447.5 330.5 117.0 26.151.025 NP-12 12 414.3 309.0 105.3 25.420.958 NP-12 13 435.0 316.5 118.5 27.240.981 NP-12 14 423.1 310.7 112.4 26.570.963 NP-12 15 539.6 407.4 132.2 24.501.263

PAGE 98

94 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-10b. Starkey S75 (Harm) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N d13C d15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 1.307 0.130 1.5820.60mg/cm30.0809-25.37 -2.2019.503/20/2008 Bulk B 1.320 0.297 1.1214.72mg/cm30.0611-26.20 -2.3118.263/20/2008 Bulk C 1.427 0.356 0.8211.65mg/cm30.0410-26.34 -3.9819.913/20/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.351 0.263 1.0414.00mg/cm30.0551-25.78 -3.2118.803/20/2008NP-6 Bulk A 1.203 0.408 2.1826.16mg/cm30.1243-24.65 -0.0417.503/20/2008 Bulk B 1.406 0.118 1.9126.90mg/cm30.1070-24.80 -1.1217.883/20/2008 Bulk C 1.176 0.387 2.4428.69mg/cm30.1429-24.71 -1.1317.083/20/2008 Bulk-Bulk 1.262 0.325 1.9424.48mg/cm30.1040-24.46 -0.0318.663/20/2008NP-12 Bulk A 0.730 0.128 5.0536.88mg/cm30.2908-25.37 0.4717.373/20/2008 Bulk B 0.781 0.124 5.1239.96mg/cm30.2974-25.48 -0.4817.203/20/2008 Bulk C 1.038 0.128 3.6537.90mg/cm30.2044-25.25 -0.3317.863/20/2008 Bulk-Bulk 0.850 0.182 4.3837.25mg/cm30.2618-25.40 -1.0916.743/20/2008 4.30 0.2222-25.42 1.6919.344/22/2008

PAGE 99

95 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-11a. New River (Healthy) Soil Collection Data Sample Date: 4/10/2008 Sample Dry Water Bulk Elev # wt wt wt %H2ODensity NP-12 1 280.0 95.6 184.4 65.860.3 NP-12 2 373.3 149.5 223.8 59.950.5 NP-12 3 444.7 236.1 208.6 46.910.7 NP-12 4 464.5 193.1 271.4 58.430.6 NP-12 5 327.2 104.5 222.7 68.060.3 NP-12 6 384.0 162.5 221.5 57.680.5 NP-12 7 513.2 297.3 215.9 42.070.9 NP-12 8 471.6 289.1 182.5 38.700.9 NP-12 9 337.9 185.0 152.9 45.250.6 NP-12 10 409.9 202.5 207.4 50.600.6 NP-12 11 456.7 270.5 186.2 40.770.8 NP-12 12 476.0 279.7 196.3 41.240.9 NP-12 13 432.2 255.5 176.7 40.880.8 NP-12 14 408.1 197.1 211.0 51.700.6 NP-12 15 427.5 223.3 204.2 47.770.7 NOTE: The only elevation sampled at this site was the NP-12.

PAGE 100

96 Appendix A (Continued) Table A-11b. New River (Healthy) IRMS Bulked Sample Results NP-12 Avg wt Std Dev % C C Density %N d13C d15N C:N MS Date Bulk A 0.483 0.184 10.6451.37mg/cm30.5235-25.830.3220.324/22/2008 Bulk B 0.705 0.192 8.3158.58mg/cm30.3866-26.01-1.5021.504/22/2008 Bulk C 0.760 0.107 6.3248.02mg/cm30.3419-25.47-2.4318.474/22/2008 Bulk-Bulk 0.649 0.197 6.8644.54mg/cm30.3315-25.550.0520.704/22/2008

PAGE 101

97 Appendix B Well Hydrographs for Six of the Eleven Cypress Domes Included in this Study

PAGE 102

98 Hydrograph of Well at Starkey D28 28.5 29 29.5 30 30.5 31 31.54/15/1975 4/15/1977 4/15/1979 4/15/1981 4/15/1983 4/15/1985 4/15/1987 4/15/1989 4/15/1991 4/15/1993 4/15/1995 4/15/1997 4/15/1999 4/15/2001 4/15/2003 4/15/2005 4/15/2007 Figure B-1. Hydrograph of well at Starkey D

PAGE 103

99 Appendix B (Continued) Hydrograph of Well at Starkey U27 28 29 30 31 32 335/27/1982 5/27/1983 5/27/1984 5/27/1985 5/27/1986 5/27/1987 5/27/1988 5/27/1989 5/27/1990 5/27/1991 5/27/1992 5/27/1993 5/27/1994 5/27/1995 5/27/1996 5/27/1997 5/27/1998 5/27/1999 5/27/2000 5/27/2001 5/27/2002 5/27/2003 5/27/2004 5/27/2005 5/27/2006 5/27/2007 Figure B-2. Hydrograph of well at Starkey U

PAGE 104

100 Appendix B (Continued) Hydrograph of Well at Starkey W29 30 31 32 33 34 355/27/1982 5/27/1983 5/27/1984 5/27/1985 5/27/1986 5/27/1987 5/27/1988 5/27/1989 5/27/1990 5/27/1991 5/27/1992 5/27/1993 5/27/1994 5/27/1995 5/27/1996 5/27/1997 5/27/1998 5/27/1999 5/27/2000 5/27/2001 5/27/2002 5/27/2003 5/27/2004 5/27/2005 5/27/2006 5/27/2007 Figure B-3. Hydrograph of well at Starkey W

PAGE 105

101 Appendix B (Continued) Hydrograph of Well at Blackwater75.2 75.4 75.6 75.8 76 76.2 76.4 76.6 76.8 77 77.2 77.44/17/2002 7/17/2002 10/17/2002 1/17/2003 4/17/2003 7/17/2003 10/17/2003 1/17/2004 4/17/2004 7/17/2004 10/17/2004 1/17/2005 4/17/2005 7/17/2005 10/17/2005 1/17/2006 4/17/2006 7/17/2006 10/17/2006 1/17/2007 4/17/2007 7/17/2007 10/17/2007 1/17/2008 Figure B-4. Hydrograph of well at Blackwater Creek

PAGE 106

102 Appendix B (Continued) GS 7 Staff gage103 103.5 104 104.5 105 105.5 106 106.5 107 10/12/200104/09/200311/12/200310/27/200407/26/200506/28/20063915439499.49 1 Figure B-5. Hydrograph of well at Green Swamp 7

PAGE 107

103 Appendix B (Continued) Starkey R Staff Gage38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 498/16/2000 12/16/2000 4/16/2001 8/16/2001 12/16/2001 4/16/2002 8/16/2002 12/16/2002 4/16/2003 8/16/2003 12/16/2003 4/16/2004 8/16/2004 12/16/2004 4/16/2005 8/16/2005 12/16/2005 4/16/2006 8/16/2006 12/16/2006 4/16/2007 8/16/2007 12/16/2007 Figure B-6. Hydrograph of well at Starkey R

PAGE 108

104 Appendix C Soil Moisture Meter Readings Taken for Six of the Eleven Cypress Domes Included in this Study at Starkey W ilderness Park on 5/23/2008

PAGE 109

105 Table C-1 Summary of the mean soil moisture meter readings by wetland -------Location of Sampling in Wetland -------Wetland Category Edge NP-6 NP-12 Center Starkey D Sig. Harm 0.6 0.1 Starkey U Sig. Harm 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 Starkey W Harm 0.0 0.1 3.0 Starkey S75 Harm 2.3 2.0 6.2 7.0 Starkey R Healthy 4.9 3.8 5.1 8.0 Starkey 1 Healthy 0.7 5.8 9.8 10.0 Values are on a scale from 0 – 10, wher e 10 represents completely saturated.

PAGE 110

106 Appendix C (Continued) Table C-2 Starkey D (Sig. Harm) I ndividual Moisture Meter Readings Sample # Edge NP-6 NP-12 Center 1 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 1.5 0.5 5 0.5 0 Table C-3 Starkey U (Sig. Harm) I ndividual Moisture Meter Readings Sample # Edge NP-6 NP-12 Center 1 0 0 1.5 1.5 2 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 2

PAGE 111

107 Appendix C (Continued) Table C-4 Starkey W (Harm) Individual Moisture Meter Readings Sample # Edge NP-6 NP-12 Center 1 0 0.5 3.5 2 0 0 6 3 0 0 3.5 4 0 0 1.5 5 0 0 0 6 1 7 1.5 8 6 9 1.5 10 6 Table C-5 Starkey S75 (Harm) Individual Moisture Meter Readings Sample # Edge NP-6 NP-12 Center 1 3.5 2 7 7.5 2 2 2 6 7 3 2 2 5 7 4 2 2 7 6.5 5 2 2 6 7 6 7

PAGE 112

108 Appendix C (Continued) Table C6 Starkey R (Healthy) I ndividual Moisture Meter Readings Sample # Edge NP-6 NP-12 Center 1 4 4 6 8 2 5 4 4 8 3 5 3.5 5 8 4 5.5 4 5.5 8 5 5 3.5 5 8 Table C-7 Starkey 1 (Healthy) Indi vidual Moisture Meter Readings Sample # Edge NP-6 NP-12 Center 1 0.5 5 10 10 2 1 6 9.5 10 3 0.5 6 10 10 4 1 6.5 9.5 10 5 0.5 5.5 10 10