BIOGEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WETLANDS IN SOUTHWESTERN INDIANA

By

DAVID A. STUCKEY

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2006

Copyright 2005

by

David A. Stuckey

This document is dedicated to my parents, Robert and Jean Stuckey, my loving wife, Sandra, and our two fine sons, Samuel and Dean, source of constant encouragement and

support.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my parents, Robert and Jean Stuckey, for introducing me to the world of

natural science at an early age, and for their continuous support and encouragement

throughout my lifetime.

My wife, Sandra, and sons, Samuel and Dean, sacrificed their time and assisted in

the field work throughout this project. They provided the inspiration for continuing my

education in this field, and I am forever indebted.

I thank Dr. Mark W. Clark, my academic advisor at the University of Florida, for

his enabling character that made my participation in this research possible. His balanced

perspective of science, education and common sense was invaluable. My gratitude is

likewise extended to the other distinguished members of my graduate committee, Dr. K.

Ramesh Reddy, Chairman, and Dr. Matthew J. Cohen, for their ongoing support and

assistance.

I am indebted to my colleagues at the University of Florida, Ms. Stacie Greco and

Mr. Jeremy Paris. As a subset of their research project, they both provided much time

and assistance as contacts and facilitators of sampling activities and data collection. I

wish to acknowledge the analysts at the UF Wetland Biogeochemistry Laboratory for

their hard work in generating the analytical data from the project sampling.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1

Wetland Perspective and Trend ....................................................................................1 Wetland Benefits ..........................................................................................................3 Regulatory Authority ....................................................................................................3 Water Quality Standards...............................................................................................4 Evaluation of Wetland Condition .................................................................................8 Research Objectives....................................................................................................13 Hypothesis ..................................................................................................................13

2 METHODS.................................................................................................................15

Sampling Site Selection..............................................................................................15 Sampling and Analytical Methods..............................................................................18 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................25

3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................26

Spatial Study Results ..................................................................................................27 Temporal Study Results..............................................................................................46

4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................58

Objective One (Results)..............................................................................................58 Objective Two (Results) .............................................................................................60 Objective Three (Results) ...........................................................................................60 Objective Four (Results).............................................................................................62 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................64

vi

APPENDIX

A PROFILES OF SAMPLED WETLANDS .................................................................65

B SURVEYED WETLANDS DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION............................126

C PHOTOGRAPHS OF WETLANDS SURVEYED IN SW INDIANA ...................157

D WETLAND CHARACTERIZATION FORM.........................................................178

LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................181

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................184

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table page 2-1 Number of wetlands surveyed in Southwestern Indiana from each wetland

community type and nutrient condition. ..................................................................17

2-2 Number of wetlands surveyed within each community type. Sites were all located in the southeastern part of Eco-region IX....................................................17

2-3 Southwestern Indiana wetland research location, sampling dates and characterization. All wetlands included in the survey are listed. ............................18

2-4 Southwestern Indiana wetland research location, sampling dates and characterization for Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh, wetland community type: Non-Riparian marsh with Least-Impacted wetland condition. ................................19

3-1 General descriptive statistics summary of water column total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana. Wetlands were aggregated using several different classification criteria. ........................................27

3-2 Statistical comparison of water column total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana, aggregated using several different classification criteria….…………........………………………………….28

3-3 General descriptive statistics summary of leaf litter total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana. Wetlands were aggregated using several different classification criteria. ...............29

3-4 Statistical comparison summary of leaf litter total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana, aggregated using several different classification criteria. . .................................................................30

3-5 General descriptive statistics summary of soil pH, organic matter, total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana. Wetlands were aggregated using several different classification criteria.......................................................................................................................32

3-6 Statistical comparison summary of soil pH, organic matter, total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana, aggregated using several different classification criteria…………..……… .......…34

3-7 General descriptive statistics summary of vegetation total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana. Wetlands were aggregated using several different classification criteria. ...............35

viii

3-8 Statistical comparison summary of vegetation tissue total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana, aggregated using several different classification criteria. . .....................................36

3-9 Summary table of nutrient indicator strata. ............................................................37

3-10 Summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, variance and 95% confidence interval) of water column samples collected during the temporal study..................50

3-11 Summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, variance and 95% confidence interval) of litter samples collected during the temporal study. . ............................53

3-12 Summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, variance and confidence interval) of soil sampled during the temporal study ...............................................................57

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page 1-1 Percentage of Wetlands Lost in the United States. ....................................................2

1-2 Draft Aggregations of Eco-regions for the National Nutrient Strategy (Source US EPA http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecomap.html).............10

2-1 Photographs representing the three principal wetland community classifications surveyed in Southwestern Indiana, (A) Riparian Swamp, (B) Non-Riparian Swamp, and (C) Non-Riparian Marsh......................................................................18

3-1 Water Column Total Phosphorus Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands...................................................................................................................39

3-2 Water Column Total Nitrogen Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands...................................................................................................................40

3-3 Litter Total Phosphorus Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands...................................................................................................................41

3-4 Litter Total Nitrogen Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands. ................42

3-5 Vegetation Tissue Total Phosphorus Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands...................................................................................................................43

3-6 Vegetation Tissue Total Nitrogen Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands...................................................................................................................44

3-7 Soil Total Phosphorus Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands. ................45

3-8 Soil Total Nitrogen Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands. ....................46

x

3-9 Water Column Depth in Inches. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). Mean and Standard Deviation of both zones are presented...................................................................................................................47

3-10 Water Column Field pH. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). Mean and Standard Deviation of both zones are presented...48

3-11 Water Column Dissolved Oxygen, %. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). Mean and Standard Deviation of both zones are presented...................................................................................................49

3-12 Water Column Total Phosphorus, mg/L. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B)..........................................................................49

3-13 Water Column Total Nitrogen, mg/L. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B)..........................................................................50

3-14 Litter Total Phosphorus, mg/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). ..................................................................................52

3-15 Litter Total Nitrogen, g/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). .................................................................................................52

3-16 Litter Total Carbon, g/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). .................................................................................................53

3-17 Soil Bulk Density, grams cm-3. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). ...........................................................................................54

3-18 Soil Loss on Ignition, %. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). .................................................................................................55

3-19 Soil Total Phosphorus, mg/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). ...........................................................................................55

3-20 Soil Total Nitrogen, g/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). .................................................................................................56

3-21 Soil Total Carbon, g/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). .................................................................................................56

3-22 Soil pH. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).............................................................................................................................57

xi

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

BIOGEOCHEMICAL SURVEY OF WETLANDS IN SOUTHWESTERN INDIANA

By

David A. Stuckey

May 2006

Chair: Mark W. Clark Major Department: Soil and Water Science

Nutrient concentrations play a critical role in the integrity and functionality of

wetlands. To fully assess the status and condition of wetland ecosystems, knowledge of

nutrient flow and cycling is required. Although water quality nutrient data are readily

available, there is limited information regarding nutrient concentrations within the soil,

litter and vegetation at wetland sites. While it is recognized that an assessment of

wetland ecosystems can be enhanced by examination of nutrient criteria, such

biogeochemical indicators have not been standardized and there is a lack of spatial data

within the National Wetland Biogeochemical Database.

To address this need for consistency and comparability in the reporting data, a

Biogeochemical Survey of Wetlands of Southwestern Indiana was conducted. Sixteen

wetland sites were surveyed for twenty biogeochemical indicators including vegetation,

litter, soil and water column nutrient parameters. One wetland site was selected for

additional study for a period of one year to provide background information on temporal

and seasonal variability within the wetland.

xii

Based on the study results, there does not appear to be a need to sub-classify

wetlands by vegetative community type to properly assess nutrient conditions in

Southwestern Indiana’s wetlands. However, hydrologic connectivity of the wetland

should be considered in the assignment of appropriate numeric nutrient criteria.

Comparison of water column, litter, soil, and vegetation nutrient indicators between

impacted and least-impacted wetlands suggests that total phosphorus concentrations

measured in the water column, litter, and vegetation do not indicate nutrient enrichment.

The most responsive indicator stratum for nutrient enrichment between impacted and

least-impacted wetlands appears to be soil total phosphorus and total nitrogen.

Comparison of nutrient concentrations in Southwestern Indiana wetlands to

Southeastern U.S. Eco-region IX wetlands showed significantly higher total phosphorus

concentrations in the water column, litter and soil from Southwestern Indiana Wetlands.

The findings suggest that the establishment of numeric nutrient criteria for Southwestern

Indiana wetlands, based on reference wetlands from Eco-region IX, could be overly

protective.

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Wetland Perspective and Trend

Throughout history, man’s regard for wetlands has ranged from ambivalence and

disdain of inundated areas as wastelands, to great respect as a precious resource that

enables a way of life. At the first extreme, legislation such as the Federal Swamp Lands

Acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860 encouraged the drainage or reclamation of wetlands, to

more productive, beneficial uses to society. The other extreme could be represented by

human cultures evolved within, and dependent upon wetland environments, such as the

Cajuns of Louisiana, and the Sokaogon Chippewa of Wisconsin (Mitsch and Gosselink

2000).

This polarity of values continues today as development interests compete with

environmental conservationists for the right to develop, versus the preservation, of

wetland areas. Within the last twenty years, as wetland values have been further

recognized and promoted, legislation has been enacted to help protect diminishing

wetland resources not just from direct infill or drainage, but also from indirect

degradation and impacts to wetland functions and quality.

At the heels of this legislation are challenges to the rules and laws promulgated to

protect wetlands. A climate of judicial challenge and litigation reinforce the need for

clarity in delineation, scope and application of the wetland subject areas. The more that

is understood about wetlands, the better their chances for protection.

2

Figure 1-1 illustrates the percentage of wetland acreage in the United States that

were lost over the 200 year period between the 1780’s and the 1980’s. The State of

Indiana lost 87% of its wetlands during this period. According to estimates based on

hydric soils assessments by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, approximately

5,600,000 acres of wetlands were present in Indiana in the 1780’s, comprising 24.1% of

the total land area. The existing 813,000 acres of wetlands now cover only 3.5% of the

land area in the state. Among the 50 states, Indiana ranks 4th in proportion of wetlands

lost (Dahl 1990). Clearly, this negative trend needs to be reversed if the plant and animal

communities and the physical landscape are to receive future benefits provided by

wetland ecosystems.

Indiana’s wetlands are impacted today by agricultural activities, commercial and

residential development, road construction, water development projects, groundwater

withdrawal, loss of instream flows, water pollution and vegetation removal (IDNR 1996).

Figure 1-1. Percentage of Wetlands Lost in the United States.

3

Wetland Benefits

Wetlands have been described as the kidneys of the landscape for their abilities to

absorb, filter, stabilize and buffer nutrients, pollutants, groundwater, floodwater and other

upstream native and anthropogenic inputs. Wetlands function as sources, sinks and

transformers of chemical and biological materials. Among the most productive

ecosystems worldwide, wetlands support broad biodiversity ranging from microbial

organisms to mammals.

Wetlands play a key role in atmospheric air quality through carbon sequestration.

Conversely, drainage and destruction of wetlands can release carbon dioxide, a

greenhouse gas (Klein et al. 2005).

The ability of wetlands to perform the valuable functions of source, sink and

transformer is dependent upon their condition. Limited monitoring information is

available to assess wetland ambient and seasonal conditions, or the affects of ecosystem

stressors that may degrade wetland condition. As of 1998, only 4% of the nation’s

wetlands had been surveyed. Of those wetlands surveyed, the majority of data was

generated through dredge and fill permit requirements (USEPA 2002b).

Regulatory Authority

In 1972, Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to “restore and maintain

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” While the term

“wetland” is absent from the entire statute, Section 404 of the CWA is the primary

regulatory authority governing wetland protection.

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a

point source, into waters of the United States, unless a permit has been issued. Section

404 authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for the discharge of

4

dredged or fill material into navigable waters. The application and jurisdiction of

navigable waters has been the source of considerable litigation throughout the history and

development of water law in the United States. The recent proximity requirement of

navigable waterways in the designation of regulated wetlands has had the affect of

excluding many isolated and often critical wetland areas from regulatory protection

(Klein et al. 2005).

Since the implementation of the Clean Water Act in 1970, the focus of water

quality protection has been aimed primarily toward lakes, rivers and streams, while

wetland protection efforts concentrated on preventing the conversion of existing wetlands

to uplands. Although the rate of wetland loss has decreased, significant opportunities

exist to assess and ultimately protect wetland quality condition.

Water Quality Standards

Under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), states are assigned primary

responsibility for enacting water quality standards that are protective of designated uses.

Section 304(a) of the CWA provides assistance to states through the Environmental

Protection Agency’s development of water quality criteria. The EPA provides this

guidance as a starting point for states in the development of water quality criteria and

standards.

Water quality standards consist of three major elements: (1) designated uses, (2)

narrative and numeric water quality criteria for supporting each designated use, and (3)

an antidegradation statement (USEPA 2002a).

Designated Uses

Environmental goals are defined or classified as designated uses for water

resources by states. Examples of typical water body designated uses include: public

5

water supply, primary contact recreation, aquatic life support, wildlife habitat, and fish

consumption. The unique functions and values of wetlands may require the

establishment of designated uses much different from typical water bodies. In the

absence of a state specified designated use for a water body, including wetlands, the

default designated use assigned by EPA is aquatic life support. In most instances states

have not actively designated uses for wetlands and therefore, for regulatory purposes,

support of aquatic life dictates selection of narrative and numeric criteria.

Water Quality Criteria

In 1998, The Clean Water Action Plan was introduced by the U.S. EPA and the

Department of Agriculture as a blueprint to protect and restore the nation’s water

resources. An element of the Plan was to define nutrient reduction goals by establishing

numeric criteria for nutrients (i.e. phosphorus and nitrogen) that reflect the different types

of water bodies and different eco-regions of the country to assist states and tribes in the

adoption of numeric water quality standards based on these criteria (EPA and USDA).

Water quality criteria are narrative or numeric descriptions of the chemical,

physical or biological conditions found in minimally-impacted, reference sites. Using

appropriate criteria, states can compare the condition of a wetland to the reference criteria

to determine if the wetland is supporting its designated uses.

Narrative Criteria

Narrative water quality criteria are statements to protect and support the

antidegradation of water resources and their designated uses. They define conditions

necessary to sustain designated uses. For example, a general narrative statement would

be: “maintain natural hydrologic conditions, including hydroperiod, hydrodynamics and

6

natural water temperature variations necessary to support vegetation which would be

present naturally” (USEPA 2002a).

Antidegradation Policy

An antidegradation policy established by a state would include provisions for full

protection of existing uses, maintenance of water quality of high-quality waters, and a

prohibition against lowering water quality in outstanding resource waters. The policy

would also address fill activities in wetlands to ensure that no significant degradation

occurs as a result of the fill activity (USEPA 2002a)

Numeric Criteria

Numeric water quality criteria define the specific numeric limits for physical,

chemical and biological parameters established by states to protect designated uses of

water resources. Because current assessment methods do not describe many biological

and physical impacts to wetlands, and numeric parameters are not yet established,

narrative criteria are primarily used for wetlands. For wetlands, states have historically

relied upon designated uses and criteria previously developed for lakes and streams,

although the ecological conditions of wetlands differ from lakes and streams.

In addition, the physical and chemical criteria were based on sampling from the

ambient water column. Since the presence of a water column in a wetland can be highly

variable, inference of water column parameters alone in determining the condition of a

wetland can be inconclusive. Since wetland characteristics can be quite different from

typical water bodies, numeric criteria for physical and chemical parameters of other

strata, specific to wetlands are needed (USEPA 2002a).

Other strata that serve as response indicators to causal variables such as nutrient

loading in wetlands include: vegetation, leaf litter and soil. Wetland vegetation responds

7

to nutrient additions by increasing the storage of nitrogen and phosphorus in plant tissue,

and increasing net primary production (NPP), and decomposition (Craft and Richardson

1998). The ratio of carbon to nitrogen (C: N) present in leaves or aboveground biomass

can be used as an indicator of nutrient enrichment. Plants assimilate more nitrogen under

conditions of nitrogen enrichment, increasing leaf nitrogen and decreasing the C: N ratio

(Shaver and Melillo 1984, Shaver et al. 1998). Phosphorus-enriched environments result

in increased leaf tissue phosphorus and decreased carbon to phosphorus ratios (C: P)

(Craft et al. 1995). To determine these affects on the C: N and C: P ratios require

knowledge of the baseline nutrient concentrations prior to enrichment.

Leaf litter is another stratum that can be used as an indicator of nutrient loading,

especially in forested wetlands with little or no herbaceous vegetation. Since woody

plants grow slower and have a longer life cycle than herbaceous vegetation, litterfall is a

slower response variable to measure nutrient use efficiency through net primary

productivity (Chapman 1986).

Wetland soils provide both the medium where many wetland chemical

transformations take place, as well as the primary storage location for available chemicals

for most wetland plants. Biogeochemical cycling, the transport and transformation of

chemicals in ecosystems, involves a number of interrelated processes highly influenced

by system hydrology. These chemical, physical and biological processes result in

changes to chemical forms and spatial movement of materials within wetlands. The

exchange of nutrients at the water-sediment interface, plant uptake, and nutrient inputs

and exports, determine overall wetland productivity. Relatively large amounts of

nutrients are tied up in wetland sediments as compared to terrestrial and deepwater

8

aquatic systems (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). The use of soil sampling as an indicator of

nutrient enrichment in wetlands can provide information on the status of a wetland’s

function as a sink, source, or transformer of nutrients. The relative permanence of this

stratum in the wetland as compared to water column, vegetation and litter, contribute to

its favorability as an indicator.

Evaluation of Wetland Condition

The physical and chemical characteristics of a watershed’s landscape topography,

underlying geology and hydrology, contribute to the plant and animal community species

that can survive in a location. The collective interaction of these communities with their

physical and chemical environments can form wetlands, and provide valuable functions

from both economic and ecological perspectives. Wetlands can support high levels of

primary production, provide habitat for numerous species of wildlife, and mediate a range

of biochemical transformations that contribute to improved water quality (Findlay et al.

2002). The complex biological community’s presence in a wetland demonstrates its

resilience to normal variation in the environment (Karr and Chu 1999).

The severity, frequency and duration of human activities or disturbances within a

wetland, or its watershed can result in conditions where changes in the biological

community occur. A challenge to wetland scientists is the need to develop practical

measurements of wetland condition to assist resource managers in their decisions and

actions to minimize wetland loss in acreage and function (USEPA 2002a). In spite of

heightened awareness of wetlands functions and values, the ability to protect, manage and

restore these systems remains fairly poor due to a lack of tools to rapidly yet plausibly

assess their value (Findlay et al. 2002).

9

The EPA’s Office of Water has established a strategy to implement the Clean

Water Action Plan, by the development of regional nutrient criteria for each aquatic

resource type. Using comparisons to local reference or background conditions, nutrient

criteria can be developed within designated spatial areas, yielding a regionalization of

nutrient criteria. Reference data sets allow more objective and realistic selection of goals

for wetland maintenance or restoration (Findlay et al. 2002).

Numeric Nutrient Criteria

Nearly half the surface waters surveyed in the United States do not meet water

quality standards because of excessive levels of nutrients. Nutrient enrichment affects

both structural and functional attributes of wetlands. Structural affects can include shifts

in plant species composition with replacement of nutrient-tolerant species with species

more adaptive to high nutrient conditions. Wetland functional changes include increased

nitrogen and phosphorus uptake, net primary productivity, decomposition, and

eutophication (USEPA 2002c).

States consistently cite excessive nutrients as a major obstacle to water quality

attainment, and EPA expects to develop numeric nutrient criteria that cover the four

major types of water bodies – lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams, estuarine and

coastal areas, and wetlands. The criteria will first be recommended by EPA across the

fourteen major eco-regions of the United States illustrated in Figure 1-2, below. These

recommended criteria must either be adopted by state and tribal governments or

scientifically-based alternative criteria must be proposed that is mutually agreed upon by

the local government and EPA.

10

Figure 1-2. Draft Aggregations of Eco-regions for the National Nutrient Strategy (Source US EPA http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecomap.html)

To support and enable the development of numeric nutrient criteria by States and

authorized Tribes, a series of Technical Guidance Manuals has been developed by EPA.

To provide flexibility in adopting nutrient criteria into their water quality standards, the

following approaches, in order of preference, are recommended:

1) Whenever possible, develop nutrient criteria that fully reflect localized conditions and protect specific designated uses using the process described in EPA’s Technical Guidance Manuals for nutrient criteria development. Such criteria may be expressed either as numeric criteria or as procedures to translate a State or Tribal narrative criterion into a quantified endpoint in State or Tribal water quality standards.

2) Adopt EPA’s section 304(a) water quality criteria for nutrients, either as numeric criteria or as procedures to translate a State or Tribal narrative nutrient criterion into a quantified endpoint.

3) Develop nutrient criteria protective of designated uses using other scientifically defensible methods and appropriate water quality data (EPA 2000c).

11

Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria

EPA plans to recommend numeric criteria for wetlands based on eco-regions, but

unlike other surface water bodies, limited information exists. Heterogeneity among

wetlands and within eco-regions is uncertain and therefore needs to be assessed.

Baseline conditions for least-impacted wetlands need to be determined, or in areas

where few impacted sites exist, an assessment of background conditions is required.

Data from this study could be used to increase the overall data set that is available to EPA

to set numeric criteria using their 25% or 75% method adopted when using whole

population or least impacted wetlands, respectively.

Temporal Variability

Ecosystem influences are affected by temporal variability, and include the

chemical, physical, biotic, hydrologic, energy and habitat factors that combine to

determine the biogeochemical integrity of a wetland system. Spatial and temporal

variability in hydrology and soils in an isolated basin marsh in New Hampshire found

that vegetation fell into five wetland zones, and hydrologic variability resulted in

temporal and spatial variability of vegetative communities as greater plant diversity and

increased plant seedlings resulted from dry years (Owen Koning 2004). Studies of

temporal and spatial patterns of root nitrogen concentration and root decomposition have

shown that root nitrogen decreased through the growing season in live roots but increased

in dead roots. Live root nitrogen concentrations were found to be the highest in the most

mesic landscape positions while dead root nitrogen concentrations were highest in

relatively xeric landscape positions (Dress 2004).

Water depth was confirmed as the main predictor of species distribution, and

reduced trophic status was found to increase species richness in submerged macrophytes.

12

Mineralogical variations in sediment composition represented allogenic and autogenic

sediment sources, and their distribution corresponded with predicted species richness and

distribution (Schmieder 2004). Nutrient bioavailability in wetlands has been shown to be

largely independent of the acidity-alkalinity gradient, and the distribution of vascular

plants was influenced primarily by nutrient availability (Bragazza and Gerdol 2001).

Temporal variation of nitrogen and phosphorus uptake in two New Zealand streams

showed that range and variation of nutrient uptake in some streams can be quite large. It

was recommended that within-stream variation be considered in comparing other streams

and to help in the understanding of factors that drive nutrient uptake (Simon et al. 2004).

Although this specific research focused on stream flow, the implication of similar affects

within the wetland water column is reasonable, especially among riparian wetland

systems.

Nutrient concentrations of biomass have been shown to be more constant spatially

and temporally than indicators such as biomass production, due to variability among sites

and across years. Nutrient cycling processes in vegetation are established quickly

following wetland restoration. Therefore, nutrient characteristics of vegetation in

wetlands could be a useful metric in the evaluation of wetland restoration success

(Whigham et al. 2002).

While nutrient characteristics of vegetation could be indicative of wetland

condition, the seasonal availability of vegetation for sampling limits its value as a

universal metric for year-round monitoring. The temperate climate of the survey area of

this study precluded sampling of wetland plants due to their absence from late fall

through early spring.

13

Temporal variability reflected in the literature suggests the need for an indicator of

wetland status that is relatively independent of seasonal and hydrological changes. The

validity of a stratum to indicate differences between impacted and least-impacted sites is

important in establishing its potential value as an assessment tool for the evaluation and

monitoring of wetland condition.

Research Objectives

There were four principal objectives of this study:

Objective One

To gather information on wetlands located in Southwestern Indiana to assess the heterogeneity among wetland community types and secondarily to determine appropriate aggregation classes of wetland based on biogeochemical characteristics.

Objective Two

To determine which sampling strata: water, litter, soil, or vegetation, are most responsive to nutrient enrichment.

Objective Three

To contrast Southwestern Indiana least-impacted (reference) wetlands to Southeastern US Wetlands in Eco-region IX and to determine the validity of a single numeric criterion for this eco-region.

Objective Four

To investigate temporal variability of biogeochemical parameters within the water column, litter, soil and vegetation within one wetland over a one year period.

Hypothesis

In response to these objectives, several hypotheses were proposed.

(H1) There will be no difference in strata biogeochemistry among various wetland community types sampled in Indiana. It is suggested that the influence of hydrology would outweigh the characteristics and functions of wetland community types in the overall assimilation and cycling of nutrients.

14

(H2) Southwestern Indiana wetlands will have higher phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations than wetlands within the same eco-region in the Southeastern United States. These differences will occur among soil, water, litter and vegetation strata.

(H3) There will be differences in seasonal variability among water column, litter,

soil or vegetative biogeochemical parameters surveyed. The seasonal variability will be lower for the soil and higher for the water column parameters.

15

CHAPTER 3 METHODS

Sixteen wetland sites in Southwestern Indiana were surveyed and samples collected

between August 8 and September 27, 2003 to determine background concentrations of

nutrients Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen. Samples were analyzed for twenty

biogeochemical indicators in four different strata including plant, litter, soil and water

column nutrient parameters.

During the period from October 18, 2003 to July 5, 2004, eight additional monthly

surveys were conducted at the Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh to examine temporal

variability within a single wetland (Wetland ID Numbers IN15 and IN17 through IN23).

The same protocol used in the spatial sampling was followed for the temporal survey.

Both of these sampling methods are described in this chapter.

Sampling Site Selection

Wetland sampling sites were identified after review of topographical maps, aerial

photographs and wetland data from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service’ National

Wetlands Inventory Database and the Indiana Geological Survey’s GIS Atlas.

In addition, natural resource professionals from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,

the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, and the Indiana Chapter of the Nature

Conservancy were consulted to help identify and procure permission to sample wetlands

surveyed. Both wetland community type and wetland condition were factors in site

selection (USEPA 2002d).

16

Identification of Minimally Impaired Wetland Sites

Impairment status of wetlands in the survey area was difficult to determine due to

the prevalence of agricultural, coal mining, and floodplain impacts present throughout the

geographic area. The wetlands selected were classified as either impacted or least-

impacted, based upon a 10% development criterion. Consistent with the approach of the

Southeastern Wetlands Study, if 10% or more of the landscape surrounding the wetland

were significantly altered, it was considered impacted. Of the sixteen wetlands, eleven

were identified as least-impacted, and five identified as impacted.

Identification of Wetland Community Types

Wetland sampling sites were classified by hydrologic and vegetative criteria. Sites

were first assessed using the United States Fish & Wildlife Service’(USFWS) National

Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Database, based on the USFWS Wetland and Deepwater

Habitat Classification System (Cowardin et al. 1979) and later verified during sampling.

Hydrologic Classification

For this study two hydrologic classifications for wetlands were recognized,

Riparian and Non-riparian. Riparian wetlands were identified as those located within 40

meters of a river or stream. Field classification of sites showed five Riparian and eleven

Non-Riparian wetlands were selected for the surveyed.

Vegetative Classification

Wetland sites were separated into two vegetative classes, Swamps and Marshes.

Designation between Swamps and Marshes were based on structure of dominant

vegetative species. If a woody canopy was present and intact, then the area was

designated a swamp. If there was no woody canopy or if the canopy consisted of less

17

than 10% cover, the area was designated a marsh. Using this criterion, four sites were

considered marshes and twelve sites considered swamps.

Combining the hydrologic and vegetative classification for each of the wetland

sites sampled three of the four possible community type classifications were represented

in the survey in both impacted and least impacted nutrient conditions (Table 2-1). Table

2-2 indicates the community type and impact status of wetlands surveyed in the

Southeastern United States that were used for comparative purposes in this research

(Greco 2004; Paris 2005).

Table 2-1. Number of wetlands surveyed in Southwestern Indiana from each wetland community type and nutrient condition.

Impacted Least-Impacted Riparian Swamp 3 2 Riparian Marsh 0 0 Non-Riparian Swamp 1 6 Non-Riparian Marsh 1 3 Table 2-2. Number of wetlands surveyed within each community type. Sites were all

located in the southeastern part of Eco-region IX. Eco-region IX Riparian Swamp 40 Riparian Marsh 4 Non-Riparian Swamp 14 Non-Riparian Marsh 3

Photographs of typical wetlands surveyed in the Southwestern Indiana study are

illustrated in Figure 2-1.

18

Figure 2-1 Photographs representing the three principal wetland community classifications surveyed in Southwestern Indiana, (A) Riparian Swamp, (B) Non-Riparian Swamp, and (C) Non-Riparian Marsh.

Sampling and Analytical Methods

Field sampling and laboratory methodology are described below, beginning with

Table 2-3, which provides a numerical listing, sampling date, characterization and

location coordinates for all wetlands surveyed.

Table 2-3. Southwestern Indiana wetland research location, sampling dates and characterization. All wetlands included in the survey are listed.

(A) Riparian Swamp

(B) Non-Riparian Swamp (C) Non-Riparian Marsh

19

Table 2-4 below provides a numerical listing, sampling dates, characterization and

location coordinates for the temporal portion of the survey that was conducted in the

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh.

Table 2-4. Southwestern Indiana wetland research location, sampling dates and characterization for Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh, wetland community type: Non-Riparian marsh with Least-Impacted wetland condition.

ID

Date Sampled

Wetland Community Type

Wetland Condition Location Coordinates

IN1 08/08/2003

Riparian Swamp Impacted

Millersburg- Wabash and Erie Canal/Pigeon Creek

N 38° 05.842' W 87° 23.653'

IN2 08/09/2003

Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted

IDNR* Lost Hill Wetland Conservation Area North

N 38° 11.220' W 87° 25.094'

IN3 08/09/2003

Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted

IDNR* Lost Hill Wetland Conservation Area South

N 38° 11.136' W 87° 25.114'

IN4 08/10/2003

Non-Riparian Swamp Impacted East Mount Carmel

N 38° 22.697' W 87° 43.780'

IN5 08/10/2003

Riparian Swamp Impacted

Elberfeld-Wabash and Erie Canal/Pigeon Creek

N 38° 09.692' W 87° 24.854'

IN6 08/16/2003

Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted

Pike State Forest – Patoka River

N 38° 21.415' W 87° 08.973'

IN7 08/16/2003

Riparian Swamp Impacted Schlensker Ditch

N 38° 22.485' W 87° 16.722'

IN8 08/17/2003

Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR* Buck's Marsh

N 38° 20.812' W 87° 19.395'

IN9 08/26/2003

Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted IDNR* Big Cypress Slough

N 37° 49.116' W 88° 00.273'

IN10 08/30/2003

Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR* Snaky Point

N 38° 21.113' W 87° 19.161'

IN11 08/31/2003

Non-Riparian Marsh Impacted Snake Lake

N 38° 22.087' W 87° 19.551'

IN12 09/07/2003

Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted

PRNWR* Hwy 57 @ Patoka River

N 38° 23.090' W 87° 19.888'

IN13 09/14/2003

Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted

PRNWR* Oxbow-Patoka River South Fork

N 38° 22.669' W 87° 21.405'

IN14 09/21/2003

Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted

PRNWR* North Meridian Oxbow

N 38° 23.325' W 87° 16.700'

IN15 09/21/2003

Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted

PRNWR* Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh

N 38° 22.476' W 87° 16.691'

IN16 09/27/2003

Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted

TNC* Goose Pond Cypress Slough

N 37° 54.316' W 87° 50.089'

*IDNR - Indiana Department of Natural Resources *PRNWR - Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge *TNC - The Nature Conservancy

20

Sample Locations

A targeted, stratified sampling approach was used to encompass spatial variation of

the wetlands’ inundation patterns. For all wetlands surveyed, a baseline transect was

established from the edge of the wetland toward the geographical center of the wetland.

Three zones were then identified along each transect for survey and sampling: the core

wetland (A), edge wetland (B) and the adjacent upland (U). Within each of these zones,

perpendicular transects, parallel to the upland/wetland boundary, were used to locate

three sub-sample sites for each zone. Smaller non-riparian wetlands were sampled with

an outer ring (B) transect and an inner ring (A) sites at the center of the wetland. Each

sub-sampling location was approximately 30 meters apart. (Figure 2-3).

ID Date Sampled Coordinates

IN15 09/27/2003

N 38° 22.476' W 87° 16.691'

IN17 10/18/2003

N 38° 22.482' W 87° 16.715'

IN18 11/29/2003

N 38° 22.481' W 87° 16.715'

IN19 12/30/2003

N 38° 22.481' W 87° 16.715'

IN20 02/29/2004

N 38° 22.481' W 87° 16.715'

IN21 04/30/2004

N 38° 22.480' W 87° 16.713'

IN22 06/01/2004

N 38° 22.477' W 87° 16.693'

IN23 07/05/2004

N 38° 22.485' W 87° 16.721'

21

Figure 2-2. Wetland sub-sample locations of (a) Riparian (b) small Non-Riparian and (c) large, Non-Riparian Systems. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A), Outer Edge (B) and Adjacent Upland (U).

A Wetland Characterization Form (Appendix D) was used to guide and document

the field survey and sampling tasks. Detailed land-use and descriptive assessments of the

wetland and adjacent upland were recorded. In addition, this form included

documentation of vegetative species characterization at each of the wetland sub-samples

wetland zones. Information compiled from the Wetland Characterization Forms can be

referenced in Appendix A.

A1

A2

A3

B1

B3

B2

Upland

Edge

Center

(a)

A B 1

Upland

River Center Edge

Ecotone(Not sampled) Upland

Center

b) Small Non-Riparian

c) Large Non-Riparian

A) Riparian

B 2

B 3

A 1

A 2

A 3

A 1

A 2

A 3B 3

B 2

B 1

Edge

A1

A2

A3

B1

B3

B2

Edge

Center

(a)

A B 1

River Center Edge

Ecotone(Not sampled) Upland

Center

a) Riparian

B 2

B 3

A 1

A 2

A 3

A 1

A 2

A 3B 3

B 2

B 1

Edge

22

Water Column Physical Parameters

When water was present at the sub-sample locations, field conditions were

analyzed using a Yellow Springs Instruments YSI-556 MPS portable meter, calibrated

prior to use and at the conclusion of the day’s sampling for the following parameters:

• Temperature

• pH

• Dissolved Oxygen

• Conductivity

• Oxidation-Reduction Potential

Water Sample Collection

Where present, water samples were collected at each sub-sample location. The

three sub samples within a zone were composited into a 125 ml, acid-washed, HDPE

bottle. Before sample collection, bottles were triple-rinsed with site water. Water

samples were stored on ice for transport, frozen, then shipped to the Wetland

Biogeochemistry Laboratory at the University of Florida. Upon receipt of the samples by

the laboratory, sub-samples of the water composites were filtered through 0.45µm filter

paper and analyzed for nitrate and nitrite with a Rapid Flow Analyzer (RFA). A 10 ml

non-filtered sub-sample was digested and analyzed for Total Kjeldal Nitrogen (TKN).

The nitrate-nitrite and the TKN results were summed to determine total nitrogen

concentrations. Total phosphorus was determined using colorimetric analysis on a

Technicon AA II after sulfuric acid and potassium persulfate digestion (EPA method

365.1-1993).

23

Soil

Soil samples were collected at the sub-sample locations of each transect. A clean

7.3 cm diameter tenite butyrate sampling tube attached to a sharp coring head was driven

into the soil a minimum depth of 10 cm. After corer insertion, a rubber stopper was

placed inside the sampling tube at the base of the soil sample. The sample was then

extruded by pushing the rubber stopper against a piston rod, forcing the soil sample out of

the top of the sampling tube into a 10 cm tenite butyrate collar.

Any leaf litter at the top surface of the core was carefully removed, and the upper

10 cm of soil was sliced with a stainless steel pocketknife, and placed in a zip lock bag.

The three sub-samples from each transect were combined, yielding composite samples of

the wetland core, wetland edge and the adjacent upland transects. Samples were stored

on ice for transport to the Wetland Biogeochemistry Laboratory at the University of

Florida.

Upon receipt by the laboratory, the wet weight of the composite sample was

recorded for bulk density calculation. A sub-sample of the homogenized composite was

placed in a 250 ml shallow dish, weighed, and dried at 70° C for 48 hours. The dried

sample weight was used to calculate the percent moisture in the sample.

Dried samples were ground with mortar and pestle, followed by mechanical

grinding using a ball mill for eight minutes. These samples were passed through a 1 mm

sieve and placed into scintillation vials. Organic Matter Content was determined by Loss

on Ignition (LOI), and Total Phosphorus (TP) was analyzed using the Ignition Method

(Anderson 1976). Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Carbon (TC) were determined using a

Carlo Erba NA 1500 CNS Analyzer (Haak Buchler Instruments, Saddlebrook, NJ).

24

Leaf Litter

Leaf litter samples were also collected at the sub-sample locations of each transect.

A 40 cm diameter PVC ring was placed on the soil surface and all loose debris within the

ring was collected until reaching a layer of fine, well-decomposed particles. Due to the

varying sources of litter and decomposition rates, it was sometimes necessary to collect

additional litter samples at the sub-sample locations to ensure adequate sample for

analysis.

As with the water and soil samples, the three leaf litter sub-samples were combined

to yield a composite sample for each of the wetland core and wetland edge transects. The

samples were placed in a Ziploc bag, sealed and stored on ice for transport to the Wetland

Biogeochemistry Laboratory at the University of Florida.

Upon receipt by the laboratory, the litter samples were placed in a paper bag and

dried for 72 hours at 60°C. The dried samples were initially ground in a Wiley mill to

pass through a 1 mm sieve. Samples were then ground a second time to pass through a

40µm sieve. Total Phosphorus was determined by the Ignition Method (Anderson 1976).

Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Carbon (TC) were analyzed using a Carlo Erba NA 1500

CNS Analyzer (Haak Buchler Instruments, Saddlebrook, NJ).

Vegetation

Vegetation was collected on a selected species basis, sampling only from mature

leaves not subject to herbivory or senescence. Vegetation was sampled by removing the

leaf at the point where the node was attached to the stem. Leaves from multiple plants of

the same species throughout the wetland were composited.

Vegetation samples were dried for seven days at 60°C, then ground to passing a 40

µm sieve prior to analysis. Total Carbon (TC) and Total Nitrogen (TN) analysis were

25

conducted on 0.5 – 2.0 mg vegetation samples using a Carlo Erba Model 1500 NA. Total

Phosphorus (TP) content was determined by the Ignition Method (Anderson 1976) using

a Technicon II Colorimetric Auto-Analyzer (EPA Method 365-1).

Data Analysis

All statements of statistical significance are based on a significance threshold of α

= 0.05. Paired comparisons used a standard “T” test for evaluation of significant

differences. For comparison among community types, ANOVA with the Tukey-Kramer

Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) multiple comparison test was used. Most

variables required log transformation prior to statistical analysis. JMP version 4.04

statistical software and Microsoft Excel version 2003 were used in statistical analysis and

data summaries.

26

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS

Samples collected during the field surveys were analyzed for twenty

biogeochemical parameters among four different strata: plant, litter, soil, and the water

column. Because of their relative impact on wetland and water quality, the analysis of

the nutrient parameters total phosphorus and total nitrogen was the primary focus of this

report. The analytical results of all parameters are provided for informational purposes in

the interest of future study.

In Tables 3-1 through 3-8, general descriptive statistics and paired comparison t-

tests using p-values (α=0.05) calculated by the Tukey-Kramer Honestly Significant

Difference (HSD) test are presented for all wetland strata parameters, as aggregated by

the following classification criteria:

1. All Wetlands (Combined) 2. Hydrologic Connectivity (Riparian and Non-Riparian) 3. Vegetative Character (Swamp or Marsh) 4. Community Type (Riparian Swamp, Riparian Marsh, Non-Riparian

Swamp, Non-Riparian Marsh) 5. Wetland Condition (Least-Impacted and Impacted)

Table 3-9 summarizes the statistical data comparing all strata nutrient indicators

between least-impacted and impacted wetlands that were surveyed. Figures 3-1 through

3-8 provide a graphical representation with box plots showing the 10th, 25th, median, 75th

and 90th percentiles comparing nutrient indicators from sampling conducted in

Southwestern Indiana relative to the collaborative survey results in the Southeastern

United States.

27

Spatial Study Results

Water

Where present in the wetland, water samples were collected to determine nutrient

concentrations in the water column. Surveyed wetlands showed little difference in total

phosphorus when aggregated by hydrologic class, but Swamps had almost 75% higher

water column phosphorus concentration than Marshes (Table 3-1). Non-Riparian

Swamps had the highest total phosphorus concentration and Non-Riparian marshes the

lowest of wetland community type. Total Nitrogen concentration did not appear to vary

significantly regardless of class aggregation.

Table 3-1. General descriptive statistics summary of water column total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana. Wetlands were aggregated using several different classification criteria.

Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Mean + 1SD Median n Mean + 1SD Median n Wetlands Classification mg/l mg/l All Wetlands 0.295 + 0.169 0.237 22 2.69 + 1.52 2.31 22Hydrologic Riparian 0.284 + 0.191 0.245 5 2.56 + 1.40 2.33 5 Non-Riparian 0.298 + 0.168 0.228 17 2.72 + 1.59 2.3 17Vegetative Swamp 0.327 + 0.180 0.305 17 2.77 + 1.68 2.33 17 Marsh 0.186 + 0.039 0.166 5 2.39 + 0.84 2.29 5 Community Type Riparian Swamp 0.284 + 0.191 0.245 5 2.56 + 1.40 2.33 5 Non-Riparian Swamp 0.345 + 0.180 0.356 12 2.86 + 1.83 2.36 12 Non-Riparian Marsh 0.186 + 0.390 0.166 5 2.39 + 0.85 2.29 5 Condition Least-Impacted 0.318 + 0.170 0.251 15 2.89 + 1.63 2.42 15 Impacted 0.222 + 0.167 0.179 8 2.11 + 1.24 1.95 8

Pair-wise comparison of total phosphorus and total nitrogen in the water column

showed no significant differences when aggregated by hydrologic class, vegetative class,

community type, or wetland condition (Table 3-2). ANOVA of the three community

28

types surveyed showed no significant differences among the aggregation for total

phosphorus or total nitrogen.

Table 3-2. Statistical comparison of water column total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana, aggregated using several different classification criteria. A standard T-test for significant difference was used in paired comparisons, with probability ‘P’values (α=0.05) presented with bold font indicating values of significant difference. For comparison among community types, ANOVA was used (Tukey-Kramer HSD). Lower case letters denote statistically similar values.

Wetlands Classification Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Hydrologic Riparian vs. Non-Riparian 0.871 0.839 Vegetative Swamp vs. Marsh 0.104 0.633 Community Type 0.216 0.840 Riparian Swamp a A Non-Riparian Swamp a A Non-Riparian Marsh a A Condition Impacted vs. Least-Impacted 0.350 0.378 Leaf Litter

Leaf litter was collected at all sub-sample locations along the survey transects to

determine nutrient concentrations in this stratum. Total phosphorus concentrations

showed little difference as aggregated by hydrologic class or wetland condition, but

similar to water column results, Swamps had 70% higher phosphorus concentration in the

litter than Marshes (Table 3-3). Non-Riparian Swamps had the highest concentration of

total phosphorus, and Non-Riparian Marshes, the lowest of wetland community type.

Surveyed wetlands showed little difference in total nitrogen concentration as

aggregated by hydrologic class, but Non-Riparian Marshes had approximately 40%

higher nitrogen concentration than Swamps. Total nitrogen concentrations in Least-

Impacted wetlands were 35% higher than Impacted Wetlands.

29

There was little difference noted in total carbon concentration from litter samples as

aggregated by hydrologic and vegetative classes, or community type. Least-Impacted

sites showed nearly 30% higher total carbon concentrations than Impacted wetlands.

Table 3-3. General descriptive statistics summary of leaf litter total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana. Wetlands were aggregated using several different classification criteria.

Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Mean + 1SD Median n Mean + 1SD Median n Wetlands Classification mg/kg g/kg All Wetlands 2661 + 763.8 2851 17 14.4 + 5.25 13.4 24Hydrologic Riparian 2875 + 831.7 2825 8 12.8 + 4.4 12.7 7 Non-Riparian 2471 + 689.2 2851 9 15.1 + 5.54 13.6 17Vegetative Swamp 2870 + 660.0 2936 14 13.1 + 3.40 13.1 18 Marsh 1685 + 318.4 1712 3 18.5 + 7.79 16.4 6 Community Type Riparian Swamp 2875 + 831.7 2825 8 12.8 + 4.42 12.7 7 Non-Riparian Swamp 2863 + 405.1 2945 6 13.3 + 2.83 13.6 11 Non-Riparian Marsh 1685 + 318.4 1712 3 18.5 + 7.79 16.4 6 Condition Least-Impacted 2464 + 706.1 2715 9 15.6 + 5.55 14.3 17 Impacted 2882 + 810.9 2951 8 11.6 + 3.25 11.8 7 Total Carbon Mean + 1SD Median n Wetlands Classification g/kg All Wetlands 295 + 85.06 318 24 Hydrologic Total Carbon Mean + 1SD Median n Wetlands Classification g/kg Riparian 262 + 86.1 277 7 Non-Riparian 308.5 + 83.4 329. 17 Vegetative Swamp 293.3 + 91.8 310 18 Marsh 300 + 67.9 331 6 Community Type Riparian Swamp 262.2 + 86.1 277 7 Non-Riparian Swamp 313.1 + 93.6 317 11 Non-Riparian Marsh 300.1+ 67.9 331 6

30

Table 3-3. Continued Condition Least-Impacted 316.0 + 78.0 332 17 Impacted 244.1 + 85.2 248 7

Paired comparisons of total phosphorus and total nitrogen in litter samples showed

no significant differences when aggregated by hydrologic class or wetland condition

(Table 3-4). Significant differences were noted in total phosphorus when aggregated by

vegetative class and community type, and in total nitrogen when wetlands were

aggregated by vegetative class. ANOVA of the three community types surveyed showed

significant differences in total phosphorus concentration between Non-Riparian Marshes

and both Non-Riparian Swamps and Riparian Swamps. Significant differences were also

noted for total carbon concentration between Riparian Swamps and both Non-Riparian

Swamps and Non-Riparian Marshes.

Table 3-4. Statistical comparison summary of leaf litter total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana, aggregated using several different classification criteria. A standard T-test for significant difference was used in paired comparisons, with probability ‘P’values (α=0.05) presented with bold font indicating values of significant difference. For comparison among community types, ANOVA was used (Tukey-Kramer HSD). Lower case letters denote statistically similar values.

Wetlands Classification Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Total Carbon

Hydrologic Riparian vs. Non- Riparian 0.2904 0.3358 0.2334 Vegetative Swamp vs. Marsh 0.009 0.024 0.8701 Community Type 0.039 0.082 0.4782 Riparian Swamp a a B Non- Riparian Swamp a a A Non- Riparian Marsh b a A Condition Impacted vs. Least-Impacted 0.273 0.095 0.0578

31

Soil

Soil samples were collected at each sub-sample location of the wetland survey

transects to determine nutrient concentrations in this stratum. Soil pH mean values

generally ranged from 5.5 to 6.1 (Table 3-5). When aggregated by vegetative class,

Marshes were 0.5 pH units higher than Swamps. Similarly, Impacted wetlands were 0.5

pH units higher than Least-Impacted sites.

When aggregated by hydrologic class, organic matter content in Non-Riparian

wetlands was 75% higher than Riparian wetlands. Vegetative class aggregation found

Marshes contained 50% more organic matter than Swamps. Among community types,

Non-Riparian Marshes contained twice as much organic matter as Riparian Swamps.

Least-Impacted wetlands were 30% higher in organic matter content than Impacted sites.

Total Phosphorus concentration in surveyed wetlands showed little difference

among the various aggregations with the exception of wetland condition, where Impacted

wetlands contained 40% more total phosphorus than Least-Impacted sites.

Total nitrogen as aggregated by hydrologic class showed concentrations 88%

higher in Non-Riparian compared to Riparian wetlands. Little difference was noted when

aggregated by vegetative class. Consistent with results from the hydrologic class

aggregation, Non-Riparian Swamp and Marsh community types were over 90% higher in

total nitrogen than Riparian Swamps. Least-Impacted wetlands were over 50% in total

nitrogen than Impacted sites.

Total carbon concentrations were significantly different when aggregated by

hydrologic, vegetative, and community type classifications. Non-Riparian wetlands

contained twice as much total carbon as Riparian wetlands. Marshes contained 70%

more total carbon than Swamps, and Non-Riparian Marshes well over twice as much total

32

carbon as Riparian Swamps. While Least-Impacted wetlands showed higher total carbon

than Impacted sites, the difference was not significant.

Table 3-5. General descriptive statistics summary of soil pH, organic matter, total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana. Wetlands were aggregated using several different classification criteria.

pH Organic Matter Mean + 1SD Median n Mean + 1SD Median n Wetlands Classification Standard Units % All Wetlands 5.7 + 0.9 5.9 32 13.3 + 5.70 12.3 31Hydrologic Riparian 5.6 + 0.9 5.9 10 8.81 + 2.38 8.8 10 Non-Riparian 5.7 + 1.0 5.9 22 15.4 + 5.62 15.3 21Vegetative Swamp 5.5 + 1.0 5.5 24 11.7 + 5.43 9.5 23 Marsh 6.1 + 0.8 6.2 8 17.73 + 3.96 17.7 8 Community Type Riparian Swamp 5.6 + 0.9 5.9 10 8.81+ 2.38 8.8 10 Non-Riparian Swamp 5.5 + 1.0 5.4 14 13.9 + 6.13 13.6 13 Non-Riparian Marsh 6.1 + 0.8 6.2 8 17.7 + 3.96 17.7 8 Condition Least-Impacted 5.5 + 0.9 5.5 22 14.3 + 5.11 13.6 21 Impacted 6.1 + 0.9 6.2 10 11.1 + 6.50 8.8 10 Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Mean + 1SD Median n Mean + 1SD Median n Wetlands Classification mg/kg g/kg All Wetlands 778 + 219 754 31 3.8 + 1.6 3.6 21Hydrologic Riparian 700 + 160 688 10 2.4 + 0.86 2.6 7 Non-Riparian 815 + 237 796 21 4.5 + 1.44 4.4 14Vegetative Swamp 800 + 246 803 23 3.6 + 1.61 3.3 16 Marsh 716 + 101 723 8 4.7 + 1.4 4.1 5 Community Type Riparian Swamp 700 + 160 688 10 2.4 + 0.86 2.6 7 Non-Riparian Swamp 876 + 277 930 13 4.4 + 1.55 4.39 9 Non-Riparian Marsh 716 + 101 723 8 4.7 + 1.36 4.1 5 Condition Least-Impacted 600 + 121 591 10 4.2 + 1.6 4.2 16 Impacted 863 + 206 830 21 2.7 + 0.77 2.9 5 .

33

Table 3-5. Continued Total Carbon Mean +

1SD Median n

Wetlands Classification g/kg All Wetlands 57.1 + 28.4 54.3 21 Hydrologic Riparian 32.8 + 13.1 34.4 7 Non-Riparian 69.3 + 26.3 69.7 14 Vegetative Swamp 48.7 + 26.5 47.1 16 Marsh 84.0 + 14.8 83.7 5 Community Type Riparian Swamp 32.8 + 13.1 34.4 7 Non-Riparian Swamp 61.1 + 28.3 55.2 9 Non-Riparian Marsh 84.1 + 14.8 83.7 5 Condition Least-Impacted 59.8 + 27.6 57.7 16 Impacted 48.6 + 32.9 46.9 5

Paired comparisons of soil pH values showed no significant differences when

aggregated by hydrologic class, vegetative class, community type, or wetland condition

(Table 3-6). ANOVA of the three community types surveyed also showed no significant

differences in soil pH. Significant differences in organic matter content were shown for

aggregations by hydrologic class, vegetative class and community type, but not for

wetland condition. ANOVA of the three community types surveyed showed significant

differences in organic matter between Riparian Swamps and both Non-Riparian Swamps

and Marshes. There were no significant differences in total phosphorus noted by pair-

wise comparison of hydrologic class, vegetative class, or community type aggregations.

However, significant differences in total phosphorus were noted between Impacted and

Least-Impacted wetlands. ANOVA of the three community types surveyed showed no

significant differences in total phosphorus concentration.

34

Paired comparisons by both hydrologic class and community type showed

significant differences in total nitrogen between Riparian and Non-Riparian wetlands. As

aggregated by vegetative class and wetland condition, there were no significant

differences between Swamps and Marshes, or Impacted and Least-Impacted sites,

respectively. ANOVA of the three community types surveyed showed significant

differences in total nitrogen between Riparian Swamps and both Non-Riparian Swamps

and Marshes. Significant differences in total carbon content were shown for aggregations

by hydrologic class, vegetative class and community type, but not for wetland condition.

ANOVA of the three community types surveyed showed significant differences in total

carbon between Riparian Swamps and both Non-Riparian Swamps and Marshes.

Table 3-6. Statistical comparison summary of soil pH, organic matter, total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana, aggregated using several different classification criteria. A standard T-test for significant difference was used in paired comparisons, with probability ‘P’values (α=0.05) presented with bold font indicating values of significant difference. For comparison among community types, ANOVA was used (Tukey-Kramer HSD). Lower case letters denote statistically similar values.

Wetlands Classification pH Organic Matter

Total Phosphorus

Total Nitrogen

Total Carbon

Hydrologic Riparian vs. Non- Riparian 0.756 0.001 0.166 0.003 0.003 Vegetative Swamp vs. Marsh 0.095 0.005 0.394 0.177 0.011 Community Type 0.234 0.001 0.101 0.011 0.002 Riparian Swamp a a a a a Non- Riparian Swamp a b a b b Non- Riparian Marsh a b a b b Condition Impacted vs. Least-Impacted 0.139 0.118 0.001 0.060 0.157 Vegetation

Vegetation samples were collected in the wetland survey areas to determine

nutrient concentrations in the common vegetation. No significant differences were noted

35

when aggregated by hydrologic class, community type, or wetland condition (Table 3-7).

Vegetative aggregation of the surveyed wetlands, however, indicated tissue total

phosphorus concentrations in Marshes were over 50% higher than Swamps.

Tissue total nitrogen concentration showed no significant differences when

wetlands were aggregated by hydrologic class, community type, or wetland condition.

Aggregation of the wetlands by vegetative class showed tissue total nitrogen

concentrations in Marshes were over 40% higher than Swamps.

Comparison of tissue total carbon showed no significant differences when

aggregated by hydrologic class, vegetative class, community type, or wetland condition.

Table 3-7. General descriptive statistics summary of vegetation total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana. Wetlands were aggregated using several different classification criteria.

Tissue Total Phosphorus Tissue Total Nitrogen Mean + 1SD Median n Mean + 1SD Median n Wetlands Classification % % All Wetlands 0.22 + 0.14 0.18 34 2.56 + 0.98 2.09 21Hydrologic Riparian 0.17 + 0.08 0.19 5 2.12 + 0.46 1.99 4 Non-Riparian 0.23 + 0.15 0.18 28 2.66 + 1.05 2.09 17Vegetative Swamp 0.18 + 0.11 0.16 21 2.11 + 0.69 2.03 11 Marsh 0.28 + 0.18 0.18 13 3.05 + 1.05 3.2 10Community Type Riparian Swamp 0.17 + 0.08 0.19 6 2.12 + 0.46 1.99 4 Non-Riparian Swamp 0.18 + 0.12 0.15 15 2.11 + 0.83 2.03 7 Non-Riparian Marsh 0.28 + 0.18 0.18 13 3.05 + 1.05 3.2 10Condition Least-Impacted 0.23 + 0.16 0.18 27 2.70 + 1.11 2..09 15 Impacted 0.19 + 0.09 0.22 7 2.2 + 0.43 2.1 6 Tissue Total Carbon Mean + 1SD Median n Wetlands Classification % All Wetlands 45.33 + 2.97 46.72 21 Hydrologic Riparian 45.48 + 2.08 46.35 4 Non-Riparian 45.30 + 3.20 47.3 17

36

Table 3-7. Continued Tissue Total Carbon Mean + 1SD Median n Wetlands Classification % Vegetative Swamp 44.54 + 3.24 45.97 11 Marsh 46.2 + 2.53 47.37 10 Community Type Riparian Swamp 45.48 + 2.08 46.35 4 Non-Riparian Swamp 44.01 + 3.79 43.89 7 Non-Riparian Marsh 46.20 +2.53 47.37 10 Condition Least-Impacted 45.50 +3.37 47.37 15 Impacted 44.92 + 1.83 44.93 6

Pair-wise comparison of tissue total phosphorus showed no significant differences

when aggregated by hydrologic class, community type, or wetland condition (Table 3-8).

Significant differences were noted when aggregated by vegetative class. Tissue total

nitrogen concentrations aggregated by hydrologic class, community type, or wetland

condition showed no significant differences, while significant differences were noted in

vegetative class. Paired comparisons of wetland aggregations by hydrologic class,

vegetative class, community type, or wetland condition showed no significant differences

in total carbon concentration. ANOVA of the three community types surveyed showed

no significant differences among the aggregation for total phosphorus, total nitrogen, or

total carbon.

Table 3-8. Statistical comparison summary of vegetation tissue total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total carbon concentrations for wetlands surveyed in Indiana, aggregated using several different classification criteria. A standard T-test for significant difference was used in paired comparisons, with probability ‘P’values (α=0.05) presented with bold font indicating values of significant difference. For comparison among community types, ANOVA was used (Tukey-Kramer HSD). Lower case letters denote statistically similar values.

Wetlands Classification Tissue Total Phosphorus

Tissue Total Nitrogen

Tissue Total Carbon

Hydrologic Riparian vs. Non- Riparian 0.3568 0.3327 0.9194

37

Table 3-8. Continued Wetlands Classification Tissue Total

Phosphorus Tissue Total Nitrogen

Tissue Total Carbon

Vegetative Swamp vs. Marsh 0.038 0.025 0.2098 Community Type 0.119 0.087 0.3426 Riparian Swamp a a A Non- Riparian Swamp a a A Non- Riparian Marsh a a A Condition Impacted vs. Least-Impacted 0.569 0.301 0.6995 Summarized Nutrient Indicator Strata

Table 3-9 below summarizes the statistical data comparing all strata nutrient

indicators between least-impacted and impacted wetlands surveyed. Soil was the only

stratum that demonstrated significant differences between Impacted and Least-Impacted

wetlands was soil. Total phosphorus concentrations were higher in Impacted wetlands

and total nitrogen was higher in Least-Impacted wetlands.

Table 3-9. Summary table of nutrient indicator strata. Paired comparison standard T-tests with probability ‘P’values (α=0.05) in bold font denoting values of significant difference in nutrient indicator strata concentrations between Least-Impacted and Impacted wetlands surveyed in Southwestern Indiana.

Nutrient Indicator Strata

Nutrient Wetland Nutrient Condition

P-Values Wetland Nutrient Condition

Least Impacted Impacted Water P, mg/l 0.32 + 0.17 0.350 0.22 + 0.17 N, mg/l 2.89 + 1.63 0.378 2.11 + 1.24 Litter P mg/kg 2460 + 710 0.273 2880 + 810 N g/kg 15.6 + 5.55 0.095 11.6 + 3.3 Soil P mg/kg 600 + 120 0.001 860 + 210 N g/kg 4.2 + 1.6 0.060 2.7 + 0.7 Vegetation P % 0.23 + 0.16 0.569 0.19 + 0.09 N % 2.70 + 1.11 0.301 2.20 + 0.43

38

Comparison of SW Indiana Wetlands and SE US Wetlands in Eco-region IX

Figures 3-1 through 3-8 below illustrate the comparison of nutrient indicators in the

water column, litter, soil, and vegetative tissue from sampling conducted in the

Southwestern Indiana Wetland Biogeochemical Survey and the collaborative Eco-region

IX studies of the Southeastern United States: Southeastern Wetland Biogeochemical

Survey: Determination and Establishment of Numeric Nutrient Criteria (Paris 2005) and

A Biogeochemical Survey of Wetlands in the Southeastern United States (Greco 2004).

Box plots showing the 10th, 25th, median, 75th and 90th percentiles comparing nutrient

indicators from sampling conducted in Southwestern Indiana relative to the collaborative

survey results in the Southeastern United States are presented below. All data are

samples collected from Least-Impacted wetlands.

Water Column

Water column total phosphorus concentrations from surveyed wetlands in Indiana

were significantly different from wetlands surveyed in the other states of Eco-Region IX

(Figure 3-1).

39

Figure 3-1. Water Column Total Phosphorus Comparison between Least-Impacted

Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands.

Water column total nitrogen concentrations from wetlands surveyed in Indiana

were not significantly different from those wetlands surveyed in other states in Eco-

Region IX (Figure 3-2).

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus,

mg/

l

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Indiana Alabama Florida Georgia

State

b

a

a

a

40

Figure 3-2. Water Column Total Nitrogen Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands.

Litter

Litter total phosphorus concentrations from the Indiana wetland samples were

significantly different from wetlands surveyed in Florida and Georgia (Figure 3-3).

Wetlands in Alabama and South Carolina had similar total phosphorus concentrations to

the Indiana wetlands.

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

, mg/

l

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Indiana Alabama Florida Georgia

State

a

a

a a

41

Figure 3-3. Litter Total Phosphorus Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands

Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands.

Litter total nitrogen concentrations from the Indiana wetland samples were similar

to Eco-Region IX wetlands in Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia, but significantly

different from those in Florida (Figure 3-4).

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Indiana Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina

State

a

ab

bc

c

c

42

Figure 3-4. Litter Total Nitrogen Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands

Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands.

Vegetation

Vegetation tissue total phosphorus concentrations in wetlands surveyed in Indiana

were similar to Eco-Region IX wetlands in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, but

were significantly different from wetlands surveyed in Florida (Figure 3-5).

Nitr

ogen

, %

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Indiana Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina

State

a

b bb

ab

43

Figure 3-5. Vegetation Tissue Total Phosphorus Comparison between Least-Impacted

Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands.

Vegetation tissue total nitrogen concentrations from Indiana wetlands surveyed

were similar to those in Eco-Region IX wetlands in Alabama, Georgia, and South

Carolina, but significantly different from surveyed wetlands in Florida (Figure 3-6).

Pho

spho

rus,

%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Indiana Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina

State

a

b b ab

ab

44

Figure 3-6. Vegetation Tissue Total Nitrogen Comparison between Least-Impacted

Wetlands Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands.

Soil

Soil total phosphorus concentrations from surveyed wetlands in Indiana were

significantly different among all wetlands in the other Eco-Region IX states surveyed

(Figure 3-7).

Nitr

ogen

, %

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Indiana Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina

State

a

abab

b b

45

Figure 3-7. Soil Total Phosphorus Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands

Surveyed in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands.

Soil total nitrogen concentrations from the wetlands surveyed in Indiana were not

significantly different from the wetlands surveyed in other states of Eco-Region IX

(Figure 3-8).

Soil

TP %

0

0.1

Indiana Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina

State

a

a

b

c

b

46

Figure 3-8. Soil Total Nitrogen Comparison between Least-Impacted Wetlands Surveyed

in Southwestern Indiana and Eco-Region IX Least-Impacted Wetlands.

Temporal Study Results

The sampling results of the temporal study conducted in the Turkey Hill Graywood

Marsh are presented below by strata (water column, litter and soil), with XY plots of the

analytical data plotted along a temporal gradient for the sampling period September 31,

2003 to July 5, 2004. Tables summarizing the Mean, Standard Deviation, Variance and

Confidence Level of the parameters for all strata are presented at the end of each section.

Water

Water Column field parameters: pH, Dissolved Oxygen, and Depth, and nutrient

concentrations for Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen are presented below in Figures 3-

9 through 3-13, to illustrate the seasonal variability observed during the temporal survey.

Soil

TN

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Indiana Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina

State

a b

ababab

47

Water depth recorded in the wetland zones A and B illustrates the seasonal

hydroperiod in Figure 3-9.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Aug-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Jan-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04

Time

Dep

th, i

nche

s

AB

Figure 3-9. Water Column Depth in Inches. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). Mean and Standard Deviation of both zones are presented.

Water column field pH measurements (Figure 3-10) generally showed little

difference between the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B) zones of the wetland, probably

due to the relative homogeneity of the water column. Those readings where differences

were noted may be due to very shallow sampling areas in the Outer Edge zone which

could have higher temperatures and magnified affects from the soil/water column

interface.

48

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

Aug-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Jan-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04

Time

pH

AB

Figure 3-10. Water Column Field pH. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). Mean and Standard Deviation of both zones are presented.

Water column dissolved oxygen concentrations over the temporal gradient show a

general increase through the fall and spring (Figure 3-11). This could be partially due to

decreasing seasonal temperature and increased emergent and floating vegetation (Lemna)

noted in the wetland in the spring.

49

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Aug-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Jan-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04

Time

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n, m

g/L

AB

DO

Figure 3-11. Water Column Dissolved Oxygen, %. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B). Mean and Standard Deviation of both zones are presented.

Water column total phosphorus concentration shown in Figure 3-12 reflects

variability of the seasonal hydroperiod. Outer Edge (B) total phosphorus concentrations

were well above the corresponding Inner Core (A) samples collected during the peak of

the summer season.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Aug-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Jan-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04

Wat

er C

olum

n TP

, mg/

l

AB

Figure 3-12. Water Column Total Phosphorus, mg/L. Wetland zones sampled included

the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

50

Water column total nitrogen in Figure 3-13 reflects variability of the seasonal

hydroperiod. Total nitrogen concentrations in the Outer Edge (B) samples were higher

than Inner Core (A) in almost every sampling event, with significant increased separation

between the zones during the peak of the summer season.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Aug-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Jan-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04

Wat

er C

olum

n TN

, mg/

l

AB

Figure 3-13. Water Column Total Nitrogen, mg/L. Wetland zones sampled included the

Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

Table 3-10 below lists the summary statistics of Water Column sample analysis for

Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen samples from the inner core (A) and outer edge (B)

of the wetland locations. The mean, standard deviation, variance, and 95% confidence

interval are presented. Water Column total phosphorus concentration was over 60 %

higher in the Outer Edge (B) samples. Total nitrogen concentrations in the Outer Edge

(B) were 20% higher than the Inner Core (A) wetland zone samples.

Table 3-10. Summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, variance and 95% confidence interval) of water column samples collected during the temporal study. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

. Water Column TP (mg/l) A

Water Column TN (mg/l) A

Mean 0.27 2.20 Standard Deviation 0.10 0.39 Sample Variance 0.01 0.16 Confidence Interval (95.0%) +0.119 +0.41

51

Table 3-10. Continued

Water Column TP (mg/l) B

Water Column TN (mg/l) B

Mean 0.44 2.71 Standard Deviation 0.28 0.71 Sample Variance 0.08 0.50 Confidence Interval (95.0%) +0.29 +0.74

As noted earlier, watershed hydrology exerts the most significant effect on the

availability, distribution and cycling of nutrients in the wetland landscape. In spite of this

influence as a regulator, because of seasonal flooding, drought, variable watershed inputs,

and its general, transient nature, water monitoring would not likely serve as a reliable,

more permanent indicator of wetland condition throughout the year.

Vegetation

The temperate climate of the survey area of this study precluded sampling of

wetland plants due to their absence from late fall through early spring.

Litter

Nutrient conservation in vegetation affects litter decomposition rates and soil

nutrient availability (Diehl et al. 2002). If C: N ratios in vegetative tissue are higher than

optimal, and water column nitrogen is available, litter can also integrate nitrogen from the

water column. Nutrient removal efficiency studied over a one year period in a

wastewater treatment wetland indicated that water temperature was a principle regulator

to this process (Anderson et al. 2003).

The following Figures 3-14, 3-15 and 3-16, illustrate the trends of total phosphorus,

total nitrogen, and total carbon from litter samples collected at both the inner core and

outer edge of the wetland over the temporal study period.

52

Litter total phosphorus concentrations from the Inner Core (A) samples were

consistently higher than those collected from the Outer Edge (B) of the wetland

throughout the temporal period (Figure 3-14). Concentrations from both zones (A) and

(B) were constant and showed little variation throughout the sampling period.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Jun-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04

Litte

r TP,

%

AB

Figure 3-14. Litter Total Phosphorus, mg/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner

Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

Litter total nitrogen concentrations from samples collected in the Inner Core (A)

were consistently higher than Outer Edge (B) zone samples (Figure 3-15). The seasonal

variability of total nitrogen in litter appears to be greater as compared to total phosphorus

in litter over the same time period.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Aug-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Jan-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04

Litte

r TN

, g/k

g

AB

Figure 3-15. Litter Total Nitrogen, g/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner

Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

53

Litter total carbon concentrations in Inner Core (A) samples were consistently

higher than samples collected from the Outer Edge (B) of the wetland throughout the

temporal study period (3-16).

050

100150200250300350400

Aug-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Jan-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04

Litte

r TC

, g/k

g

AB

Figure 3-16. Litter Total Carbon, g/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core

(A) and Outer Edge (B).

The summary statistics for litter nutrient indicators from samples collected in

wetland zones A and B during the temporal study are presented in Table 3-11. The mean,

standard deviation, variance, and 95% confidence interval for litter total phosphorus, total

nitrogen and total carbon are shown. The lowest variance occurred in litter total

phosphorus in the Inner Core (A) samples, followed by total phosphorus in the Outer

Edge (B) wetland samples over the time period of sampling. Total nitrogen also

exhibited little variability during the temporal period.

Table 3-11. Summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, variance and 95% confidence interval) of litter samples collected during the temporal study. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

Inner Core of Wetland (A) Litter TP (mg/kg) A

Litter N (g/kg) A

Litter C (g/kg) A

Mean 180 20.6 306 Standard Deviation 8 3.6 23.3 Sample Variance 0.0672 1.3 54.3 Confidence Interval (95.0%) +8 +3.8 +24.5

54

Table 3-11. Continued

Outer Edge of Wetland (B) Litter TP (mg/kg) B

Litter N (g/kg) B

Litter C (g/kg) B

Mean 230 19.6 296 Standard Error 87 1.2 10.1 Standard Deviation 230 3.2 26.6 Sample Variance 53 1.0 70.9 Confidence Interval (95.0%) +21 +2.9 +24.6 Soil

The soil, being the most permanent of the strata measured in this study,

would be expected to provide consistency for evaluation of wetland condition

throughout the year. It is reasonable that longer-term response to anthropogenic

inputs to the wetland would be indicated in the soil. The following figures

illustrate the trends of those parameters measured: Bulk Density, Loss on Ignition,

Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, Total Carbon and pH. The inner core (A),

outer edge (B), and adjacent upland (c) of the wetland locations were surveyed

and sampled.

Soil bulk density values between the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B)

wetland zones reversed from the fall, when Zone A showed higher bulk density

than Zone B (Figure 3-17). In late spring and summer, bulk density in Zone B

was higher than Zone A.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Jun-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04

Soil

Bul

k D

ensi

ty, g

cm

-3

AB

Figure 3-17. Soil Bulk Density, grams cm-3. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner

Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

55

A reversal in the loss on ignition (LOI) parameter was also noted between the Inner

Core (A) and the Outer Edge (B) wetland zones sampled (Figure 3-18). In the fall, Zone

B showed high LOI values than Zone A, while in late spring and early summer, Zone A

had higher LOI than Zone B.

0

20

40

60

80

Jun-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04

Soil

Loss

on

Igni

tion,

%

A

B

Figure 3-18. Soil Loss on Ignition, %. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core

(A) and Outer Edge (B).

Soil total phosphorus concentrations in the Inner Core (A) of the wetland were

higher than the Outer Edge (B) in the fall, late spring, and summer (Figure 3-19). During

the winter, however, samples from the Outer Edge (B) had higher concentrations of total

phosphorus in the soil.

0200400600800

10001200

Jun-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04

Soil

TP, m

g/kg

A

B

Figure 3-19. Soil Total Phosphorus, mg/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner

Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

The soil total nitrogen temporal results between the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge

(B) of the wetland were similar to those for total phosphorus (Figure 3-20). Total

56

nitrogen in the soil during fall, late spring, and summer were higher in Zone A than Zone

B. In the winter, Zone B showed higher total nitrogen values than Zone A.

0

2

4

68

10

12

14

Jun-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04

Soil

TN, g

/kg

A

B

Figure 3-20. Soil Total Nitrogen, g/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core

(A) and Outer Edge (B).

Soil total carbon concentration from the Inner Core (A) and the Outer Edge (B) appeared

to follow the same seasonal pattern as both total phosphorus and total nitrogen (Figure 3-

21). Total carbon concentrations were higher in Zone B than in Zone A during the winter

and higher in Zone A than in Zone B in the summer.

0

100

200

300

400

500

Jun-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04

Soil

TC, g

/kg

A

B

Figure 3-21. Soil Total Carbon, g/kg. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

Seasonal trends in soil pH (Figure 3-22) were similar to the water column pH trend

(Figure 3-9), with fall and winter, pH values higher in the Inner Core (A) than the Outer

57

Edge (B) wetland zones. In the spring and summer, pH values were higher in Zone B

than Zone A.

33.5

44.5

55.5

66.5

77.5

Jun-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04

Soil

pH AB

Figure 3-22. Soil pH. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer

Edge (B).

A summary of the following statistics: mean, standard deviation, variance and

confidence level, was compiled from the soil sample analyses to provide an overall

comparison of the data. The results are shown in Table 3-12 below.

Table 3-12. Summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, variance and confidence interval) of soil sampled during the temporal study. Wetland zones sampled included the Inner Core (A) and Outer Edge (B).

Inner Core of Wetland (A)

Soil Ph A

Soil Bulk Density (g cm-3) A

Soil LOI (%) A

Soil TP (mg/kg) A

Soil TN (g/kg) A

Soil TC (g/kg) A

Mean 6.07 0.59 19.18 80 7.0 79.9 Standard Deviation 0.57 0.03 1.47 10 0.97 9.8 Sample Variance 0.32 0.001 2.15 0.091 0.09 9.5 Confidence Interval (95.0%) +0.52 +0.03 +1.54 +10 +1.2 +15.5

Outer Edge of Wetland (B)

Soil pH B

Soil Bulk Density (g cm-3) B

Soil LOI (%) B

Soil TP (mg/kg) B

Soil TN (g/kg) B

Soil TC (g/kg) B

Mean 5.62 0.55 25.97 60 6.6 74.8 Standard Deviation 1.26 0.29 22.77 30 4.3 52.6 Sample Variance 1.58 0.08 518.53 0.80 1.9 276 Confidence Interval (95.0%) +1.16 +0.30 +23.90 +0.29 +4.5 +65.3

58

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Objective One (Results)

The first objective was to gather information on wetlands located in Southwestern

Indiana to assess the heterogeneity among wetland community types to determine an

appropriate aggregation of wetland communities for numeric nutrient criteria

development (and monitoring) purposes. It was hypothesized that there would be no

difference in strata biogeochemistry among various wetland community types sampled in

Indiana. It was suggested that the influence of hydrology would outweigh the

characteristics and functions of wetland community types in the overall assimilation and

cycling of nutrients.

Based on the results for water column nutrients, there were no significant

differences noted between Total Phosphorus concentrations or Total Nitrogen

concentrations among the wetlands community classifications. Therefore, separation by

community type does not appear to be required for assessment within this region. It is

important to note that the sample size for certain community types was smaller, which

can contribute to increased Type II error rate in these conclusions. Where it is stated that

there are no significant differences in community parameters, there could be differences

that are not detectable due to small sample size.

Similar results were noted for vegetative nutrient indicators, finding no significant

differences in the vegetative tissue concentrations of Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen,

59

or Total Carbon. Separation by wetland community type for vegetative indicators does

not appear to be required for assessment.

Leaf litter nutrient content showed significant differences in leaf litter Total

Phosphorus concentrations between riparian and non-riparian wetlands. Seasonal

flooding and scouring effects of riparian systems would be expected to influence the

amount, types; transport and location of litter present in the wetland, and may account for

some differences in Total Phosphorus concentrations.

When aggregated by hydrologic class, organic matter content in Non-Riparian

wetland soils were 75% higher than Riparian wetlands. Vegetative class aggregation

found Marshes contained 50% more organic matter in the soil than Swamps. In addition,

Non-Riparian wetland soils contained twice as much total carbon as Riparian wetlands.

Marsh soils contained 70% more total carbon than Swamps, and Non-Riparian Marsh

concentrations of total carbon were twice as much as Riparian Swamps. This would

support the point that hydrologic influences in the riparian systems could increase

mineral soil fractions while reducing organic matter in the wetlands. Results from a

study of sediment and nutrient accumulation in floodplain and depressional wetlands

showed that phosphorus accumulation was 1.5 to 3 times higher in the floodplain

wetlands than in depressional wetlands (Craft and Casey 2000).

Considering the use of litter Total Phosphorus as an indicator of nutrient status, an

aggregation of community type should be considered between riparian and non-riparian

wetlands. Based on soil nutrient condition, results indicate significant differences in

Total Nitrogen concentrations between riparian and non-riparian wetlands. Separation by

hydrologic connectivity appears to be required for assessment of soil nutrient indicators.

60

Objective Two (Results)

The second objective was to determine which sampling strata: water, litter, soil or

vegetation is most responsive to nutrient enrichment.

Findings suggest that Total Phosphorus concentrations measured in the water

column, litter, and vegetation were not able to distinguish between impacted and least-

impacted wetlands. However, soil Total Phosphorus concentrations were able to

distinguish between impacted and least-impacted wetlands. A related study of Eco-

region IX wetlands also showed significant differences between total phosphorus

concentrations in least-impacted and impacted wetlands (Paris 2004).

In a study of sediment and nutrient accumulation in floodplain and depressional

wetlands, it was suggested that the degree of anthropogenic disturbance within the

surrounding watershed regulates wetland sediment, organic carbon and accumulation of

nitrogen. Riparian wetlands are ‘open’ systems, subject to watershed influxes of

sediment and phosphorus. Non-riparian ‘closed’ systems are influenced much less from

such influxes. Greater accumulation of phosphorus is found in floodplain wetlands that

have large catchments containing fine-textured sediments that are co-deposited with

phosphorus (Craft and Casey 2000).

In aquatic environments, the majority of phosphorus is bound to organic and

inorganic particles, with a relatively small fraction available in the water-soluble form.

Due to this conservative nature, it is understandable that a portion of the phosphorus from

watershed inputs to a wetland would remain there (Paris 2004).

Objective Three (Results)

The third objective was to contrast Southwestern Indiana least-impacted (reference)

wetlands to Southeastern US Wetlands in Eco-region IX to determine the validity of

61

single numeric criteria. Southwestern Indiana wetland nutrient indicators were compared

with sampling results from the collaborative studies: Southeastern Wetland

Biogeochemical Survey: Determination and Establishment of Numeric Nutrient Criteria

(Paris 2005), and A Biogeochemical Survey of Wetlands in the Southeastern United States

(Greco 2004).

It was hypothesized that Southwestern Indiana wetlands would have higher

phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations than wetlands within the same eco-region in the

Southeastern United States. These differences would occur among soil, water, litter and

vegetation strata.

Results:

• Total Phosphorus concentrations in the water column, litter, and soil samples from the Southwestern Indiana wetlands were significantly higher than the samples from wetlands in other states located within Eco-region IX.

• Total Nitrogen concentrations in the water column and soil were not significantly different between the Southwestern Indiana wetlands sampled and the wetlands surveyed in other states within Eco-region IX.

• Total Nitrogen concentrations in the litter were not significantly different from other states within Eco-region IX, with the exception of Florida.

• Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen concentrations in the vegetation were not significantly different from the other states within Eco-region IX, with the exception of Florida.

Significant differences in Total Phosphorus concentrations in the water column, litter,

and soil were noted between Least-Impacted Southwestern Indiana wetlands and Least-

Impacted Southeastern U.S. wetlands within Eco-region IX. Based on median values,

total phosphorus concentrations in the water column were approximately five times

higher in the Southwestern Indiana wetlands sampled than the collaborative study results

62

from other states in Eco-region IX. Soil total phosphorus concentrations in the Indiana

wetlands were twice as high as the wetlands surveyed in other Eco-region IX states.

The results suggest that a single numeric criteria established for all wetlands within Eco-

region IX could be overly protective of Southwestern Indiana wetlands.

The EPA Office of Water’s strategy to develop regional nutrient criteria uses

comparisons to local reference or background conditions to develop nutrient criteria

within designated spatial areas, to yield a regionalization of nutrient criteria. Reference

data sets allow more objective and realistic selection of goals for wetland maintenance or

restoration (Findlay et al. 2002).

EPA has recommended that nutrient criteria be based on the 25th percentile of the

nutrient concentrations measured from all wetlands in a region, or on the 75th percentile

concentration of least-impacted wetlands within a given eco-region. If the wetland

criteria are established on too broad a grouping or classification of wetlands, the natural

heterogeneity within the grouping could result in the overprotection of some wetlands,

while others in the same grouping could be under-protected (Paris 2004).

If the numeric criteria were established based on the 75th percentile phosphorus

concentration for all wetlands within Eco-region IX, the higher background phosphorus

concentrations from the Indiana sampling would be overly protective as compared to the

lower concentrations measured in the wetlands in other Eco-region IX states.

Objective Four (Results)

The objective of the temporal study was to determine the seasonal variability

among the strata parameters. Those parameters exhibiting the least variability, while also

demonstrating responsiveness to system inputs, would be expected as favorable

candidates for monitoring the wetland status throughout the year. It was hypothesized

63

that there would be differences in seasonal variability among water column, litter, soil or

vegetative biogeochemical parameters surveyed. The seasonal variability would be lower

for the soil and higher for the water column parameters due to the more permanent nature

of the sampled media.

Based on the study results, the trend data indicate that litter Total Phosphorus and

Total Nitrogen exhibit low variability among the strata parameters measured throughout

the monitoring period. Litter Total Phosphorus should be a reliable indicator, easily

sampled, that could be monitored, regardless of sampling season.

Soil Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen also exhibited low variability throughout

the temporal period and are likewise representative of effective monitoring parameters

for wetland condition. Advantages of soil indicators over litter may include soil’s more

permanent nature, and resistance to flooding impacts, especially in riparian wetlands. A

disadvantage is the additional collection equipment, weight, and effort required for soil

sampling in the field.

Another consideration, based on the results from Objective Two above, would be

that soil Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen may be more responsive than litter as an

indicator of nutrient impacts. The information derived from this temporal study,

however, was based upon sampling within a single wetland. Additional sampling over a

range of separate wetlands would be required to validate the responsiveness over a

temporal period.

Litter collection is a relatively non-intrusive method, more protective of wetland

integrity. In addition, the sample product is lightweight, occupying considerably less

space in the field gear, allowing for the collection of multiple samples during a survey.

64

Conclusion

The study results indicate that the hydrologic connectivity of a wetland system

should be considered in the assignment of appropriate numeric nutrient criteria. The

most responsive indicator stratum for nutrient enrichment between impacted and least-

impacted wetlands appears to be soil total phosphorus and total nitrogen.

The establishment of numeric nutrient criteria for Southwestern Indiana wetlands,

based on reference wetlands from Eco-region IX, could be overly protective. Study

results indicate soil total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations exhibited the

lowest variability during the temporal study, while demonstrating responsiveness to

nutrient enrichment between impacted and least-impacted wetlands. Therefore soils

likely provide the best overall choice as an indicator of wetland nutrient conditions and

therefore should be considered when developing numeric nutrient criteria.

Implications for EPA in Establishment of Numeric Nutrient Criteria

In summary, based on the survey results, there does not appear to be a need to sub-

classify wetlands by vegetative community type to properly assess nutrient conditions in

Southwestern Indiana’s wetlands. However, hydrologic connectivity of the wetland

should be considered in the assignment of appropriate numeric nutrient criteria. Soils

appear to provide the most sensitive indicator of nutrient impacts to wetlands as

compared to water, vegetation or leaf litter.

The results further indicate that a single numeric criteria established for Eco-region

IX could either be overly protective or under protective of ecological integrity based on

background nutrient conditions in the wetlands sampled in Southwestern Indiana.

65

APPENDIX A PROFILES OF SAMPLED WETLANDS

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN1 8/8/2003 Millersburg –Wabash and Erie

Canal/Pigeon Creek N38 5.84’ W87 23.6

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 % Fire Indicator Trash

IN1 Impacted Forested Wetland Riparian Forested 75.00

Unimproved Pasture 25.00

No Evidence of Fire Yes

Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n Floating

Vegetation

Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

Litter Covered with

Mud None Present

Canals and Piped Inflows None Noticed None 3 Linear

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.° C Ph DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN1a

Core Composite

(A) Stream Yes

IN1a

Core Composite

(A) Stream Yes

IN1a

Core Composite

(A) Stream 27.51 7.59 93.2 475.3 Yes

IN1b

Edge Composite

(B) Stream No

IN1b

Edge Composite

(B) Stream No

IN1b

Edge Composite

(B) Stream No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological

Adaptations Character Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

39 No No No data None Forested 85 Quercus

michauxii 40 Quercus spp.

40 No No No data Hummocks Forested 75 Ulmus

Americana 40 Quercus spp.

66

35 No No No data None Forested 70 Acer rubrum 5 Cornus spp.

No No No data None Forested 70 Acer rubrum 10 Hickory

No No No data None Forested 80 Acer rubrum 40 Quercus spp.

No No No data Buttressed

Roots Forested 75 Acer rubrum 20 Quercus spp.

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory Vegetatio

n 4 % Overstory

4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

20 Liquidambar styraciflua 20

Carpinus carolinian

a 5 35 Carpinus

caroliniana 5

15 Poison Ivy 5

Carpinus carolinian

a 15 80 Grass 40

5 Carpinus

caroliniana 10 Hickory 10

Acer saccharin

um 40 50 Unknown 10

50 Birch 10 10 Saururus cernuus 10

25 Platanus

occidentalis 15 20 Grass 20

30 Hickory 15

Platanus occidenta

lis 10 50 Fraxinus Profunda 10

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understor

y 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Comments

Poison Ivy 10 Fraxinus Profunda 5

Boehmeria cylindrica 10 Smilax spp. 5

Fraxinus Profunda 10 Vine 15

Carpinus caroliniana 15

Grass 20 Sedge 10 Poison Ivy 10

Grass 15 Sedge 25

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Condition Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN1 IN1blank Blank Impacted Water 0.004 0.489 0.032

IN1s Stream Impacted Water 0.07 1.047 0.011

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Condition

Soil Organic/Min

eral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN1a A Impacted 0.266 7.2 667.4

IN1b B Impacted 0.286 9.4 802.7

IN1u U Impacted 0.139 6.8 455.3

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN1a A 0.066 0.149 1.881 25.68 165.72 1438.8 494.8

IN1b B 0.08 37.52 194.16 1378.8 514.4

67

IN1u U 0.045 0.16 1.827 21.68 207.2 1954 264

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich 1

Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN1a A 112.2 193.64 37.24 101 747.6

IN1b B 181.96 255.6 48.44 111.64 631.6

IN1u U

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Soil P

Sorption %

Soil Oxylate

Al (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil IN1a 47.762 1188.024 9916.168 413.573 0.88 395.2 211.6 276.8

IN1b 1529.825 9309.942 545.419 1.11 460.4 239.6 252.4

IN1u

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN1

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted 0.2174

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Condition Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN1 IN1a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted 2934

IN1 IN1b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted 3212 GENERAL

INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN2 8/9/2003 N 38° 11.220' W 87° 25.094'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 Percentage 3

IN2 Least-

Impacted Forested Wetland

Non-Riparian Rural 25.00 Forested 50.00 Row crops 25.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

None Noticed None Noticed Lemna Canals None

noticed None 3 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN2a

Core Composite

(A) Wetland 20.93 6.48 6.1 106 -52.3 1 Yes

IN2a

Core Composite

(A) Wetland 21.44 6.38 3.6 101 -30.7 1.5 No

IN2a

Core Composite

(A) Wetland 21.4 6.32 8.7 98 -7 2 Yes

68

IN2b

Edge Composite

(B) Wetland

IN2b

Edge Composite

(B) Wetland

IN2b

Edge Composite

(B) Wetland

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

34 No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots Forested 95 Acer rubrum 60 Liquidambar styraciflua

No Yes Lemna None Forested 95 Acer rubrum 70 Liquidambar styraciflua

27 No Yes Lemna None Forested 80 Acer rubrum 50 Fraxinus Profunda

No No No data None Forested 70 Acer rubrum 10 Hickory

No No No data None Forested 80 Acer rubrum 40 Quercus spp.

No No No data Buttressed

Roots Forested 75 Acer rubrum 20 Quercus spp.

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

35 Liquidambar styraciflua 20

Carpinus carolinia

na 5 35 Carpinus

caroliniana 5

25 Poison Ivy 5

Carpinus carolinia

na 15 80 Grass 5

30 Carpinus

caroliniana 10 Hickory 10

Acer saccharin

um 40 50 Unknown 25

50 Birch 10 10 Saururus cernuus 30

25 Platanus

occidentalis 15 20 Grass 60

30 Hickory 15

Platanus occident

alis 10 50 Fraxinus Profunda 70

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Comments

Acer rubrum 2 Lemna spp. 1

Lemna spp. 1

Fraxinus Profunda 5 Acer rubrum 5

Saururus cernuus 10 Lemna spp. 0.1

Acer rubrum 10

Boehmeria cylindrica 10 Cornus spp. 20 hackberry 10

Vine 20 Boehmeria cylindrica 5

Fraxinus Profunda 15 Grass 20

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

69

IN2 IN1blank Blank Impacted Water 0.005 0.675 0.054

IN1s Stream Impacted Water 0.469 2.411 0.005

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN2a A Impacted 0.344 8.6 625.3

IN2b B Impacted 0.269 7.2 512.3

IN2u U Impacted 0.16 5.9 462.4

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN2a A 0.062 0.172 2.49 66 111.52 1186.8 347.2

IN2b B 0.051 36.92 135.92 1686.4 419.2

IN2u U 0.046 0.161 2.74 25.88 96.16 1106.8 292.8

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN2a A 594.4 195 49.28 53.04 479.6

IN2b B 243.2 225.2 41.8 63.68 663.2

IN2u U 106.52 162.68 30.8 39.72 436

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN2a 150.96 342 338.4 410 0.61 410 9952 1084.8 58.636

IN2b 185.92 262 338.8 341.406 0.852 341.406 7921.875 1008.984 46.867

IN2u 116.84 192.4 265.6 247.843 0.908 247.843 5721.569 834.51

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN2

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted 0.1674

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN2 IN2a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted 2851

IN2 IN2b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted 2118 GENERAL

INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN3 8/9/2003 N 38° 11.136' W 87° 25.114'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN3 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian Rural 25.00 Forested 50.00 Row crops 25.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present Algae None Noticed Lemna Canals None

noticed None 10 oval

70

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN3a

Core Composite

(A) Wetland 21.88 6.11 1.7 132 -35.2 13 Yes

IN3a

Core Composite

(A) Wetland 22.05 6.15 4.2 129 -38.2 7 Yes

IN3a

Core Composite

(A) Wetland 20.93 6.02 2.3 120 -51.6 10 Yes

IN3b

Edge Composite

(B) Wetland 21.09 6 2.4 175 -83.9 5 Yes

IN3b

Edge Composite

(B) Wetland 21.5 6.02 2.3 182 -59.2 No

IN3b

Edge Composite

(B) Wetland 20.6 5.95 2.4 253 -77.3 16 Yes

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 5 River Birch 5

15 No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Salix

caroliniana 10

20 Yes Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Salix

caroliniana 10

22 No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 30 Acer rubrum 30

Yes Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 5 Acer rubrum 2 Salix

caroliniana

25 Yes Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

95 Hydrocotyl

spp. 30

80 Typha

latifolia 40

95 Typha

latifolia 40

90 Saururus cernuus 22

3 95 Typha

latifolia 40

95 Typha

latifolia 40

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

71

Lemna spp. 15 Typha

latifolia 30 Alternanthera philoxeroides 10 Acer rubrum 10

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

Hydrocotyl spp. 10

Alternanthera philoxeroides 5 Grass 5

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 30

Alternanthera philoxeroides 5 Lemna spp. 10 Acer rubrum 10

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 23

Typha latifolia 22 Lemna spp. 23

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10 Lemna spp. 5

Pontedaria cordata 10

Saururus cernuus 30

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 30 Lemna spp. 5

Nuphar luteum 10 Acer rubrum 10

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN3 IN3a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted Water 0.708 4.829 0.005

IN3b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted Water 0.524 3.465 0.005

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN2a A Impacted 0.662 21.8 900.3

IN2b B Impacted 0.573 14.2 828.5

IN2u U Impacted 0.164 7.7 512.9

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN2a A 0.09 0.656 8.792 75.28 181.76 1826.4 550.4

IN2b B 0.082 0.432 5.524 85.44 125.36 1317.6 402.8

IN2u U 0.051 0.184 2.773 24.88 113.08 1335.2 333.6

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN2a A 730.8 295.2 42.44 93.24 706.4

IN2b B 782.4 294.8 51.88 55 458.8

IN2u U 85.6 163.32 33.56 53 549.6

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN3a 240.8 322.8 458 0.614 582.677 12019.685 2141.732 89.849

IN3b 147.68 367.2 424.4 0.455 571.82 10727.984 1945.205 90.89

IN3u 147 198.96 277.2 1.468 269.261 5381.323 871.984

VEGETATION

72

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN3

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation

Cephalanthus

occidentalis Impacted 0.1485

IN3

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation

Pontedaria

cordata Impacted 0.0931 1.42 38.62

IN3

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted 0.0833

IN3

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Typha spp. Impacted 0.2579

IN3

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation

Salix carolinia

na Impacted 0.1757 1.92 47.37

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN3 IN3a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted 2951

IN3 IN3b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted 2938

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN4 8/10/2003 East Mount Carmel N 38° 22.697' W 87° 43.780'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN4 Impacted Scrub-Scrub

wetland Non-

Riparian Forested 75.00 Row crops 25.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

None Present None Noticed None

Present

Levee Adjacent to

Wetland None

Noticed None 2 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN4a

Core Composite

(A) Wetland 25.69 7.17 51.8 500 1.4 22 No

IN4a

Core Composite

(A) Wetland 26.96 7.17 70.6 510 12.3 26 No

73

IN4a

Core Composite

(A) Wetland 26.39 7.16 60.2 505 -17.9 26 No

IN4b

Edge Composite

(B) Wetland 27.24 6.97 53 514 -34.5 3 No

IN4b

Edge Composite

(B) Wetland 26.92 7.11 53.6 513 -28.3 7 No

IN4b

Edge Composite

(B) Wetland 26.18 7.01 58.4 506 -22.3 9 No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No No No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Salix

caroliniana 10

No No No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Salix

caroliniana 10

No No No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 30 Salix

caroliniana 30

No No No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 30 Salix

caroliniana 10 Liquidambar styraciflua

No No No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 30 Salix

caroliniana 10 Liquidambar styraciflua

No No No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 50 Salix

caroliniana 20 Liquidambar styraciflua

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

10

10

10

10

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore) 10 40

5 Acer rubrum 10

Platanus occident

alis (Americ

an Sycamor

e) 5 40

10 Acer rubrum 20 60

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Liquidambar styraciflua 10

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore) 10

74

Liquidambar styraciflua 5 Acer rubrum 10

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore) 5

Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Acer rubrum 20

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN4 IN4blank Blank Impacted water 0.017 0.861 0.011

IN4 IN4a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted water 0.228 1.605 0.005

IN4 IN4b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted water 0.192 1.357 0.005

IN4 IN4blank Blank Impacted water -0.003 0.489 0.005

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN4a A Impacted 0.269 5.9 506.2

IN4b B Impacted 0.289 6.8 511.8

IN4u U Impacted 0.195 9 745.1

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN4a A 0.05 21.64 170.32 1692.8 460.8

IN4b B 0.051 0.841 123.76 5068 571.2

IN4u U 0.074 0.199 2.757 12.804 274.4 4536 608

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN4a A 111.68 163.72 29.48 79.6 668.4

IN4b B 0 18.128 25.96 87.08 2088

IN4u U 0.583 109.64 31.92 151.52 1584.8

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN4a 193.52 189.24 308.4 0.215 247.505 7772.455 1026.747 46.483

IN4b 225.2 157.68 242.8 0.282 244.008 7650.295 1126.523 50.96

IN4u 203.6 125.44 301.2 2 369.412 6984.314 1560

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN4

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Salix carolinia

na Impacted 0.2865 2.69 43.76

IN4

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted 0.2582 2.03 43.88

LITTER

75

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN4 IN4a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted 2934

IN4b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted 3212

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN5 8/10/2003 Elberfeld N 38° 09.692' W 87° 24.854'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN5 Impacted Forested Wetland Riparian Forested 100.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

Cans or Bottles None Noticed None

Present Canals, Piped

Inflows None

Noticed None 10 Linear

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN5 IN5a

Core Composite

(A) Yes

IN5 IN5a

Core Composite

(A) Yes

IN5 IN5a

Core Composite

(A) 23.34 6.92 36.2 143.6 -31 2 Yes

IN5 IN5b

Edge Composite

(B) Yes

IN5 IN5b

Edge Composite

(B) Yes

IN5 IN5b

Edge Composite

(B) No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

26 No No No data Buttressed

roots Forested 60 Acer rubrum 40 Salix

caroliniana

31 No No No data Buttressed

roots Forested 75 Fraxinus Profunda 75

76

22 No No No data Buttressed

roots Forested 85 Acer rubrum 35 Eastern

Cottonwood

16 No No No data None Forested 70 Acer rubrum 30 Hickory

30 No No No data None Forested 70 Acer rubrum 35 Acer negunda

No No No data None Forested 85 Acer rubrum 50 Salix

caroliniana

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

20 95 Grass 35

95 Grass 75

10 Salix

caroliniana 20 Fraxinus Profunda 20 50

Fraxinus Profunda 40

10 Eastern

Cottonwood 15 Fraxinus Profunda 15 95 Grass 5

35 95 Ulmus

Americana 30

35 10 Acer rubrum 5

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Saururus cernuus 20 Grass 20 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

Fraxinus Profunda 20

Grass 10

Boehmeria cylindrica 30 Grass 30 Vine 30

Grass 30 Vine 35

Grass 3 Fraxinus Profunda 2

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN5 IN5a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted water 0.365 2.225 0.103

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN5a A Impacted 0.379 13.1 567.5

IN5b B Impacted 0.287 9 614.3

IN5u U Impacted 0.202 30.3 557.9

77

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN5a A 0.056 0.292 4.736 15.964 200.4 3020 914.8

IN5b B 0.061 0.231 2.698 20.72 142.56 1978.8 844.4

IN5u U 0.055 0.443 16.614 15.944 199.36 2148 585.6

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN5a A 50.88 163.76 34.36 58.84 124.2

IN5b B 55.16 168.12 35.76 80 828.8

IN5u U 35.88 218.4 29.24 75 741.2

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN5a 48.6 153.2 809.2 0.388 262 6512 892.4 45.204

IN5b 327.6 236.4 270 0.587 339.37 9397.638 1061.811 41.366

IN5u 365.6 185.76 297.2 2.579 230.891 5192.079 1109.703

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN5

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Salix carolinia

na Impacted 0.2272 2.16 42.4

IN5

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted 0.028 1.82 46.72

IN5

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Cephalanthus

occidentalis Impacted 0.1574 2.75 46.81

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN5 IN5a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted 2934

IN5b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted 3212

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN6 8/16/2003 N 38° 21.415' W 87° 08.973'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN6 Least-

Impacted Forested Wetland Riparian Forested 100.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed None

Present None None

Noticed None 5 Oxbow

FIELD DATA

78

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN6 IN6a

Core Composite

(A) No

IN6 IN6a

Core Composite

(A) No

IN6 IN6a

Core Composite

(A) 25.74 7.05 76 294 55.8 48 No

IN6 IN6b

Edge Composite

(B) Yes

IN6 IN6b

Edge Composite

(B) No

IN6 IN6b

Edge Composite

(B) Yes

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No No No data None Forested 20 Quercus spp. 5 Acer rubrum

No No No data None Forested 20 Quercus spp. 5 Acer rubrum

No No No data None Forested 20 Quercus spp. 5 Acer rubrum

38 No No No data None Forested 80 Carpinus

caroliniana 40

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore)

No No No data None Forested 80 Acer rubrum 40 Quercus spp.

32 No No No data None Forested 80

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore) 30 Acer rubrum

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

20 95 10 Carpinus

caroliniana

95 10 Carpinus

caroliniana

10 Salix

caroliniana 20 Fraxinus Profunda 20 50 10

Carpinus caroliniana

10 Eastern

Cottonwood 15 Fraxinus Profunda 15 95 30 Hickory

35 95 20 Carpinus

caroliniana

35 10 50

79

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

5 10

5 10

5 10

10 50

20 70

70

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN6 IN6blank Blank Impacted water -0.001 0.489 0.005

IN6 IN6blank Blank Impacted water -0.001 0.613 0.011

IN6 IN6a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted water 0.204 1.481 1.028

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN6a A Impacted 0.242 5.9 697.7

IN6b B Impacted 0.217 8.1 677.7

IN6u U Impacted 0.141 7.2 836.3

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN6a A 0.069 0.115 1.463 49.6 101.68 1238 277.6

IN6b B 0.067 30.56 132.48 1505.6 292

IN6u U 0.083 23.28 115.12 75.72 237.2

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN6a A 248.8 190.16 30.8 88.76 781.6

IN6b B 115.12 208.4 54.04 46.2 510.4

IN6u U 71.52 299.2 27.08 49.28 378.8

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN6a 248.8 185.68 320 1.309 500 7700.787 910.63 47.499

IN6b 120 272 297.6 1.257 421.912 7601.594 1168.924 49.395

IN6u 95.04 158.52 419.2 0.391 390.495 8871.287 1502.178

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN6

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted 0.2232

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

80

IN6 IN6a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted 3546

IN6 IN6b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted 2715

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN7 8/16/2003 Schlensker Ditch N 38° 21.412' W 87° 08.974'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN7 Impacted Forested Wetland Riparian Rural 30.00 Forested 40.00 Row crops 30.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

tires None Noticed None

Present None

Large % of Dead Trees None 5 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN7 IN7a

Core Composite

(A) No

IN7 IN7a

Core Composite

(A) No

IN7 IN7a

Core Composite

(A) 26.38 7.68 76.5 398 12 3 No

IN7 IN7b

Edge Composite

(B) No

IN7 IN7b

Edge Composite

(B) Yes

IN7 IN7b

Edge Composite

(B) 23.17 6.63 16 170 -104.6 12 Yes

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No No No data None Forested 75 Quercus spp. 25 Fraxinus Profunda

No No No data None Forested 80 Fraxinus Profunda 20 Acer rubrum

No No No data None Forested 80 Sassafras 20 Acer rubrum

81

No No No data None Forested 60 Ulmus

Americana 10 Acer rubrum

4 No No No data None Forested 80 Ulmus

Americana 20 Wild Cherry

17 No No No data None Forested 80 Acer rubrum 20 Ulmus

Americana

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

25 Cottonwood 25 5

20 Hackberry 10 Cottonw

ood 20 Quercus

spp. 10 10

20 Quercus spp. 20 Wild

Cherry 20 5

30

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore) 10

Hackberry 10 10

20

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore) 20

Hackberry 20 10

20 River Birch 20

Liquidambar

styraciflua 20 20

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Grass 5

vines 5 Grass 5

Grass 5

Poison Ivy 10

Poison Ivy 5 Honey Suckle 5

Poison Ivy 20

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN7 IN7a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted water 0.046 0.985 0.027

IN7 IN7b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted water 0.558 4.829 0.011

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN7a A Impacted 0.235 5.5 753.7

IN7b B Impacted 0.277 8.6 399.8

IN7u U Impacted 0.128 7.7 402.9

82

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN7a A 0.075 33.24 114.84 1966.4 505.2

IN7b B 0.039 0.309 4.686 57.2 108.76 1080 165.48

IN7u U 0.04 0.199 2.699 25.16 81.76 730.8 186.48

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN7a A 55.16 166.4 20.32 77.16 160.2

IN7b B 358.4 262 52.88 43.52 390.8

IN7u U 112.84 296.8 34.36 39.36 333.2

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN7a 257.6 142.72 242 0.275 261.233 8512.922 904.97 44.338

IN7b 59.04 289.2 349.6 0.923 227.2 3504 884.4 34.225

IN7u 82.44 198.68 384 1.344 194.083 3865.878 891.124

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN7

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted 0.1552 1.75 45.97

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN7 IN7a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted 1908

IN7 IN7b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted 1774

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN8 8/17/2003 Buck's Marsh N 38° 20.812' W 87° 19.395'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN8 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian Forested 100.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None None

Noticed None 200 Oval

FIELD DATA

83

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN8 IN8a

Core Composite

(A) 24.51 6.55 10.2 601 -124.9 26 Yes

IN8 IN8a

Core Composite

(A) 24.4 6.76 3.6 592 -156.8 24 Yes

IN8 IN8a

Core Composite

(A) 24.23 6.86 24.3 593 -140.8 16 No

IN8 IN8b

Edge Composite

(B) 24.19 6.91 58 581 -150.8 16 Yes

IN8 IN8b

Edge Composite

(B) 24.35 6.97 14.4 589 -134.2 9 No

IN8 IN8b

Edge Composite

(B) No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

26 Yes Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Fraxinus Profunda 5

Salix caroliniana

28 Yes Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Acer rubrum 10

Yes Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 15 Fraxinus Profunda 10

Cephalanthus Occidentalis

30 Yes Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Acer rubrum 5 Cephalanthus Occidentalis

Yes Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 5 Fraxinus Profunda 5

No No No data None Grasses/s

edges 30 Salix

caroliniana 20 Ulmus

Americana

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

5 95

95

5 90

5 95

80

10 100

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Lemna spp. 55 Moneywort 40

84

Lemna spp. 50 Moneywort 30 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

Yellow Pond lilly 5

Lemna spp. 50 Moneywort 30 Sedge 7 Yellow Pond

lilly 3

Lemna spp. 40 Sedge 30 Moneywort 20 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 5

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10 Sedge 60

Yellow Pond Lilly 5 Lemna spp. 5

Sedge 60 Typha

latifolia 20 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN8 IN8blank Blank Impacted water 0.003 0.737 0.075

IN8 IN8blank Blank Impacted water 0 0.551 0.005

IN8 IN8a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted water 0.251 3.713 0.005

IN8 IN8b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted water 0.194 1.357 0.005

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN8a A Impacted 0.609 17.7 667.3

IN8b B Impacted 0.593 13.2 796.2

IN8u U Impacted 0.157 9.5 490.1

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN8a A 0.066 0.41 8.372 10.516 110.68 5400 607.2

IN8b B 0.079 0.361 9.443 40.16 127.2 2396 391.6

IN8u U 0.049 2.26 155.44 5992 222.8

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN8a A 81.6 37.08 39.56 53.08 2032

IN8b B 313.2 936 30.28 94.32 1420

IN8u U 0 0 36.36 72 1876.4

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN8a 228.4 268.4 366.8 0.219 400 13924.752 1885.941 80.382

IN8b 223.6 253.2 790.4 -0.016 476.117 19250.485 6306.796 94.905

IN8u 83.96 198.4 118.84 1.617 226.64 4612.326 626.64

85

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN8

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted 0.1552 1.75 45.97

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN8 IN8a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted 1354

IN8 IN8b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted 1989

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN9 8/26/2003

Big Cypress Slough N 37° 49.116' W 88° 00.273'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN9 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian Rural 5.00

Unimproved pasture 10.00 Forested 75.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present No data Lemna None No data None 100 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN9 IN9a

Core Composite

(A) 23.65 6.64 1.89 408 -149.7 18 No

IN9 IN9a

Core Composite

(A) 25.06 6.73 2.77 386 -121 16 No

IN9 IN9a

Core Composite

(A) 24.74 6.72 3.296 390 -128.4 14 No

IN9 IN9b

Edge Composite

(B) 27.33 6.82 6 386 -64.8 5 No

IN9 IN9b

Edge Composite

(B) 25.64 6.78 5.3 375 -128.1 4 No

86

IN9 IN9b

Edge Composite

(B) 26.27 6.79 3.17 380 -162.9 4 No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 30 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

Taxodium spp.

No Yes Lemna

Buttressed Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 30 Salix

caroliniana 10 Taxodium

spp.

No Yes Lemna

Buttressed roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 20 Taxodium

spp. 10 Cephalanthus Occidentalis

No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots Forested 60 Pecan 15 Walnut

No Yes Lemna

Buttressed roots,

Hummocks Floating Aquatics 70 Acer rubrum 50

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore)

No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots Forested 80 Acer rubrum 60 Pecan

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

10 90 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 40

10 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10 90

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 40

10 90 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 40

15

Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore) 410

Cephalanthus

Occidentalis 10

Acer rubrum 10 80

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

10 Pecan 10 80 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 30

20 70 Acer rubrum 20

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Lemna spp. 50

Lemna spp. 50

Lemna spp. 50

87

Lemna spp. 30 Poison Ivy 30

Lemna spp. 40 Poison Ivy 10

Lemna spp. 30 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10 Poison Ivy 10

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN9 IN9blank Blank Least-

Impacted water 0 0.613 0.005

IN9 IN9a

Core Composite

(A) Least-

Impacted water 0.406 1.605 0.011

IN9 IN9b

Edge Composite

(B) Least-

Impacted water 0.439 2.597 0.086

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN9a A Least-

Impacted 0.681 22.2 937.3

IN9b B Least-

Impacted 0.591 20.4 997.9

IN9u U Least-

Impacted 0.219 18.2 1266.9

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN9a A 0.093 0.526 8.061

IN9b B 0.099 0.466 6.016

IN9u U 0.126 0.504 6.095

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN9a A

IN9b B

IN9u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN9a 0.54 685.602 12362.919 2122.288 91.113

IN9b 0.63 674.851 12431.683 2146.535 93.009

IN9u 2.705 687.6 9792 1970

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

88

IN9

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Salix carolinia

na Least-

Impacted

IN9

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Taxodium spp.

Least-Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN9 IN9a

Core Composite

(A) Least

Impacted

IN9 IN9b

Edge Composite

(B) Least

Impacted GENERAL

INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN10 8/30/2003 Snakey Point N 38° 21.113' W 87° 19.161'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN10 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian Rural 10.00

Unimproved pasture 10.00 Forested 70.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None None

Noticed None 200 Round

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN10 IN10a

Core Composite

(A) 26.53 7.29 41.4 831 -154.4 15 No

IN10 IN10a

Core Composite

(A) 26.82 7.09 17.4 855 -224.8 21 No

IN10 IN10a

Core Composite

(A) 27.07 7.25 44.8 849 -160 18 No

IN10 IN10b

Edge Composite

(B) 26.5 7.01 3.2 842 -182.2 10 No

IN10 IN10b

Edge Composite

(B) 26.5 7.12 8.1 854 -168.1 15 No

IN10 IN10b

Edge Composite

(B) 26.63 7.21 13.8 836 -97.4 10 No

89

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

Yes Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

Yes Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

50 Lemna spp. 5

60 Lemna spp. 5

80 Lemna spp. 50

90 Lemna spp. 60

90 Lemna spp. 30

70 Lemna spp. 20

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Nelumbo lutea 30 Lysimachia

ciliata 15

Nelumbo lutea 40 Lysimachia

ciliata 5 Typha

latifolia 5 Nuphar spp. 5

Nelumbo lutea 20 Polygonum amphibium 10

Decodon verticillatus 5

Polygonum amphibium 5

Nelumbo lutea 20

Nelumbo lutea 30 lysimachia

cilliata 30

hydrocotyle americana 20

Nelumbo lutea 10

Nymphae mexicana 5

Lysimachia cilliata 5

Typha latifolia 5

WATER

QUALITY DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN10 IN10blank Blank Impacted Water 0 0.489 0.005

IN10 IN10blank Blank Impacted Water -0.002 0.737 0.005

IN10 IN10a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted Water 0.166 2.225 0.005

IN10 IN10b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted Water 0.434 4.209 0.005

90

IN10 IN10b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted Water 0.262 2.969 0

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN10a A Impacted 0.812 12.3 763.9

IN10b B Impacted 0.697 19.5 734.3

IN10b B Impacted 0.707 17.5 807.3

IN10u U Impacted 0.152 11.9 778.8

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN10a A 0.076

IN10b B 0.073

IN10b B 0.08

IN10u U 0.077 0.277 4.29

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN10a A

IN10b B

IN10b B

IN10u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN9a IN10a A 2.318 372.603 5115.46 826.223 83.528

IN9b IN10b B 0.38 413.255 10752.437 1401.559 86.688

IN9u IN10b B 0.27 440.4 13308 1327.6

IN10u U 1.479 375.294 5015.686 814.902

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN10

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Polygonum spp. Impacted

IN10

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Typha spp. Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN10 IN10a

Core Composite

(A) litter

IN10 IN10b

Edge Composite

(B) litter

IN10 IN10b

Edge Composite

(B) litter GENERAL

INFORMATION

91

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN11 8/31/2003 Snake Lake N 38° 22.087' W 87° 19.551'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN11 Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian Rural 10.00 Forested 80.00 Row crops 10.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

Tires, Bottles, Cans Algae None Noticed

Nuphar Lutea None

None Noticed None 100 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN11 IN11a

Core Composite

(A) 29.67 8.15 134.4 904 -13.6 26 No

IN11 IN11a

Core Composite

(A) 29.74 8.15 114.9 907 -46.8 23 No

IN11 IN11a

Core Composite

(A) 29.47 8.23 123 898 -32.1 24 No

IN11 IN11b

Edge Composite

(B) 30.4 7.97 95.5 921 -2.1 10 No

IN11 IN11b

Edge Composite

(B) 30.04 7.85 76.8 913 -25.9 12 No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Nuphar

lutea Hummoks

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes

nuphar variegatu

m None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes

nuphar variegatu

m None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

Yes Yes

nuphar variegatu

m

Adventitious roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 quercus rubra 5 Liquidambar styraciflua

No Yes

nuphar variegatu

m

Adventitious roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 20 Salix

caroliniana 10 Acer rubrum

No Yes Lemna

Adventitious roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

92

20 Nuphar

variegatum 20

50 Nuphar

variegatum 50

30 nuphar

variegatum 30

5 50 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 30

5 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 5 90

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 50

100 Lemna spp. 50

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Dichromea colorata 10

Nuphar variegatum 10

Nuphar varieegatum 40

Hydrocotyle americana 50 WATER

QUALITY DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN11 IN11blank Blank Impacted water 0.099 1.915 0.005

IN11 IN11blank Blank Impacted water 0.613 0

IN11 IN11a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted water 0.166 2.287 0.005

IN11 IN11b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted water 0.155 2.349 0.011

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN11a A Impacted 0.546 20.5 635.5 0.063

IN11b B Impacted 0.526 24.6 543.9 0.054

IN11u U Impacted 0.169 10.9 662.2 0.066

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN11a A

IN11b B 0.346 10.301

IN11u U 0.223 3.753

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN11a A

IN11b B

93

IN11u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN9a IN11a A 0.153 381.423 10988.142 1671.542

IN9b IN11b B 0.039 287.302 12158.73 1216.27 97.434

IN9u IN11u U 0.556 251.362 6762.646 1174.708

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN11

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted

IN11

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation

Cephalanthus

occidentalis Impacted

IN11

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation

Salix carolinia

na Impacted

IN11

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Saururus cernus Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN11 IN11a

Core Composite

(A) litter

IN11 IN11b

Edge Composite

(B) litter

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN12 9/7/2003

Patoka River

National Wildlife Refuge Hwy

57/Patoka R. N 38° 23.090' W 87° 19.888'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN12 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland Riparian Rural 5.00 Forested 95.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

None Present None Noticed None

Present None None

Noticed None 40 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

94

IN12 IN12a

Core Composite

(A) 21.49 6.39 12 360 -39.5 10 No

IN12 IN12a

Core Composite

(A) 19.64 6.1 5.9 310 -35.8 10 No

IN12 IN12a

Core Composite

(A) No

IN12 IN12b

Edge Composite

(B) No

IN12 IN12b

Edge Composite

(B) 22.33 6.17 106.9 1225 -168 2 No

IN12 IN12b

Edge Composite

(B) No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No No No data No data no data 30 carya

laciniosa 10 Acer rubrum

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 30 Quercus coccinea 5

Carya laciniosa

No No No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 30 Quercus cocinea 5

Carya laciniosa

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

100 Lemna spp. 50

100 Lemna spp. 50

100 Lemna spp. 50

10 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10 50 Lemna spp. 10

5 Acer rubrum 10

Cercis canadens

is 10 50 Lemna spp. 10

5 Acer rubrum 5

Cephalanthus

Occidentalis 10

Celtis laevigata 5 100 Zizia aurea 50

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Hydrocotyle americana 50

hydrocotyle americana 50

Hydrocotyle americana 50

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

Hydrocotyle americana 20

Saururus cernuus 10

95

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

Hydrocotyle americana 10

Echinochloa pungens 10

Sagitaria latifolia 40 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN12 IN12blank Blank Least-

Impacted water 0.009 0.443 0.012

IN12 IN12blank Blank Least-

Impacted water 0.007 0.214 0.012

IN12 IN12b

Core Composite

(A) Least-

Impacted water 0.245 2.104 0.012

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN12u U Least-

Impacted 0.595 12.9 884.8

IN12a A Least-

Impacted 0.155 9.5 829.8

IN12b B Least-

Impacted 0.487 11.8 987.2

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN12u U 0.088 0.287 4.14

IN12a A 0.082 0.26 3.44

IN12b B 0.098 0.353 4.065

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN12u U

IN12a A

IN12b B

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN12u 1.822 358.4 11480 1500.4

IN12a 0.251 630.648 13705.305 1546.955 98.066

IN12b 0.101 779.01 18756.436 1761.188

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN12

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Sagittaria

latifolia Least-

Impacted

96

IN12

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Saururus cernus

Least-Impacted

IN12

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Acer

rubrum Least-

Impacted

IN12

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Cephalanthus

occidentalis

Least-Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN12 IN12a

Core Composite

(A) Least-

Impacted

IN12 IN12b

Edge Composite

(B) Least-

Impacted GENERAL

INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN13 9/14/2003

Oxbow-Patoka

River S. Fork N 38° 22.669' W 87° 21.405'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN13 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland Riparian Rural 5.00 Forested 70.00

Unimpoved pasture 20.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed None

Present None None

Noticed None 5 Oxbow

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN13 IN13a

Core Composite

(A) 27.24 6.71 6.6 380 -149.6 4 Yes

IN13 IN13a

Core Composite

(A) 26.61 6.61 5 396 -160.8 10 No

IN13 IN13a

Core Composite

(A) 26.86 6.59 6.5 357 -105.2 8 No

IN13 IN13b

Edge Composite

(B) Yes

IN13 IN13b

Edge Composite

(B) Yes

97

IN13 IN13b

Edge Composite

(B) No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

40 No Yes Lemna

Adventitious Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna

Adventitious Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

No Yes Lemna

Adventitious Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 5 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 5

72 No No No data Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 60 Acer rubrum 20 Cephalanthus Occidentalis

66 No No No data No data

Emergent macrophy

tes 60 Quercus spp. 10 Acer rubrum

No No No data No data

Emergent macrophy

tes 30 Betula nigra 20 Acer rubrum

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

40 Lemna spp. 20

50 nuphar

vareigatum 30

40 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

5 Quercus

michauxii 20

Ulmus America

na 15 30 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

20 Quercus coccinea 30 30

Saururus cernuus 20

10 30 Nuphar

variegatum 10

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

Nuphar variegatum 10

Lemna spp. 15 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 5

Lemna spp. 10 Nuphar

Variegatum 20

Saururus cernuus 10

98

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN13 IN13blank Blank Impacted water 0.041 0.558 0.018

IN13 IN13blank Blank Impacted water 0.009 0.443 0.007

IN13 IN13a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted water 0.421 7.774 0.028

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN13u U Impacted 0.197 14.9 993

IN13a A Impacted 0.61 15.3 1414.2

IN13b B Impacted 0.62 22.4 1205.4

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN13u U 0.099 0.351 4.982

IN13a A 0.141 0.439 5.433

IN13b B 0.12 0.62 11.076

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN13u U

IN13a A

IN13b B

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN13u 0.116 563.353 16249.513 4619.883

IN13a 0.088 1186.328 19515.625 2882.813 80.999

IN13b 0.392 942.8 16964 3296 87.952

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN13

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Acer

rubrum Impacted

IN13

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation

Salix carolinia

na Impacted

IN13

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation

Cephalanthus

occidentalis Impacted

IN13

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Saururus cernus Impacted

LITTER

99

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN13 IN13a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN13 IN13b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted GENERAL

INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN14 9/21/2003

N. Meridian Oxbow N 38° 23.325' W 87° 16.700'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN14 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian

Unimproved Pasture 20.00 Forested 80.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

None Present None Noticed None

Present Ditch/Piped

Inflows

Large % of Dead Trees None 40 Oxbow

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN14 IN14a

Core Composite

(A) 15.22 7.05 5.1 642 -210.1 10 Yes

IN14 IN14a

Core Composite

(A) 15.22 7.05 5.1 642 -210.1 3 Yes

IN14 IN14a

Core Composite

(A) 14.24 7.1 30.4 561 -107.7 6 Yes

IN14 IN14b

Edge Composite

(B) 13 7.02 33.8 702 79.8 10 Yes

IN14 IN14b

Edge Composite

(B) 14.86 6.95 13.5 670 -123.6 14 Yes

IN14 IN14b

Edge Composite

(B) 13.69 6.94 16.3 573 -141.4 8 Yes

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

32 Yes Yes No data

Adventitious Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

30 Yes Yes No data

Adventitious Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 20 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

100

26 Yes Yes No data

Adventitious Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 5 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 5

34 No Yes Lemna

Adventitious Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

30 Yes Yes Lemna

Adventitious Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 5 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 5

30 No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 5 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 5

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

60 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 40

80 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 60

60 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 50

50 Lemna spp. 10

50 Lemna spp. 5

75 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 40

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

algae 20

algae 10 Pontedaria

cordata 10

algae 10

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20

Hydrocotyle americana 15

Pontedaria cordata 5

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 30

Hydrocotyle americana 15

Lemna spp. 5 Hydrocotyle americana 30

WATER QUALITY

DATA

101

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN14 IN14blank Blank Impacted water 0.011 0.386 0.007

IN14 IN14blank Blank Impacted water 0.011 0.271 0.007

IN14 IN14a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted water 0.149 2.562 0.013

IN14 IN14b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted water 0.097 1.989 0.013

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN14a A Impacted 0.667

IN14b B Impacted 0.668 13.6 1001

IN14u U Impacted 0.135 10.8 679.4

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN14a A

IN14b B 0.1 0.403 5.114

IN14u U 0.067 0.258 5.276

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN14a A

IN14b B

IN14u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN14a 0.421 1048.343 25302.144 1559.844 96.802

IN14b 0.404 762.476 21895.551 1736.17 86.056

IN14u 2.301 384.884 7453.488 1012.403

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN14

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Cephalanthus

occidentalis Impacted 0.182 2.03 47.47

IN14

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Pontedaria

cordata Impacted 0.122

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN14 IN14a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN14 IN14b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted GENERAL

INFORMATION

102

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN15 9/21/2003

Turkey Hill

Graywood Marsh N 38° 22.476' W 87° 16.691'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN15 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian

Unimproved pasture 20.00 Forested 80.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None

Large % of Dead Trees None 500 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN15 IN15a

Core Composite

(A) 23.63 6.73 7 703 -46.9 1 No

IN15 IN15a

Core Composite

(A) 24.3 7.01 45.1 653 -81.7 2 No

IN15 IN15a

Core Composite

(A) No

IN15 IN15b

Edge Composite

(B) No

IN15 IN15b

Edge Composite

(B) No

IN15 IN15b

Edge Composite

(B) No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna

Adventitious Roots,

Hummocks

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

Yes Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

103

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

100 Lemna spp. 40

100 Lemna spp. 40

100 Lemna spp. 60

100 Hydrocotyle americana 80

100 Hydrocotyle americana 80

100 Hydrocotyle americana 60

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Hydrocotyle americana 60

Hydrocotyle americana 50

Bidens cernua 10

Hydrocotyle americana 30

Bidens cernua 10

Bidens cernua 20

Bidens cernua 20

Bidens cernua 30 Pontidaria

cordata 10 WATER

QUALITY DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN15 IN15a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted water 0.386 0.007

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN15a A Impacted 0.714 17.6 872.5

IN15b B Impacted 0.626 16.4 712

IN15u U Impacted 0.088 8.1 376.2

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN15a A 0.087 0.655 7.004

IN15b B 0.071 0.566 6.927

IN15u U 0.037 0.165 2.881

104

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN15a A

IN15b B

IN15u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN15a 0.854 532.157 8364.706 1596.863 86.688

IN15b 0.302 423.2 12108 1076.8 96.17

IN15u 1.065 142.126 3488.189 962.992

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN15

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation

Pontedaria

cordata Impacted 0.179 1.8 47.69

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN15 IN15a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN15 IN15b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN16 9/23/2003

Goose Pond

Cypress Slough N 37° 54.316' W 87° 50.089'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN16 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian Rural 10.00

Unimproved pasture 20.00 Forested 20.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna Piped Inflows None

Noticed None 60 Oxbow

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN16 IN16a

Core Composite

(A) 19.25 6.64 28.4 289 -31.4 20 Yes

IN16 IN16a

Core Composite

(A) 19.66 6.54 20.1 304 -104.8 18 Yes

105

IN16 IN16a

Core Composite

(A) 20.05 6.58 13.9 294 -35.3 11 No

IN16 IN16b

Edge Composite

(B) 19.53 6.34 43.7 301 111.7 7 Yes

IN16 IN16b

Edge Composite

(B) 19.62 6.68 32.8 295 35.3 8 No

IN16 IN16b

Edge Composite

(B) 20.03 6.65 25.8 293 -50.8 6 Yes

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

24 No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots Forested 80 Taxodium

spp. 60 Acer rubrum

28 No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 60 Taxodium

spp. 60

No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 40 Taxodium

spp. 20 Cephalanthus Occidentalis

22 No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots Forested 50 Taxodium

spp. 25 Acer rubrum

No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots Forested 50 Taxodium

spp. 40 Ulmus

Americana

24 No Yes Lemna Buttressed

roots Forested 100 Taxodium

spp. 60 Cephalanthus Occidentalis

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

10 Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10 30 Lemna spp. 10

90 Lemna spp. 80

20 90 Lemna spp. 60

25 50 Nuphar

variegatum 25

10 90 Lemna spp. 80

20 Salix

caroliniana 10 Acer

rubrum 10 100 Lemna spp. 80

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Nuphar variegathum 10

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

nuphar variegathum 10

Nuphar variegathum 30

106

Taxodium spp. 5 Lemna spp. 20

Nuphar variegatum 10

Nuphar variegatum 10

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN16 IN16blank Blank Least-

Impacted water 0.013 0.386 0.013

IN16 IN16blank Blank Least-

Impacted water 0.018 0.844 0.013

IN16 IN16a

Core Composite

(A) Least-

Impacted water 0.305 2.276 0.023

IN16 IN16b

Edge Composite

(B) Least-

Impacted water 0.198 1.646 0.029

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN16a A Least-

Impacted 0.547 10.4 1022.1

IN16b B Least-

Impacted 0.558 12.3 930.3

IN16u U Least-

Impacted 0.196 5.9 962.6

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN16a A 0.102

IN16b B 0.093 0.259 2.455

IN16u U 0.096 0.123 1.818

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN16a A

IN16b B

IN16u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN16a 0.331 810 13788 1653.2

IN16b 0.386 683.946 13841.393 1715.667 73.414

IN16u 4.313 570.809 6729.783 852.465

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

107

IN16

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Acer

rubrum Least-

Impacted

IN16

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation Taxodium spp.

Least-Impacted 0.147

IN16

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Cephalanthus

occidentalis

Least-Impacted 0.087

IN16

Site Composite

(ALL) vegetation

Salix carolinia

na Least-

Impacted 0.068 1.08 47.58

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN16 IN16a

Core Composite

(A) Least-

Impacted

IN16 IN16b

Edge Composite

(B) Least-

Impacted GENERAL

INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN17 10/18/2003

Turkey Hill

Graywood Marsh N 38° 22.482' W 87° 16.715'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN17 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian

Unimproved pasture 20.00 Forested 80.00

Trash Algae Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None

Large % of Dead Trees None 500 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id Wetland ID

Plus Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN17 IN17a

Core Composite

(A) 16.34 6.2 8.3 595 -122.7 8 No

IN17 IN17a

Core Composite

(A) 14.47 6.32 55 612 -62.8 8 No

IN17 IN17a

Core Composite

(A) 12.33 5.98 34.2 624 -29.7 10 No

IN17 IN17b

Edge Composite

(B) 15.11 5.63 23.2 2112 -32.3 5 No

108

IN17 IN17b

Edge Composite

(B) 13.31 5.85 34 1227 47.2 3 No

IN17 IN17b

Edge Composite

(B) 12.52 5.16 39.8 1664 61.7 5 No

Distance of Lichen Lines

(Inches) Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2 Overstory

Vegetation 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

100 Lemna spp. 40

100 Lemna spp. 40

100 Lemna spp. 60

100 Hydrocotyle americana 80

100 Hydrocotyle americana 80

Hydrocotyle americana 60

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understory 2

Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Hydrocotyle americana 60

Hydrocotyle americana 50

Bidens cernua 10

Hydrocotyle americana 30

Bidens cernua 10

Bidnes cernua 20

Bidens cernua 20

Bidens cernua 30 Pontedaria

cordata 10 WATER

QUALITY DATA

Wetland ID Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN17 Impacted Water 0.017

109

IN17 Impacted Water 0.023

IN17 Impacted Water 0.028

IN17 Impacted Water 0.051

SOIL DATA

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN17a A Impacted

IN17b B Impacted

IN17u U Impacted

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN17a A

IN17b B

IN17u U

Media Wetland ID

Plus Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN17a A

IN17b B

IN17u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN17a

IN17b

IN17u

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN17

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN17

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN17

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN17

Site Composite

(ALL) Vegetation Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID Wetland ID

plus sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN17 IN17a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN17 IN17b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted

GENERAL

INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

110

IN18 11/29/2003

Turkey Hill

Graywood Marsh N 38° 22.481' W 87° 16.715'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN18 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian

Unimproved pasture 20.00 Forested 80.00

Trash Algae

Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None

Large % of Dead Trees None 500 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN18 IN18a

Core Composite

(A) 4.97 5.92 10.6 767 17.6 10 No

IN18 IN18a

Core Composite

(A) 4.47 6.05 42.1 764 63.6 9 No

IN18 IN18a

Core Composite

(A) 5.09 6.14 10.7 825 16 11 No

IN18 IN18b

Edge Composite

(B) 4.21 6.5 33.2 1213 -5.2 4 No

IN18 IN18b

Edge Composite

(B) 4.43 5.98 63.2 912 77.8 4 No

IN18 IN18b

Edge Composite

(B) 6.21 5.99 48.6 1013 93.5 6 No

Distance of Lichen Lines (Inches)

Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

Yes Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2

Overstory Vegetatio

n 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

111

100 Lemna spp. 10

100 Lemna spp. 10

100 Lemna spp. 15

40 Hydrocotyle americana 30

100 Hydrocotyle americana 30

100 Hydrocotyle americana 50

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understor

y 2 Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Hydrocotyle americana 80

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10

Hydrocotyle americana 90

Hydrocotyle americana 80

Bidens cernua 5

Bidens cernua 10

Bidens cernua 50 Lemna spp. 20

Bidens cernua 40 Lemna spp. 10 WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN18 Impacted Water 0.023

IN18 Impacted Water 0.023

IN18 Impacted Water 0.028

IN18 Impacted Water 0.294

SOIL DATA

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN18a A Impacted

IN18b B Impacted

IN18u U Impacted

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN18a A

IN18b B

IN18u U

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN18a A

IN18b B

IN18u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich

Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

112

IN18a

IN18b

IN18u

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN18

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN18

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN18

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN18

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID

Wetland ID plus

sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN18 IN18a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN18 IN18b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted

GENERAL

IMFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN19 12/30/2003

Turkey Hill

Graywood Marsh N 38° 22.481' W 87° 16.715'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN19 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian

Unimproved pasture 20.00 Forested 80.00

Trash Algae

Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None

Large % of Dead Trees None 500 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN19 IN19a

Core Composite

(A) 5.74 5.51 24.6 760 -19.9 No

IN19 IN19a

Core Composite

(A) 6.35 5.86 17 561 -54.9 20 No

113

IN19 IN19a

Core Composite

(A) 5.89 5.8 9.6 931 -104.2 20 No

IN19 IN19b

Edge Composite

(B) 3.67 6.45 34 883 -33 10 No

IN19 IN19b

Edge Composite

(B) 3.15 6.34 27.6 769 -13 10 No

IN19 IN19b

Edge Composite

(B) 4.97 5.75 98.9 846 85.3 11 No

Distance of Lichen Lines (Inches)

Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Acer rubrum 10

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 10 Acer rubrum 10

No Yes Lemna None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2

Overstory Vegetatio

n 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

80 Nodding Bud

Marigold 20

80 Nodding Bud

Marigold 10

80 Nodding Bur

marigold 10

60 Nodding Bur

marigold 40

70 nodding bur

marigold 50

70 Nodding Bur

marigold 40

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understor

y 2 Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 20 Lemna spp. 10

Water Pennywort 30

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 30 Lemna spp. 10

Water Pennywort 30

Cephalanthus Occidentalis 10 Lemna spp. 10

Water Pennywort 50

114

Lemna spp. 10 Water

pennywort 10

Lemna spp. 10 Water

pennywort

Lemna spp. 10 Water

Pennywort 20

WATER QUALITY

DATA

Wetland ID

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN19 Impacted Water 0.023

IN19 Impacted Water 0.023

IN19 Impacted Water 0.023

SOIL DATA

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN19a A Impacted

IN19b B Impacted

IN19u U Impacted

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN19a A

IN19b B

IN19u U

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN19a A

IN19b B

IN19u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich

Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN19a

IN19b

IN19u

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN19

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN19

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN19

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN19

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

115

LITTER

Wetland ID

Wetland ID plus

sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN19 IN19a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN19 IN19b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted

GENERAL

INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN20 2/29/2004

Turkey Hill

Graywood Marsh N 38° 22.481' W 87° 16.715'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN20 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian

Unimproved pasture 20.00 Forested 80.00

Trash Algae

Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None

Large % of Dead Trees None 500 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN20 IN20a

Core Composite

(A) 16.34 6.2 67.8 856 -154.8 9 No

IN20 IN20a

Core Composite

(A) 14.47 6.63 76.5 880 -135.8 9 No

IN20 IN20a

Core Composite

(A) 12.33 6.57 69.4 885 -142.9 7 No

IN20 IN20b

Edge Composite

(B) 15.11 7.07 143.6 842 30.3 5 No

IN20 IN20b

Edge Composite

(B) 13.31 6.77 140.9 828 -18.1 3 No

IN20 IN20b

Edge Composite

(B) 12.52 5.98 76.5 827 -76.9 4 No

Distance of Lichen Lines (Inches)

Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

116

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2

Overstory Vegetatio

n 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

100

100

100

100

100

100

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understor

y 2 Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Lemna spp. 40 Hydrocotyle americana 60

Lemna spp. 40 Hydrocotyle americana 50 Bidens cernua 10

Lemna spp. 60 Hydrocotyle americana 30 Bidens cernua 10

Hydrocotyle americana 80

Bidnes cernua 20

Hydrocotyle americana 80

Bidens cernua 20

Hydrocotyle americana 60

Bidens cernua 30

Pontedaria cordata 10

WATER QUALITY DATA

Wetland ID

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN20 Impacted Water 0.017

IN20 Impacted Water 0.023

IN20 Impacted Water 0.028

IN20 Impacted Water 0.051

SOIL DATA

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN20a A Impacted

IN20b B Impacted

IN20u U Impacted

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN20a A

117

IN20b B

IN20u U

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN20a A

IN20b B

IN20u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich

Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN20a

IN20b

IN20u

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN20

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN20

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN20

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN20

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID

Wetland ID plus

sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN20 IN20a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN20 IN20b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted GENERAL

INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN21 4/30/2004

Turkey Hill

Graywood Marsh N 38° 22.480' W 87° 16.713'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN21 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian

Unimproved pasture 20.00 Forested 80.00

Trash Algae

Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None

Large % of Dead Trees None 500 Oval

FIELD DATA

118

Wetland Id

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN21 IN21a

Core Composite

(A) 16.34 7.07 6.8 602 38.2 12 No

IN21 IN21a

Core Composite

(A) 14.47 7.16 67.7 632 -131.8 9 No

IN21 IN21a

Core Composite

(A) 12.33 7.24 86.8 643 -115.8 10 No

IN21 IN21b

Edge Composite

(B) 15.11 5.79 57.7 598 -16.2 5 No

IN21 IN21b

Edge Composite

(B) 13.31 6.29 25.1 496 -16.8 3 No

IN21 IN21b

Edge Composite

(B) 12.52 6.86 130.7 433 -28.3 6 No

Distance of Lichen Lines (Inches)

Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2

Overstory Vegetatio

n 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

100

100

100

100

100

100

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understor

y 2 Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Lemna spp. 40 Hydrocotyle americana 60

Lemna spp. 40 Hydrocotyle americana 50 Bidens cernua 10

119

Lemna spp. 60 Hydrocotyle americana 30 Bidens cernua 10

Hydrocotyle americana 80

Bidnes cernua 20

Hydrocotyle americana 80

Bidens cernua 20

Hydrocotyle americana 60

Bidens cernua 30

Pontedaria cordata 10

WATER QUALITY DATA

Wetland ID

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN21 Impacted Water 0.017

IN21 Impacted Water 0.023

IN21 Impacted Water 0.028

IN21 Impacted Water 0.051

SOIL DATA

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN21a A Impacted

IN21b B Impacted

IN21u U Impacted

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN21a A

IN21b B

IN21u U

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN21a A

IN21b B

IN21u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich

Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN21

IN21

IN21

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN21

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN21

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN21

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

120

IN21

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID

Wetland ID plus

sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN21 IN21a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN21 IN21b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN22 5/31/2004

Turkey Hill

Graywood Marsh N 38° 22.477' W 87° 16.693'

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN22 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian

Unimproved pasture 20.00 Forested 80.00

Trash Algae

Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None

Large % of Dead Trees None 500 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN22 IN22a

Core Composite

(A) 16.34 6.4 5.7 350 -224.2 25 No

IN22 IN22a

Core Composite

(A) 14.47 6.41 12.6 349 -240.2 36 No

IN22 IN22a

Core Composite

(A) 12.33 6.4 5 321 -108.7 35 No

IN22 IN22b

Edge Composite

(B) 15.11 6.01 14.5 343 15.4 8 No

IN22 IN22b

Edge Composite

(B) 13.31 6.33 26.8 346 -186.6 10 No

IN22 IN22b

Edge Composite

(B) 12.52 6.35 9.9 352 -181.6 12 No

121

Distance of Lichen Lines (Inches)

Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2

Overstory Vegetatio

n 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

100

100

100

100

100

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understor

y 2 Understory

Vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Lemna spp. 40 Hydrocotyle americana 60

Lemna spp. 40 Hydrocotyle americana 50 Bidens cernua 10

Lemna spp. 60 Hydrocotyle americana 30 Bidens cernua 10

Hydrocotyle americana 80

Bidnes cernua 20

Hydrocotyle americana 80

Bidens cernua 20

Hydrocotyle americana 60

Bidens cernua 30

Pontedaria cordata 10

WATER QUALITY DATA

Wetland ID

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN22 Impacted Water 0.017

IN22 Impacted Water 0.023

IN22 Impacted Water 0.028

IN22 Impacted Water 0.051

SOIL DATA

122

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN22a A Impacted

IN22b B Impacted

IN22u U Impacted

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN22a A

IN22b B

IN22u U

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN22a A

IN22b B

IN22u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich

Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN22a

IN22b

IN22u

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN22

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN22

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN22

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN22

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID

Wetland ID plus

sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN22 IN22a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN22 IN22b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted

GENERAL INFORMATION

WETLAND ID Date Location GPS Coordinates

IN23 7/5/2004

Turkey Hill

Graywood Marsh N 38° 22.485' W 87° 16.721'

123

Wetland ID Condition

Characterizat

ion of Wetland

Adjacent Water Body

Adjacent Upland 1 %

Adjacent Upland 2 %

Adjacent Upland 3 %

IN23 Least-

Impacted Emergent Wetland

Non-Riparian

Unimproved pasture 20.00 Forested 80.00

Trash Algae

Present

Evidence of Sedimentatio

n

Floating Vegetati

on Hydrologic

Disturbances

Vegetative

Disturbances

Nutrient Loading

Size of Wetland

Shape of Wetland

HGM Classification

none present None Noticed Lemna None

Large % of Dead Trees None 500 Oval

FIELD DATA

Wetland Id

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Water Source Temp.°

C pH DO% Conductivity ORP Water Depth

Distinct Lichen Lines

Present

IN23 IN23a

Core Composite

(A) 16.34 6.66 3.9 315 -249.5 12 No

IN23 IN23a

Core Composite

(A) 14.47 6.48 6.3 542 -232.9 14 No

IN23 IN23a

Core Composite

(A) 12.33 6.48 6.3 394 -230.5 14 No

IN23 IN23b

Edge Composite

(B) 15.11 6.49 16.2 332 -127.2 4 No

IN23 IN23b

Edge Composite

(B) 13.31 6.37 10.9 278 -179.2 4 No

IN23 IN23b

Edge Composite

(B) 12.52 6.42 7.2 286 -234.9 6 No

Distance of Lichen Lines (Inches)

Algal Mats

Aquatic Plants Present

Aquatic Species

Morphological Adaptations Character

Total % of Overstory

Overstory Vegetation 1

% Overstory 1

Overstory Vegetation 2

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes Lemna Adventitious

roots

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

No Yes No data None

Emergent macrophy

tes 0

% Overstory 2

Overstory Vegetatio

n 3 % Overstory

3

Overstory

Vegetation 4 % Overstory 4

Overstory Vegetatio

n 5 % Overstory

5 Total % of Understory

Understory Vegetation 1

% Understory 1

100 Lemna spp. 40

100 Lemna spp. 40

100 Lemna spp. 60

124

100 Hydrocotyle americana 80

100 Hydrocotyle americana 80

100 Hydrocotyle americana 60

Understory Vegetation 2

% Understor

y 2 Understory vegetation 3

% Understo

ry 3 Understory

Vegetation 4

% Understor

y 4 Understory

Vegetation 5 % Understory

5 Understory

Vegetation 6 % Understory

6

Hydrocotyle americana 60

Hydrocotyle americana 50

Bidens cernua 10

Hydrocotyle americana 30

Bidens cernua 10

Bidens cernua 20

Bidens cernua 20

Bidens cernua 30 Pontedaria

cordata 10

WATER QUALITY DATA

Wetland ID

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n Media

Water columnTP (mg/l)

Water column TKN

mg/l

Water Column

NO3+NO2 (mg/l)

IN23 Impacted Water 0.017

IN23 Impacted Water 0.023

IN23 Impacted Water 0.028

IN23 Impacted Water 0.051

SOIL DATA

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Conditio

n

Soil Organic/Mine

ral Soil pH Soil Moisture

Content

Soil Bulk Density (g/cm3) Soil LOI (%)

Soil TP (mg/kg)

Soil IN23a A Impacted

IN23b B Impacted

IN23u U Impacted

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location Soil TP

(%) Soil TN (%) Soil TC

(%) Soil Mehlic 1

P (mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 1 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Ca (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Mg

(mg/kg)

Soil IN23a A

IN23b B

IN23u U

Media

Wetland ID Plus

Sub Sub Sample

Location

Soil Mehlich

1 Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 1 Al (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NH4 (mg/kg)

Soil KCl ext NO3+NO2

(mg/kg) Soil Mehlich 3 P (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich 3 K (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Ca (mg/kg)

Soil IN23a A

IN23b B

IN23u U

Wetland ID Plus Sub

Soil Mehlich

Mg (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Mehlich

3 Al (mg/kg)

Soil Water Ext P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate P (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Fe (mg/kg)

Soil Oxylate Al (mg/kg)

Soil P Sorption %

IN23a

IN23b

125

IN23u

VEGETATION

Wetland ID Sample

Location Media Species Condition Tissue TP (mg/kg) Tissue N (%) Tissue C (%)

IN23

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN23

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN23

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

IN23

Site Composite (ALL) Vegetation Impacted

LITTER

Wetland ID

Wetland ID plus

sub Sub sample

Location Conditio

n Litter TP (mg/kg)

Litter N (%) Litter C (%)

IN23 IN23a

Core Composite

(A) Impacted

IN23 IN23b

Edge Composite

(B) Impacted

126

APPENDIX B SURVEYED WETLANDS DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

Table B-1. Wetland Research Locations and Characterization

Wetland Research Location and Characterization

ID Wetland Community Type Impacted/Least Impacted Location

GPS Coordinates

IN1 Riparian Swamp

Impacted Millersburg- Wabash and Erie Canal/Pigeon Ck

N 38° 05.842' W 87° 23.653'

IN2 Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted IDNR Lost Hill Wetland Conservation Area North

N 38° 11.220' W 87° 25.094'

IN3 Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted IDNR Lost Hill Wetland Conservation Area South

N 38° 11.136' W 87° 25.114'

IN4 Non-Riparian Swamp

Impacted East Mount Carmel N 38° 22.697' W 87° 43.780'

IN5 Riparian Swamp

Impacted Elberfeld-Wabash and Erie Canal/Pigeon Ck

N 38° 09.692' W 87° 24.854'

IN6 Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted Pike State Forest – Patoka River N 38° 21.415' W 87° 08.973'

IN7 Riparian Swamp

Impacted Schlensker Ditch N 38° 22.485' W 87° 16.722'

IN8 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Buck's Marsh N 38° 20.812' W 87° 19.395'

IN9 Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted IDNR Big Cypress Slough N 37° 49.116' W 88° 00.273'

IN10 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Snaky Point N 38° 21.113' W 87° 19.161'

IN11 Non-Riparian Marsh

Impacted Snake Lake N 38° 22.087' W 87° 19.551'

IN12 Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted PRNWR Hwy 57 @ Patoka River N 38° 23.090' W 87° 19.888'

IN13 Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted PRNWR Oxbow-Patoka River South Fork

N 38° 22.669' W 87° 21.405'

IN14 Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted PRNWR North Meridian Oxbow N 38° 23.325' W 87° 16.700'

IN15 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh

N 38° 22.476' W 87° 16.691'

IN16 Non-Riparian Swamp

Least-Impacted TNC Goose Pond Cypress Slough N 37° 54.316' W 87° 50.089'

IN17 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh

N 38° 22.482' W 87° 16.715'

IN18 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh

N 38° 22.481' W 87° 16.715'

IN19 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh

N 38° 22.481' W 87° 16.715'

IN20 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh

N 38° 22.481' W 87° 16.715'

IN21 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh

N 38° 22.480' W 87° 16.713'

IN22 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh

N 38° 22.477' W 87° 16.693'

IN23 Non-Riparian Marsh

Least-Impacted PRNWR Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh

N 38° 22.485' W 87° 16.721'

IDNR - Indiana Department of Natural Resources PRNWR - Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge TNC - The Nature Conservancy

127

IN1 Millersburg Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEM/SS1F DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 5.86404514 Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 23' 48" W

38° 5' 51" N

Figure B-1. IN1 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-2. IN1 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-3. IN1 Wetland Description and Location

128

IN2 Lost Hill Wetland Conservation Area North Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 25' 8.9" W

38° 11' 20.2" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1F DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 74.31670436

IN2 Lost Hill Wetland Conservation Area South Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 24' 55.2" W

38° 11' 4.0" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEM/ABG DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 89.19683743

IN2 Lost Hill Wetland Conservation Area Surrounding Wetland Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 25' 24.8" W

38° 11' 18.3" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 253.36546294

Figure B-4. IN2 Wetland Description and Location

129

Figure B-5. IN2 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-6. IN2 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-7. IN2 Wetland Description and Location

130

IN3 Lost Hill Wetland Conservation Area South Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 25' 22.6" W

38° 11' 15.8" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 253.36546294

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 25' 15.8" W

38° 11' 24.9" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 41.62164811

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 25' 9.2" W

38° 11' 20.2" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1F DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 74.31670436

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 24' 54.7" W

38° 11' 4.3" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEM/ABG DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 89.19683743

Figure B-8. IN3 Wetland Description and Location

131

Figure B-9. IN3 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-10. IN3 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-11. IN4 Wetland Description and Location

132

IN4 East Mount Carmel

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 43' 49.0" W

38° 22' 42.6" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEMA DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 8.40141245

Figure B-12. IN4 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-13. IN4 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-14. IN4 Wetland Description and Location

133

Figure B-15. IN4 Wetland Description and Location

134

IN5 Elberfeld Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 25' 8.8" W

38° 9' 35.1" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 1139.26131553

Figure B-16. IN5 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-17. IN5 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-18. IN5 Wetland Description and Location

135

IN6 Pike State Forest- Patoka River Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 8' 52.6" W

38° 21' 20.7" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: R2UBH DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Riverine ACRES: 504.57364068 Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 8' 53.3" W

38° 21' 43.3" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 46.6274102 Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 8' 36.8" W

38° 21' 22.2" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 238.10542267

Figure B-19. IN6 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-20. IN6 Wetland Description and Location

136

Figure B-21. IN6 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-22. IN6 Wetland Description and Location

137

IN7 Schlensker Ditch Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 16' 48.0" W

38° 22' 40.9" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 10.24162563

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 16' 39.7" W

38° 22' 42.5" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 373.48608004

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 17' 1.1" W

38° 22' 27.6" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PSS1/EMF DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 144.55351232

Figure B-23. IN7 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-24. IN7 Wetland Description and Location

138

Figure B-25. IN7 Wetland Description and Location

IN8 Buck’s Marsh Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 21.7" W

38° 20' 46.4" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 38.69832684

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 18' 54.7" W

38° 20' 39.5" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 55.98581671

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 7.8" W

38° 20' 55.7" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEM/ABG DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 8.75234996

Figure B-26. IN8 Wetland Description and Location

139

Figure B-27. IN8 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-28. IN8 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-29. IN8 Wetland Description and Location

140

IN9 Big Cypress Slough Coordinate Position Geographic: 88° 0' 25.6" W

37° 49' 7.1" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO2G DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 25.09548107

Coordinate Position Geographic: 88° 0' 22.2" W

37° 49' 22.2" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO6F DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 130.5580781

Coordinate Position Geographic: 88° 0' 36.1" W

37° 49' 22.4" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 1071.021612

Figure B-30. IN9 Wetland Description and Location

141

Figure B-31. IN9 Wetland Description and Location

IN10 Snaky Point Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 16.9" W

38° 21' 13.5" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEMF DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 82.70053046

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 3.5" W

38° 21' 20.7" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: L2EM2/UBG DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Lake ACRES: 147.44379044

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 25.9" W

38° 21' 15.4" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 55.9858167

142

Figure B-32. IN10 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-33. IN10 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-34. IN10 Wetland Description and Location

143

IN11 Snake Lake

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 34.8" W

38° 21' 50.9" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEMF DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 82.70053046

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 31.8" W

38° 22' 26.7" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PSS1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 13.93175728

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 40.5" W

38° 21' 53.2" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 36.92703418

Figure B-35. IN11 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-36. IN11 Wetland Description and Location

144

Figure B-37. IN11 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-38. IN11 Wetland Description and Location

145

IN12 Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge HWY 57/ Patoka River

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 50.9" W

38° 23' 5.9" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PABF DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Pond ACRES: 9.76520015

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 35.4" W

38° 22' 58.0" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEMF DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 0.51790691

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 51.1" W

38° 22' 57.0" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: R2UBHX DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Riverine ACRES: 131.69077157

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 19' 41.9" W

38° 22' 47.9" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 77.79705398

Figure B-39. IN12 Wetland Description and Location

146

Figure B-40. IN12 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-41. IN12 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-42. IN12 Wetland Description and Location

147

IN13 Oxbow-Patoka River South Fork Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 21' 18.9" W

38° 22' 36.5" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PUBG DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Pond ACRES: 12.24738941

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 21' 18.5" W

38° 22' 41.3" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PSS1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 1.13526779

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 21' 29.1" W

38° 22' 35.9" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEMC DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 4.61070284

Figure B-43. IN13 Wetland Description and Location

148

Figure B-44. IN13 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-45. IN13 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-46. IN13 Wetland Description and Location

149

IN14 North Meridian Oxbow Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 17' 0.0" W

38° 23' 7.7" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEMF DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 4.28347963

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 16' 55.8" W

38° 23' 17.7" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PABF DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Pond ACRES: 12.38482379

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 16' 37.7" W

38° 23' 19.1" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 67.91341197 Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 16' 46.5" W

38° 23' 31.0" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 95.44016176

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 16' 45.8" W

38° 22' 59.0" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: R2UBHX DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Riverine ACRES: 131.69077157

Figure B-47. IN14 Wetland Description and Location

150

Figure B-48. IN14 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-49. IN14 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-50. IN14 Wetland Description and Location

151

IN15 Turkey Hill Graywood Marsh Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 16' 38.7" W

38° 22' 42.3" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 373.48608004

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 16' 47.8" W

38° 22' 41.0" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 10.24162563

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 16' 59.9" W

38° 22' 28.4" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PSS1/EMF DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 144.55351232

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 17' 9.3" W

38° 22' 45.1" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PEM/SS1F DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 32.65264599

Figure B-51. IN15 Wetland Description and Location

152

Figure B-52. IN15 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-53. IN15 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-54. IN15SE Wetland Description and Location

153

Figure B-55. IN15SE Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-56. IN15SW Wetland Description and Location

154

Figure B-57. IN15NW Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-58. IN15NE Wetland Description and Location

155

IN16 Goose Pond Cypress Slough Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 50' 11" W

37° 54' 16" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1A DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 475.39628525 Wetland Code: PEMF DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Emergent Wetland ACRES: 8.05027556

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 49' 55" W

37° 54' 12" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO2G DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 4.24608692

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 49' 56" W

37° 54' 12" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO2F DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 9.75417443

Coordinate Position Geographic: 87° 50' 4" W

37° 54' 22" N Wetland Polygons Wetland Code: PFO1C DECODE: Wetlands Code Interpreter WETLAND_TYPE: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ACRES: 7.84728322

Figure B-59. IN16 Wetland Description and Location

156

Figure B-60. IN16 Wetland Description and Location

Figure B-61. IN16 Wetland Description and Location

157

APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS OF WETLANDS SURVEYED IN SW INDIANA

158

Figure C-1. Photograph of Wetland IN1

Figure C-2. Photograph of Wetland IN1

159

Figure C-3. Photograph of Wetland IN1

Figure C-4. Photograph of Wetland IN2

Figure C-5. Photograph of Wetland IN2

160

Figure C-6. Photograph of Wetland IN3

Figure C-7. Photograph of Wetland IN3

161

Figure C-8. Photograph of Wetland IN4

Figure C-9. Photograph of Wetland IN4

162

Figure C-10. Photograph of Wetland IN5

Figure C-11. Photograph of Wetland IN7

163

Figure C-12. Photograph of Wetland IN8

Figure C-13. Photograph of Wetland IN9

164

Figure C-14. Photograph of Wetland IN9

Figure C-15. Photograph of Wetland

165

I

Figure C-16. Photograph of Wetland IN9

Figure C-17. Photograph of Wetland IN10

166

Figure C-18. Photograph of Wetland IN10

Figure C-19. Photograph of Wetland IN11

167

Figure C-20. Photograph of Wetland IN11

Figure C-21. Photograph of Wetland IN11

168

Figure C-22. Photograph of Wetland IN12

Figure C-23. Photograph of Wetland IN12

169

Figure C-24. Photograph of Wetland IN12

Figure C-25. Photograph of Wetland IN13

170

Figure C-25. Photograph of Wetland IN14

Figure C-27. Photograph of Wetland IN14

171

Figure C-28. Photograph of Wetland IN15

Figure C-29. Photograph of Wetland IN16

172

Figure C-30. Photograph of Wetland IN16

Figure C-31. Photograph of Wetland IN16

173

Figure C-32. Photograph of Wetland IN15

Figure C-33. Photograph of Wetland IN15

174

Figure C-34. Photograph of Wetland IN15

Figure C-35. Photograph of Wetland IN15

175

Figure C-36. Photograph of Wetland IN15

Figure C-37. Photograph of Wetland IN15

176

Figure C-38. Photograph of Wetland IN15

Figure C-39. Photograph of Wetland IN15

177

Figure C-40. Photograph of Wetland IN15

Figure C-41. Photograph of Wetland IN15

178

178

APPENDIX D WETLAND CHARACTERIZATION FORM

Wetland ID: Date: Start Time: Finish Time: Observer Name: Picture ID: Weather Condition: Is the wetland adjacent to a body of water? Circle the appropriate choice:

River Stream Lake Estuary Ocean None Characterization for the Entire Wetland (Please circle one of the vegetation classes)

1) Is the vegetation composed predominantly non-vascular (mosses and lichens) ...…Moss-Lichen 2) Is the vegetation herbaceous?

i) Is the vegetation dominated by rooted emergent vegetation?.....................Emergent Wetland ii) Is the vegetation predominately submergent, floating-leaved, or free-floating?....Aquatic Bed

3) Is the vegetation mostly trees and/or shrubs? i) Is it dominated by vegetation less than 6 meters tall? ………………Scrub-Shrub Wetland ii) Are the dominants 6 meters or greater? …………………………………. Forested Wetland

Land-Use Characterization 1) Circle the following land-uses that best characterizes the adjacent upland and estimate the percentage of the area that is

represented by the circled land uses: a) Commercial ______ g) Rural (scattered homes) ______ b) Industrial ______ h) Unimproved pasture______ c) Golf course ______ i) Forested or wetland ______ d)High density residential (>20 units/acre) ______ j) Pine plantations ______ e) Low density residential ______ k) Row crops ______ f) Feed lots or Dairy operations ______ l) Other ______

2) Please circle the following fire indicators present within the vegetation zone: a) Charred ground surface e)Burnt dead trees b) Burnt trees with new shoots f) Burnt crowns of trees c) Burn marks on trees and shrubs g) Burned ground with no understory d) No evidence of fire

3) Is trash present in the wetland?: Yes or No (describe) 4) Is there green algae present in the wetland?: Yes or No (describe)

5) Is there evidence of sedimentation in the wetland? Yes or No (describe)

6) Is there floating vegetation?: Yes or No (describe)

7) Circle any visible indicators of hydrologic disturbances:

a) Ditch e) Dam b) Nearby road impeding flow f) Dike c) Canals g)Piped inflows d) None noticed h) Other (describe) 8) Circle any visible indicators of vegetative disturbances:

a) Large stand of vines e) Cutting or grazing in wetland b) Cutting or grazing in adjacent upland f) Insect damage c) Large stand of exotic species g) Large % of dead trees d) None noticed h) Other (describe) 9) Circle any direct indicators of nutrient loading to the wetland a) Presence of cattle in wetland d) Yard waste dumping in/near wetland b) Fertilizer or manure application in watershed e) None noticed

c) Other (describe) 10) What is the approximate size of the wetland: ________________ Shape: _____________ (please sketch on back) 11) HGM classification (from key): _____________________________________

179

Vegetation Community Characterization Form Sub-sample A (Deep Center) Wetland ID: Observer Name: Date: Photo ID:

Sub-sample A1 Sub-sample A2 Sub-sample A3 Comments

Temp 0C

pH

DO %

Conductivity

ORP

Water Depth (inches)

Depth of Organic layer (inches)

Distance from ground to lichen lines (inches)

Algal mats (circle one) Present Not present

Present Not present

Present Not present

Aquatic plants (circle one)

Present Not present

Present Not present

Present Not present

Morphological adaptations (circle any that apply)

Buttressed roots Adventitious roots Hummocks None Present

Buttressed roots Adventitious roots Hummocks None Present

Buttressed roots Adventitious roots Hummocks None Present

Circle the ONE Characterization that best describes the zone being sampled

Emerg. Macrophytes Grasses/sedges Floating aquatics Forested Scrub-Shrub Other:

Emerg. Macrophytes Grasses/sedges Floating aquatics Forested Scrub-Shrub Other:

Emerg. Macrophytes Grasses/sedges Floating aquatics Forested Scrub-Shrub Other:

% cover of overstory

List the dominant overstory vegetation within a 10-ft radius of sampling and the % cover they represent

% cover of understory

List the dominant understory story vegetation within a 10-ft radius of sampling and the % cover they represent

180

Vegetation Community Characterization Form Sub-sample B (Outer Ring) Wetland ID: Observer Name: Date: Photo ID:

Sub-sample B1 Sub-sample B2 Sub-sample B3 Sub-sample B4

Temp

pH

DO %

Conductivity

ORP

Water Depth (inches)

Depth of Organic layer (inches)

Distance from ground to lichen lines (inches)

Algal mats (circle one) Present Not present

Present Not present

Present Not present

Present Not present

Aquatic plants (circle one)

Present Not present

Present Not present

Present Not present

Present Not present

Morphological adaptations (circle any that apply)

Buttressed roots Adventitious roots Hummocks None Present

Buttressed roots Adventitious roots Hummocks None Present

Buttressed roots Adventitious roots Hummocks None Present

Buttressed roots Adventitious roots Hummocks None Present

Circle the ONE Characterization that best describes the zone being sampled

Emerg. Macros Grasses/sedges Floating aquatics Forested Scrub-Shrub Other:

Emerg. Macros Grasses/sedges Floating aquatics Forested Scrub-Shrub Other:

Emerg. Macros Grasses/sedges Floating aquatics Forested Scrub-Shrub Other:

Emerg. Macros Grasses/sedges Floating aquatics Forested Scrub-Shrub Other:

% cover of overstory

List the dominant overstory vegetation within a 10-ft radius of sampling and the % cover they represent

% cover of understory

List the dominant understory story vegetation within a 10-ft radius of sampling and the % cover they represent

181

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anderson, D.C., J.J. Sartoris, J.S. Thullen, and P.G. Reusch. 2003. The Effects of Bird Use on Nutrient Removal in a Constructed Wastewater Treatment Wetland. Wetlands: Vol. 23, No.2, pp. 423-435.

Bragazza, L. and R. Gerdol. 2001. Are Nutrient Availability and Acidity-Alkalinity Gradients Related in Sphagnum-Dominated Peatlands? Journal of Vegetation Science: Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 473-482.

Chapman S.B. 1986. Production Ecology and Nutrient Budgets. In: P.D. Moore, S.B. Chapman (eds). Methods in Plant Ecology. Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 1-60.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-79/31.

Craft, C.B., J. Vymazal, C.J. Richardson. 1995. Response of Everglades Plant Communities to Nitrogen and Phosphorus Additions. Wetlands: Vol. 15: 258-271.

Craft, C.B. and C.J. Richardson. 1998. Recent and Long-Term Organic Soil Accretion and Nutrient Accumulation in the Everglades. Soil Science Society of America Journal: Vol. 62: 834-843.

Craft, C.B. and W.P. Casey. 2000. Sediment and Nutrient Accumulation in Floodplain and Depressional Freshwater Wetlands of Georgia, USA. Wetlands: Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 323-332.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 13 pp.

Dress, W.J. and R.E.J. Boerner. 2002. Temporal and Spatial Patterns in Root Nitrogen Concentration and Root Decomposition in Relation to Prescribed Fire. The American Midland Naturalist: Vol. 149, No.2, pp.245-247.

Findlay, S.E.G., E. Kiviat, W.C.Nieder and E.A. Blair. 2002. Functional Assessment of a Reference Wetland Set as a Tool for Science, Management and Restoration. Aquatic Sciences: Vol. 64. pp. 107-117.

Greco, S. 2004. A Biogeochemical Survey of Wetlands in the Southeastern United States. University of Florida. Gainesville.

182

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 1996. Indiana Wetlands Conservation Plan. Indianapolis.

Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Washington, D.C: Island Press.

Klein, C.A , F. Cheever, and B.C. Birdsong 2005 Natural Resources Law A Place-Based Book of Problems and Cases Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.

Owen Koning, C. 2005. Vegetation Patterns Resulting from Spatial and Temporal Variability in Hydrology, Soils, and Trampling in an Isolated Basin Marsh, New Hampshire, USA. Wetlands: Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 239–251.

Paris, J.M. 2005. Southeastern Wetland Biogeochemical Survey: Determination and Establishment of Numeric Nutrient Criteria. University of Florida. Gainesville.

Schmieder, K. and A. Lehmann, 2004. A Spatio-Temporal Framework of Efficient Inventories of Natural Resources: A Case Study With Submersed Macrophytes. Journal of Vegetation Science: Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 807–816.

Shaver, G.R. and J.M. Melillo, 1984. Nutrient Budgets of Marsh Plants: Efficiency Concepts and Relation to Availability. Ecology 65: 1491-1510.

Shaver, G.R., L.C. Johnson, D.H. Cades, G. Murray, J.A. Laundre, E.B. Rastetter, K.J. Nadelhoffer and A.E. Giblin, 1998. Biomass and CO2 Flux in Wet Sedge Tundras: Responses to Nutrients, Temperature and Light. Ecology Monograph 68: 75-97.

Simon, K. S., C. R. Townsend, B. J. F. Biggs and W. B. Bowden. 2004. Temporal Variation of N and P Uptake in 2 New Zealand Streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society: Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1–18.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America’s Waters.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Introduction to Wetland Biological Assessment. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Study Design for Monitoring Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-015.

183

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002c. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Vegetation-Based Indicators of Wetland Nutrient Enrichment. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-024.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing Metrics and Indexes of Biological Integrity. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-016.

Whigham, D., M. Pittek, K.H. Hofmockel, T. Jordan, and A.L. Pepin. 2002. Biomass and Nutrient Dynamics in Restored Wetlands on the Outer Coastal Plain of Maryland, USA. Wetlands: Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 562-574.

184

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

David A. Stuckey has been a lifelong student of natural history and the

environment, a sportsman and conservationist. In 1992, he graduated from the University

of Evansville, receiving a B.S. Degree in natural resources. In 2006, he will complete the

requirements for an M.S. degree in environmental science from the University of Florida.

His working career has included over 25 years in the fields of environmental

engineering and quality control in government, coal mining and the pharmaceutical

industry. He is currently Manager of Environmental Health and Safety for Bristol-Myers

Squibb Company’s Corporate Quality Environment, Health and Safety Group, working

toward a balanced approach to sustainable development, pollution prevention, and the

conservation of natural resources.