Identifying Hydric Soil Inclusions in Designated Nonhydric Primary Farmlands via Soil Analysis Azfar Syed Department of Biological Sciences, York College of Pennsylvania INTRODUCTION In 1939, the US federal government bought the land surrounding the West branch of the Codorus Creek under the eminent domain law to serve as a drainage basin as a requirement for the Indian Rock (IR) Dam project. This land has been frequently flooded and consists of thirteen different soil types bordering the West branch. Hydric soils are any soils inundated or saturated with water for half the growing season resulting in anaerobic conditions to exist. Four of these soils are listed as non-hydric prime farmland, which means they contain to traces of hydric soil. Therefore, these four soil types are being examined for hydric soil inclusion due to the heavy water saturation they have experienced due to their role as drainage basins. Hypothesis I predict that due to the increased frequency in flooding that has taken place in the last 23 years, the four Non- hydric Prime Farmland soils will have hydric components. METHODS DuB, Cd, CnB, CeB soil types of interest, only one site chosen per soil type. Samples Sites chosen (near creek bends). Each hole was about 200’ apart. Hole depths at 0, 10, 15 inches, soil samples were collected at these depths. Soil Analyzed with the Munsell chart. Data CONCLUSION The CD and DuB soil types were found to have hydric soil inclusion which means their designation as farm land should be revaluated. The CeB and CnB soil types matched up with their existing data meaning these soils are still suitable for farming. Future studies should analyze a greater number of sample sites and also look at the vegetation that is present. Literature Cited Hey, Donald L., and Nancy S. Philippi. (1995): "Flood Reduction through Wetland Restoration: The Upper Mississippi River Basin as a Case History." Restoration Ecology 3:4-17. IRD Gauge DATA: Daily Average COE, Baltimore District. Majumdar, Shyamal K., Robert Brooks, Fred Brenner, and Ralph Tiner Wetlands Ecology and Conservation: Emphasis in Pennsylvania. Easton: Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Munsell Color Munsell Soil Color charts. Munsell Color, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corp., Baltimore, MD. Soil Survey of York County, Pennsylvania United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in Cooperation with Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, State Conservation Commission Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Smith for his expertise and guidance throughout the course of this project. RESULTS The Chester series (CeB) is definitely not hydric. Even though the soil color is a brown with a hint of yellow, they match up closely to the existing values of the soil, (Table 1). The Conestoga series (CnB) which is also a graying brown color matches up with its existing values for the soil (Table 2). However, the Chargrin series (CD) does not match up to its existing values. It matches up closely to the values of a known hydric soil of the Lindside series (Table 3). Lastly, the Duffield Series (DuB) also does not match up to its values and is more close to the hydric values (Table 4). These results indicate that we may have to reclassify the two soils which had hydric inclusions to call hydric soils.