HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix R Appendix R
Engineering,SurmyJrkq and Lritrclsi°cr i tl rchxtr'cnarx;PC.
l
R4CKER
Archaeology Services, Ine.
de
REPORTS
Phase I Archaeological Investigation
for the proposed Kontokosta subdivision
Greenport, 'town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
October 2007
Prepared for:
Kace Development, Greenport, New York
Prepared by*
Alfred G. Cammisa, I.A. /RPA
Felicia Cammisa, Alexander Padilla
Report#: 530
TRACKER-ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICES9 INC.
N R0E, PAY 10950 a ( 4 a) 783-4082
NORT[] BABYLON, NY 11703 e (631) 321-1380
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
PR#*
none known
Involved agencies:
Town of Southold
Phase:
Phase IA & IB
Location:
Greenport
Town of Southold
Suffolk County
Survey Area:
Length. about 675 feet (206 meters) north-south
Width: about 525 feet (160 m) east-west.
Acres Surveyed: 8 acres (3.2 hectares)
USES:
Southold, NY
Survey overview:
ST no. & interval: 125 ST' s at 50ft (15m) intervals.
Size of freshly plowed area: na
Surface survey transect interval: na
Results:
No prehistoric or historic remains.
Results of Architectural Survey:
No. Of buildings/structures/cemeteries in project area; none
No. Of buildings/structures/cemeteries adjacent to project area: none
No. Of previously determined NR listed or eligible
buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: none
No. of identified eligible bui.ldirigs/structures/cemeteries/districts: none
Authors:
Alfred G. Cammisa, M.A. /RPA
Felicia Cammisa, B.A.
Alexander Padilla, B.A.
Date of Report:
Report completed October, 200'7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . ^ . . ^ . ^ ^ . ^ ` ^ ^ . . - . . . ^ ^ ~ . , . . . l
Environment . . . . . - . . . . . . . ^ , . . - . . . . . . . . , . . . . 1-3
Prehistoric Potential . . , . , . . . . , . . . ^ . . . . . . . . ^ . . . 2-3
Historic Potential ' . . . . . ^ . . . . ^ , . . . ^ ^ - . . . . ' . . . 4-5
Field Methods . . . . . ^ ^ ^ . . , . ^ , , ^ ^ ^ ^ . . . , . , . . . . . . b
Field Results . . . . . . . ' . , ^ ^ ^ . ` . ' . . . ^ ^ . . . ^ . . . . . 0
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ ^ . ^ ` . . - . 6
Bibliography - ^ . ' ' ' ' ' ' ^ ' ' ' ' ' ' ^ - ' ' ^ ' ' - ' ' - ' ' ~ 6-8
Appendix l: Figures and Photographs
Appendix 2: Shovel Teat Notes
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure l Portion of the Southold, New York V.S.G.S.
Figure 2 Location of shovel tests on the project area.
Figure 3 Portion of the 1797 township survey.
Figure 4 Portion of the 1836 Colton map.
Figure 5 Portion of the 1858 Chace map,
Figure 8 Portion of the 1896 Hyde atlas.
Figure 7 Portion of the 1904 DSGS.
Figure 8 Portion of the County Soil Survey.
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo I Looking west from 8T 75^
Photo 2 Looking south from ST 43.
INTRODUCTION
Between August 18 and September 24, 2007, TRACKER-Archaeology Services,, Inc.
conducted a Phase IA documentary study and a Phase IB archaeological survey for
the proposed Kontokosta subdivision in Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York.
The purpose of the Phase IA doc=ientary study was to determine the prehistoric
and historic potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. The Phase IA
was implemented by a review of past and current environmental data,
archaeological site files, other archival literature, maps, and documents.
The prehistoric and historic site file search was conducted utilizing the,
resources of the New York State Historic Preservation Office in Waterford, New
York. Various historic and/or archaeological web sites may have been visited to
review any pertinent site information.
The -purpose of the Phase IB field survey was to provide physical evidence for the
presence or absence of prehistoric or historic sites on the property. This was
accomplished through subsurface testing and ground surface reconnaissance.
The project area consists of approximately 8 acres from a 17 acre property with
wetlands and wetland buffers. The property is bordered to the north by North Road
(C!.R. 48) , and to the remaining sides by both private and public properties.
The study was conducted by TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. of Monroe, New
York. Prehistoric and historic research was conducted by Alfred Cammisa, M.A.
Field investigations were conducted by field director Jean Cascardi, B.A. and
field technician James Gelarden, B.A. Report preparation was by Alfred Cammisa,
Felicia Cammisa, B.A. and Alexander Padilla, B.A.
The work was performed for Kace Development, Greenport, New York.
ENVIRONMENT
Geology
The project area is located in the southeast portion of New York State in the
northeastern part of Suffolk County. This portion of New York lies in the
Atlantic Coastal Plains Physiographic Province, The coastal plain slopes gently
eastward and is actually a strip of recently emerged sea bottom. The soils in
this region consist largely of sand, clay and marl (a mixture of clay, finely
fragmented shell and calcite) . This region of Suffolk County, on Long Island's
North Fork, lies within a glacial outwash plain on the south edge of the Harbor
Hill Moraine. A glacial meltwater channel had once separated Orient Point from
the rest of the north fork (Schuberth 1968: cover map, 9, 184-1.86, Van Diver
1985: 70; firkin 1995: 142, 149-150) .
Soils and To2ograghy
Soils on the project area consist of:
Name Soil Horizon. Color 'texture Slope Drainage Landform
Depth 1.n(cm) %
Inclusion
Montauk A=0-2in(0- 10YR4/3 Fi'Sal,o 3-8 well moraines
5cm) & slopes
B=5-1'7 (-93) 10YR5/6
B=17-27 (-69) 10YR5/6
Raynham 0=1-0 (3-0) mull Lo 0-3 poor moraines
A=0-1 (-3) 5YR3/1 &
B =1-5 (-7.3) 10YR6/1 outwash
B=5--10 (-26) 10YR7/1 plains
Plymouth A=0-4.in(0-10) 10YR3/2 Lola 3-8 well moraines
B=4-10 (-26) 10YR5/4 &
B=1.0-17 (-43) 10YR5/6 outwash
plains
(Warner 1975: map #5, pgs. 73-74, 78, 80-81) .
Elevations on the property range approximately from 30-20 feet above mean sea
level . The project area is located can the north fork, a peninsula.
Hydrology
Freshwater wetlands are on the property adjacent to the project area. The project
area is approximately 700 feet south of the bong island Sound.
Vegetation
The predominant forest community inhabiting the Coastal Plain in this vicinity
(Cape Cod to the Carolinas) was the Northern Pine-Oak Forest. These forests are
maintained largely by the effects of frequent fires. Were it not for the fires
which the pine species have adapted to, these forests would slowly change to
Mesio, dominated by oak, hickory and red. maple. Northern Pine-Oak Forests fall.
within the larger Xeric Forest category. Xeric forests occur on sandy or
otherwise poor soils that are overly dry. All coastal plains of eastern North
America are Xeric. They generally have lower species diversity than bottomland.
forests (Kr .cher 1988: 16-17, 65-66) . The reason the forest soils and surfaces are
so dry in this moist region is due to the excessive drainage of overly sandy
soils on the Coastal Plain.
At the time of the Phase IB archaeological investigations, the project area
consisted of an overgrown thicket of vegetation with briars.
PREHISTORIC 4'1'ENTIAL
A prehistoric site file search was conducted at the New York State Iiistoric
Preservation. Office (NYSHPO) . The search included a 1 mile radius around the
study area. The following sites were recorded:
2
NYSM Sites iKYSHP0 Sites Distance from Site Description
APE ft(m)
A10310.000251 5220 (1591) Wickham Farm Estate (Sages) :
Paleo(?) , Orient, Woodland
Periods. Shell midden and
camp. This is one of the major
shell midden sites of the
Sebonac Cu.lture on eastern
L. I. Farm Site: surface
collection with grooved axe,
small pits with soft clam,
Sages Site: thick shell. floor-
Sebonac & Niantic pottery,
fluted point and grooved axe.
On east side of Wickham Farm
is a section where Orient
focus camped (points,
steatite)
... ..........
A Palec, Indian point was recovered in this vicinity (Stone nd:map) .
in addition, Indian trails were reported in the vicinity of the project area
connecting the tidal creeks along the southern and northern portions of the north
fork, one appearing along, or near, Route 25 and 48. Although the foot trails
were reported during early historic times, they undoubtedly existed
prehistorically.
Assessing the known environmental and prehistoric data, we can summarize the
following:
-Freshwater wetlands are on the property adjacent to the project area. The
project area is approximately 700 feet south of the Long island Sound.
-The project area is comprised of level to moderately sloped terrain with well
and poorly drained soils.
-The project parcel is located on a peninsula. Previous archaeological
investigations have shown these areas as more desirable for prehistoric
occupation (Cammisa 1.996) .
-A prehistoric site is near the study area.
-Indian trails were located in the vicinity.
In our opinion, the study area has a higher than average potential for the
recovery of archaeological remains. The type of site encountered could be a small
processing/pro,curement site,
HISTORIC POTENTIAL
Contact Period (Seventeenth Century)
At the time of European Contact and settlement, the study area was likely
occupied by the Mantoobaugs. These were probably branches or villages of the
large Corchaug tribe. (Stone nd:map; Stone-Levine 198. 161) .
The previously mentioned Indian trails were reported along Routes 25 and 48,
connecting tidal. creeks along the southern and northern portions of the north
fork.
It may have been Town policy to keep the Indians grouped in the western portion
of the Town which was considered wilderness at this time. In 1664 it was voted
that the Indians could plant in Hogs Neck if they had sufficient fencing
(Anonymous 1.982. 8) .
Eighteenth Century
Oyster Ponds, now called orient, was connected with the rest of the Town by a
low, sandy beach which was, at times, covered by water. This tract was called
Poquatuck by the Indians which means tidal river, cove, or creek (Thompson
1918:385, Tooker 1962: 195) .
Previous to the American Revolution, there was a wharf near Stirling Creek where
sloops from West India landed with rum and molasses. During the Revolutionary
Period, there were 6 houses in the village of Greenport, 5 of which were along
Stirling Street (Bayles 1962:379) .
The 1797 Town of Southold survey depicts Pipes Cove, Inlet Pond and Routes 25 and
48. No structures are on or adjacent to the project area (Figure 3) .
Nineteenth Century
The territory upon which Greenport was built was sold by the heirs of Captain
John Webb as auction to 3 neighbors in 1820. Greenport was found at about 1827.
Main Street was laid out during this same year, as well as the first set of
marine railways. The first store was constructed by 1828, the first school house
built in 1832, and the name of Greenport adopted in 2.834 (Pelletruea 1982:26) ,
The 1.836 Colton map shows that no structures are nearby the project area (Figure
4) .
The 1858 Chace map shows no structures on or adjacent to the project area
(Figure 5) .
The 1896 Hyde atlas depicts no structures on or adjacent to the property (Figure
6) .
Twentieth Century
The 1904 USGS shows no structures on or adjacent to the project area (Figure 7) .
In the l-ate Nineteenth Century, the Town farming became highly specialized in
areas such as potatoes, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, peas, bearis, and the like
(Bailey 1949: 162) .
An historic site file search was conducted at the New York State Historic
Preservation Office (NYSHPO) . The search included a 1 mile radius around the
study area. The following sites were recorded:
4
NYSM Sites NYSHPO Sites Distance from Site Description
APE ft(m)
A10310.000250 3400 (1037) Pipes Neck, Great Pine Swamp,
Five Wigwams: The Scene of
Indian Councils/Pipes Neck
gets its name from the barrels
that were made there for
transporting whale oil and
molasses.
Assessing the known environmental and historical data, we can summarize the
following:
-Freshwater wetlands are on the property adjacent to the project area. The
project area is approximately 700 feet south of the Long island Sound.
-The project area is comprised of level to moderately sloped terrain with well
and poorly drained soils.
-Indian trails were located in the vicinity.
-No MDS' s were on or adjacent to the project area.
-An historic Indian site was reported nearby.
In our opinion, the study area has a moderate potential for the recovery of
historic native American sites. The property has a low potential for historic
Euro-American sites.
FIELD METHODS
Walkover
Exposed ground surfaces were walked over at approximately 3 to 5 meter intervals
to observe for artifacts. Covered ground terrain was also reconnoitered at 15
meter intervals for any above ground features, such as berms, depressions, or
rock configurations which might be evidence of a prehistoric or historic site.
Photographs were taken of the study area.
Shovel Tests
Shovel tests were to be conducted between 15 meter intervals across the project
area. Each shovel test pit measured about 30 to 40 cm. in diameter and was dug
into the underlying B horizon (subsoil ) 10 to 20 cm. or more when possible. All
soils were screened through 1/4 inch wire mesh and observed for artifacts.
Each shovel test was flagged in the field. Any positive shovel tests were doubled
flagged. All shovel. tests and any archaeological finds were mapped on the project
area map at this time.
Soil stratigraphy was recorded according to texture and color. Soil. color was
matched against the Munsell color chart for soils. Notes were transcribed on pre-
printed field forms and in a notebook.
5
FIELD RESULTS
Field testing of the project area included the excavation of 125, shovel tests
(ST's) across the project area. No prehistoric artifacts or features were
encountered. No historic artifacts or features were encountered.
Stratigraphy across the project area included the following:
-0 horizon - 0 to 33 cm. thick of forest root mat, leaf litter, and humus. At
times this level. was stripped.
-A horizon - 0 to 50 cm. thick of 10YR4/3, brown loamy sand with some sandy loam.
Cin occasion this layer was stripped or very loose indicating disturbance.
C)ndiagnostic or modern debris was encountered here.
-B horizon - 10 to 20 cm. dug into of 10YR5/6 yellow brown loamy sand with some
sandy loam.
CONCLUS10NS AND RECOM,4ENDATIONS
The Phase IA had determined the study area had a higher than average potential
for the recovery of prehistoric sites. The property had a moderate to low
potential for historic sites.
The Phase TB resulted in the excavation of 125 ST' s. No prehistoric artifacts or
features were encountered. No historic artifacts or features were encountered.
No further work is recommended.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bailey, Paul
1949 Long Island: The Story of Two Great Counties, Nassau and Suffolk. Volume
1. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, New York.
Bayles, Richard
1962 Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk County. Empire State
Historical Publishing Company XVIII.
Cammisa, Alfred G.
1996 Phase IB Archaeological SurvErld Phase 11 Intensive Testing of the
Pellicano Site for the Proposed Bayview Development Bayview, Town of
Southold Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services. Ms.
on file with NYSHPO.
Kricher, John C. and Gordon Morison
1988 The Peterson Field Guide Series: Eastern Forests of North America.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Levine, Gaynell, editor
1978 Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Volume 2: The
Coastal Archaeology Reader. Suffolk County Archaeological Association.
6
Pelletreau, William
1982 Southold, in History of Suffolk County, 1683-1883. Suffolk County
Tricentennial Commission. W.W. Munsell and Company,
Schuberth, Christopher J.
1968 The Geology of New York City and Environs. New York: Natural History
Press.
Sirkin, Les
1995 Eastern Long Island Geology with Field Trips. Book and Tackle Shop, RI.
Stone-Levine, Gaynell
1980 Language and Lore of the Long island Indians. Readings in Long island
Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Suffolk County Archaeological Association.
Stone, Gaynell
1993 Readings in Long Island Archaeology and EthnohisLory: Volume 3, The
History and Archaeology of the Montauk. Suffolk County Archaeological
Association.
Thompson, Benjamin Franklin
1.918 History of Long Island. Volume 2. Ira J. Friedman, Inc. , New York.
Tooker, William Wallace
1962 The Indian Place Names on Long Island and islands adjacent, with their
probable significations. Ira J. Friedman, New York.
Van Diver, Bradford B.
1985 Roadside Geology of New York. Missoula Montana: Mountain Press
Publishing Company.
Warner, John W. ; W. E. Hana; R. J. Landry; J. P. Wulforst; J. A. Neeley; R. L.
Holmes; and C. E. Rice
1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil. Conservation Service in Cooperation with Cornell.
Agricultural Experimental Station.
MaDs
Chace, Jay
1858 Map of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York.Philadelphi.a: John
Douglas.
Colton, J.H.
1836 Map of Long Island. J.H. Colton.
Hyde and Company
1896 Map of Long Island. Brooklyn, New York: Hyde & Company.
Jensen, H.M. and J. Soren
1974 Hydrology of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, D.C.
Stone, Gaynell
not dated Map of Native Long island. Long Island Culture History Lab & Museum-
Suffolk County Archaeological Association.
7
United State Geological Survey
1956 Greenport, New York quadrangle map, 1 .5 minute series,
19014 Shelter Island, NY quadrangle map, 7. 5 minute series.
8
APPENDIX 1
M �
s
E R,
li�, Inc,
J�
Rock
A ��L
11
Project 14)
area
A
sewage N at ir"
a
v v
D i p s
+F +
LL
l ly
imoo
� b
40
� t
h
. '
14 k
a
Oil
Q< j.41
s�
Drive-in
Thea
" 10
a
1 �o -
k,
a
6 '
14,
Figure 1
Portion of the Southold, NY USGS
�d
1"=1000'
�0 4
SCALE.: 1 INCH = 150 FEET 0)
° 16 �.
�9 E
e 17
:8
0*N
300' 225' 150' 75' 0 150' 300' �5$� to ° 37 Y ��
° ° 9 36
R ° 20 i
14 41 ®44 S
J� � 3g3 • •1 s3 42 • 58 o' .25 �d Y X Y
232 e2 //°��3 57 ° 60
° 31 i4 /Z\ ° 61 'W Y
,L3`l0 3 2i4 ° 45 n6 4r �.
9�j9 X61 2 25 eD ° 5 62 Y
26 ` 29 5 Y
°$ 54 ° e3 — ®4! Y
��A • 125 i8 4
7 ®
64 Y
r0 Y
yay .:7 52 5°3$8 :5
QYE ♦ 49 ° 6°6 oNW Y
•0 :1 e7 73 7
4 i '
W 68 • E X Y Y
Q e
2 :g
72 1 75 Y WETLANDS
Y
71 06 Y y
Y X 70 07 8 y4 Y Y
�5 AO Y Y ° 08 85 J3 Y
1y s AS WETLANDS i 79 84FR0HY x+� Y
�yA1F;Z0- Wrp Irse Y Y e ° 88 \ O.
n � Y Y 83 89 �8 . �N
� Y X 82 9D :7 A) �
91
100 n
i~ �'� :2 °5 101
y i+0 °4 102 °
g7��g 90 Y :3 X10
y 103
Y X24 104 ° 109 1� jo
N Y 1 D5 ° i08 X14
�t ° 115
307
CA, Y s Y
Y Y e �O 6 V Y
f "
Y Y r 117 i� goo'ME7[4hOs7a lGx MVA to Y
X, 1 18 / ztl Y
Y Y f st Y X" z7Y Y
S� °20cc
r
X Y
Y aQ
121; X 2 Z
i e22 ; z It
yp Y Y Y
t'� Y 26 O
b x i X x Y
Y Y L7
9p rr �
X S
� t
Y Y WETLANDS X
� o
8 1G x �I Y'
x PROJECT NAME: KACE
B�2y�K'\ X
FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF SHOVEL TESTS � _ Y x
V PHOTO ANGLE X32,g , a Archaeolwservices,Inc-
L���Gfi�fsevtejirc�Fifa�4austorl
NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST
Figure 3
Portion of the 1797 town survey
Project
area
-Ilk
Z,i Z"
I-V 10
N
Q
Figure 4
Portion of the 1836 Colton map
J...!.
,
eYd Y
N -"
r
v
-g
'II�pt—F.e��7 1 d �i 93
Project
area �` y
CP
lbw '
Q
601
kee
` f
+.,i. �i�l� —GR
1 E ls�
It d' �; Yi,• . t � Project
area
C"qt S1
a � 1
no
Y.
�k
J"
x d'
3 r p -
0,t Ti'm r.•s J } co fid'.
ell
w
°�.,� •yea`. E�-�.i��if#'�&'` V CAkN
;:� •.� y{6. �p `� t1'.�� k .�5+� ,f� est,,Yt'
�` S•YC,` � _• !-t ` Li�a��.YPt''i�'S.f rr.i�6 .e 7r;�;
X r
1 fE _ [ �,,,,.,_,. �� � ��'r ����`�• t� air `� °' � � �
+ 3 .5� ' e -
4Y'�r t ..
1
Figure 5 I!
`r dd Portion of the 1 858 Chace map
t '3 _
cA441
I
par
A o
v
Vp
Project I �
area
PIPE S
-- a
yh 8p",
moose
OR J'C
SHELT
LD . .....
fa
Figure 6 N—
O
Portion of the 1896 (Hyde atlas
ek
Q
F`
o L S, 5
w�
0
s,
w
r
<a
J � F
m /
r
I P»Mm, -
r
01,
n ,
F
Project ,
'Area . N "� M uwa
„ p
4,�*n �
k„
fLI
9
14,
mro
k �ro N
I' ?Y
r m ..
Figure
.
Nrtr
j. lozd Portion of the 19:014 USG
_. �.
-
�S € '(KU
dry--_
Figure 8 N j ��� µ-_� �- .;
Portion of the County Soil Survey �' � � ~% s�r�
1 f .s
r 4 - X
�
� S
'z f�r�;tarz�,��ifT ` Fsy4�6 u�y��3C Brij . �lri - ':
1 r f. !f E • !'�''
50
lg
lf_-tf
v 4„ �, E � 1
B "v ' iYlF t r�.- V-•�e« \
a i _ �'
!�
IAA
Ear res i �� RdAr
EEiN _ f#...L
ij
f Y �� j r� :,r � ��.�.� _.. �� .�.���� s, T���J��ff .. - •`�''.
P ra'ect ( � `�,.�.:� y,. 'R
J
mu
area
eefnp rt
IVI f3:t t� v� h M1f Ct f i 4
Ur
• l _
RhB
:3 ..A-
N € ZZ
.'
3I ra
V
p i �tif
dura �:
44. fj
Gry" a m✓, ,�. r y.,;� �aid '�'ME, 'VI
Look 'ing west
from ST 75
r
yy
J N 4,i
IT,
Looki' ng south
from S 43
APPENDIX 2'
Shovel Tests
STP Ly D@pth(cm) Texture Color Hor. Comments
1 1 0--5 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 5-16 SaLo 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 16--32 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM
2 1 0-2 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 2-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 37--47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM
3 1 0-6 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-23 SaLo 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 23-34 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM
4 1 stripped rootmatleaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 stripped SaLo 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 0-24 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM
5 1 0-6 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-33 LoSa 10YR3/3 A NCM
3 33-43 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
6 1 0-8 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 8-38 LoSa 10YR4/3 A windowglass,shell,brick
3 38-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
7 1 0-7 rootmat,leave,humus A/0 NCM
2 7--32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 32-42 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
8 1 0-6 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 A clam, brick
3 30-40 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
9 1 0-7 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-33 LoSa 10YR4/3 A brick
3 33-37, rock LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
10 1 0-4 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-35 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 35-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
11 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-26 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 26-35 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
12 1 0-6 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 36-46 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
13 1 0-8 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 8-43 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
-3 4-3-53 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
14 1 0-7 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-62 LoSa 10YR3/2 A NCM
3 62-72 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
30 1 0-7 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 30-40 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
31 1 0-7 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 32-44 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
32 1 0-3 rootmat,leaves,humus A/C NCM
2 3-18 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 18-roots
33 1 0-5 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 5-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 32-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
34 1 0-3 rootmatleaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 3-33 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 33-45 LoSa lOYRS/6 B NCM
35 1 0-3 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 3-27 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 27-37 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
36 1 0-7 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-35 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 35-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
37 1 0-4 rootmat, leave,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-31 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 3142 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
36 1 0-6 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-40 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 40-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
39 1 0-8 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 8-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 32-42 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
40 1 0-4 rootmat, leaves,humus A/O NCM
2 4-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 32-43 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
41 1 0-6 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-38 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 38-49 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
42 1 0-4 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 36-46 LoSa lOYR5/6 B NCM
43 1 0-5 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 5-38 LoSa 10YR4/3 A mod. glass
3 38-48 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
44 1 0-7 rootmat, leaves,humus A/O NCM
2 7-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 30-40 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
60 1 0-6 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM
61 1 0-6 rootmatleaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 31-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM
62 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/O NCM
2 6-33 LoSa 10YR3/3 A NCM
3 33-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
63 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 8-59 LoSa,loose 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 58-70 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
64 1 0-7 roojtmat, leave,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 36-46 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
65 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/C NCM
2 6-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 32-42 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
66 1 0-7 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-27 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 27-37 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
67 1 0-4 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-25 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 25-roots
68 1 0-4 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-31 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 31-41 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
69 3. 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 36-46 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
70 1 0-8 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 8-34 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 34-44 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
71 1 0-7 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-38 LoSa 10YR3/2 A NCM
3 38-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
72 1 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-25 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 25-37 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
73 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/C NCM
2 6-37 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 37-47 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
74 1 0-3 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 3-27 LoSa 10YR4/3 A coal
3 27-38 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
90 1 0-5 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 5--32 Sa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 32-43 Sa 10YR5/6 B NCM
91 1 0-8 rootmatleaves,humus A/O NCM
2 8-40 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 40-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
92 1 0-3 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 3-37 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 37-47 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
93 1 0-4 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-39 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 39-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
94 1 0-8 ro_otmat, leave,humus A/0 NCM
2 8-40 LoSa 1OYR4/3 A NCM
3 40-52 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
95 1 0-6 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 36-48 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
96 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 8-34 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 '34-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
97 1 0-4 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 32-43 LoSa IDYR5/6 B NCM
98 1 strapped rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 0-50 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 50-60 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
99 1 strapped rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 0-50 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 50-60 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
100 1 0-5 rootmat, leaves,humus A/O NCM
2 5-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 30-44 LoSa lOYR5/6 B NCM
101 1 0-4 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-37 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 37-47 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
102 1 0-7 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 7-25 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 25-35 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
103 1 0-3 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 3-26 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
-3 2-6-36 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
104 1 0--6 r,,00tmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-29 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 29-39 LoSa 10YR5/6 13 NCM
120 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-26 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 26-29,root LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
121 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-33 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 33-44 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
122 1 0-4 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 30-42 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
123 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-29 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 29-39 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
124 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 4-28 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 28-38 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM
125 1 0-6 rootmat, leaves,humus A/0 NCM
2 6-29 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM
3 29-39 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM