The New England Hydric Soils Technical Committee – 16 years in 10 minutes!

1. The New England Hydric Soils Technical Committee – 16 years in 10 minutes!

2. NEW ENGLAND INDICATORS • 87 Manual used soil drainage classes in the criteria for a hydric soil. • Drainage classes were mainly an agricultural term without soil morphology associated. • In the 1980’s the NE office of the ACOE with assistance of the NRCS (Pete Fletcher) attempted to establish drainage class criteria for all of NE Document available at: http://nesoil.com/properties/drainageclasses.htm.

3. NEW ENGLAND INDICATORS • Team of COE, EPA, NRCS traveled throughout NE to examine soils and data. • Although some success was reached, the final drainage class criteria were still confusing. • In 1992 the drainage class contingent merged into the NEHSTC with the goal of establishing hydric soil indicators (like those being developed at the time at the federal level) to identify hydric soils in NE. • 1991-93 UMASS Adopt-a-Well study.

4. New England Hydric Soil Technical Committee • Federal Agencies (NRCS, ACOE, EPA, USFWS) • State Agencies (NH DES, CTDEP, Maine Dept of Ag) • University Personnel (UCONN, URI, UMASS, UNH) • Private Sector (Consultants) • 15 member steering team, 4 person chair – meet 2-4 times/year in NH.

5. Field Indicators for Identifying Hydric Soils in New England • Only region-wide publication not based on National indicators. • Recognized by the ACOE to conform to results obtained using the 1987 Manual. • ACOE encourages its usage throughout NE. • Published through the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.

6. Genesis of an Indicator • Soils formed in dark (lithochromic) mineralogy. • Recognized as “Problem soils” In 87 manual. • Dark soil subcommittee formed. • Hydric Tour: RI 2000 – thesis study, VT/NH 2003 Cabot site with data. • Meetings and let the Emails fly!

7. Dark Till Emails from Last to first: • 9/24 • Greetings, • Mike pointed out that with version V redox features might not start until 19 inches.  So I added qualifier on the surface layer so that redox features would start within 12 inches of the soil surface be it organic or mineral.  Is 12 inches the right depth? If not why not? The National Indicator redox dark surface that we discussed requires redox features to begin by 8 inches below the mineral surface.  This is the right idea but to restrictive. • After noon today return comments to Thom Villars. • Steve • Version VI • VIII. DARK MINERAL SOILS. Soils having a surface layer up to 12 inches thick that consists of a layer of organic soil materials and/or an A or Ap horizon with matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less, that is directly underlain by mineral soil material that has a matrix value of less than 4 and chroma of 2 or less, with 2 percent or more redox concentrations, that extends either: a. to a depth of 20 inches below the top of the material soil material, or b. to a depleted or gleyed matrix, whichever is shallower. • 9/24 • All, • Jim Gove brings up the point of "false positives." In concept this indicator will work well for many soils, I believe 2 chroma with redox is a hydric condition in all soils except compacted A horizons. However, as presently written I interpret this indicator to allow something as light as 3/2 to 19 inches and then 2 chroma with redox. This is, I believe, a case of a false positive because 18 - 19", whatever, is way too deep for hydric soils. In the field we discussed mimicing National Redox Dark Surface. It seeme we have drifted a long way off course from that. We should be requiring the 2 chroma with mottles to start within 12" of the surface (or even higher). I realize it says immediately below the A etc. Once again, horizon interpretations could cause inconsistent application. • Mike • 9/23 • Hi All, I guess that is my concern that we could be creating an indicator that has potential for false positives.  Do we know for certain that it works in areas that don't have dark minerals? • Jim Gove • 9/23 • "...since I think we need to inform the user not to view this indicator as being used everywhere in NE." • Hold on a minute, Jim. This indicator is intended to fit right into the Keys. I see this indicator as applying everywhere someone runs into this set of soil properties. I don't understand the reasoning behind trying to limit where this indicator is applied. If the relevant soil properties are encountered (anywhere), a consultant should feel free to apply this indicator, without having to decide if he/she is in the right "area" or in the right parent materials. • That's how I see it, anyway. • Thom • 9/23 • Greetings, • Why does this indicator need to be restricted exclusively to dark mineral areas?  If it picks up soils that fall through the cracks in non dark mineral areas what is the harm in that?  If it is not restriced to dark mineral areas will false positives be created? • If you restrict it to dark mineral areas you must define what that means or leave up to the interpretation of the user.  If you leave it up to the user than it will probably be used in areas that some of us would not define as a "dark mineral area". • Doesn't the color restrictions that we put in the indicator already define what we mean by dark minerals.  Trying to refine that further in a user note will confuse more than in helps.  How many users will know how to identify phylitte anyway? • Lets name the indicator Dark Mineral Soils and drop the user note. •  Version V works for Vermont without the user note and with a few english corrections suggested by Thom and Jeff. • After tomorrow please direct further comments to Thom Villars as I will be on leave until October 6th. • Steve • 9/23 • I returned from my days off to a long list of messages on the new indicator.  I made a list of all the comments/changes/etc. and added a couple of my own and it seems to me like the current version looks like the following.  • I added a name, added "s" after layer put "and/" after O, A, since I assume there could be multiple horizons of those types deleted the comma after "mineral soil material" put a few things in bold italics as they are in the Glossary (did I miss any?) deleted the "s"  after "extend" added commas in User Note after "such as" and "limited to" (-: Ruth • VIII.  DARK MINERAL SOILS.  Mineral soils that have a dark surface layer(s) (O, A, and/or Ap horizons), with matrix value of 3 or less and matrix chroma of 2 or less, that is directly underlain by layers of mineral soil material that have a matrix chroma of 2 or less and 2% or more redox concentrations, that extend to depth of at least 20 inches below the top of the mineral soil layers. • User Note: These soils usually form in parent materials derived from dark colored rocks such as, but not limited to, phylitte, limestone, carboniferous sedimentary rocks, or lacustrine sediments that are high in clay. • 9/23

8. Hi All, In terms of the other indicators with names such as Depleted Or Gleyed Matrix, Spodosols, Sandy Soils, etc.; will this indicator be distinguished by a unique name?  Like --- Dark Mineral Soils, since I think we need to inform the user not to view this indicator as being used everywhere in NE. • Jim Gove • 9/23 • Greetings, It appears that I need to back off of the surface layer and go back to horizons in order alow for O layers.  So here is version V.  We need to alow for the following combinations:  A, Ap, O, O over A, and O over B in the upper part. There may be a few I missed. What Thom and I have put together works for what we saw last week and for dark mineral areas in Vermont.  Its not tied directly to how the horizons are labled.  For example on the last site we looked at in NH you can call that layer at 16 inches and A or B and it still works.  For you AB guys and gals, if the AB is under an A or Ap and has the color and redox features it still works.  If there are redox features in the A or Ap it still works because they are not excluded. On the user note, I added it because some people wanted dark minerals in.  I don't think it is neccessary to work in Vermont.  In addition, we may find that this works well in other areas besides the "dark mineral areas".  Also in Vermont limestone is dark colored, in other areas it is not, so that is open to interpretation. Bottom line is version V works in Vermont with out the dark mineral user note.  Please let me know if you have strong feelings either way. •  Steve      • Version V • VIII Soils having a layer of organic soil materials and/or an A or Ap horizon with matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less that is directly underlain by mineral soil material that has a matrix value of less than 4 and chroma of 2 or less with 2 percent or more redox concentrations that extends either : • a. to a depth of 20 inches below the top of the material soil material, or b. to a depleted or gleyed matrix, whichever is shallower. User Note: These soils usually form in parent materials derived from dark colored rocks such as but not limited to phylitte, limestone, carboniferous sedimentary rocks, or lacustrine sediments that are high in clay. • 9/23 • Steve/others: • 1.   I've been watching this "new indicator" develop.  It appears to have a positive application to the "problem areas" it addresses.  I think it should come in order after indicator VII as you suggest.  I still think there is sufficient overlap between VII (DEPLETED MATRIX WITH THICK A) and VIII ("DARK PARENT  MATERIAL").  The user note clarifies this but I think the note should be more conspicuous that in other places of the "keys", as is critical to proper use of this indicator.  In addition, selecting a name that is very distinctive will further guide the uninitiated to proper use. • 2.  I think Jim T.'s note on A horizons could be used to revise our current definition of "A Horizon" and help with application of the "new" indicator VIII when applied to alluvial soils. • 3.  I see no reason why we can't use "layers" with the "new" indicator, as it may apply to many different kinds of horizons, while leaving "horizons" in other places. • 4.  I am NOT in favor of eliminating "dark" and "very dark" as adjectives for A horizons, as they are used to separate a number of indicators such as IX. SANDY SOILS (as revised). • 5.  As far as Mike W.'s comments on 3/2, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, I offer the following: • a.  I find 3/2 and (and sometimes its sister 3/1) to be about the most common surface layer colors on soils, everywhere I have described them in NE and I can't ever remember describing this color in reference to a wet subhorizon. • From my experience, this is unusual, though not impossible. • b.  I think the 4/1, 5/1 and 6/1 situations would mostly be caught in indicators VI.and VII. (current draft). • c.  If there is a loophole, then perhaps we could add to VI and VII. the following:  "with a depleted or gleyed matrix, with or without other redoximorphic                 features".  Although this is a bit wordy. • Tom Peragallo • 9/22 • I like the reference to dark minerals, as a way to separate this from other indicators.  • Jim gove • 9/22 • Greetings, • Version IV with the possibility of a depleted matrix so that colors of 4/1,5/1, 6/1 with less than 2% redox concentrations in a layer still make it. • Thanks Mike. • Last version for today. I'm in till Wednesday so will continue to compile suggestions. • Do you think we need to define a dark surface layer or does the glossary cover it? • Steve • Version IV • VIII Mineral soils that have a dark surface layer (O, A, or Ap horizons), with matrix value of 3 or less and matrix chroma of 2 or less, that is directly underlain by layers of mineral soil material, that have a matrix chroma of 2 or less and 2% or more redox concentrations and or a depleted matrix, that extends to depth of at least 20 inches below the top of the mineral soil layers. • User Note: These soils usually form in parent materials derived from dark colored rocks such as but not limited to phylitte, limestone, carboniferous sedimentary rocks, or lacustrine sediments that are high in clay. • 9/22

9. Greetings, • Version III incorporates some more suggestions and edits.  I dropped very dark and defined matrix for dark surface layer.  Its the only place we use dark surface layer in place of horizons.  I added sedimentary rocks.  I didn't add Mike's suggestion on depleted matrix becuase I think we have covered that possibility as it is written now. • This will work in Vermont and Mark Stolt believes it will help in the south. • Keep sending further comments. • Steve  • Version III. • VIII Mineral soils that have a dark surface layer (O, A, or Ap horizons), with matrix value of 3 or less and matrix chroma of 2 or less, that is directly underlain by layers of mineral soil material, that have a matrix chroma of 2 or less and 2% or more redox concentrations, that extends to depth of at least 20 inches below the top of the mineral soil layers. • User Note: These soils usually form in parent materials derived from dark colored rocks such as but not limited to phylitte, limestone, carboniferous sedimentary rocks, or lacustrine sediments that are high in clay. • 9/22 • Steve, hereby some editorial changes: •  VIII.  Mineral soils that have a dark or very dark surface layer (O, A, or Ap horizons) that is directly underlain by layers of mineral soil material that have a matrix chroma of 2 or less and 2% or more redox concentrations that extends to depth of at least 20 inches below the top of the mineral soil layers. • User Note: These soils usually form in parent materials derived from dark colored rocks such as but not limited to phyllite, limestone, or lacustrine sediments that are high in clay. • Pete Veneman • 9/22 • Mike, • What you wrote also captures my concern about the possible presence of a depleted matrix in a layer within 20 inches. I believe my version also does because no range for matrix value is given. Either one covers a layer of matrix value of 4 or more deeper in the profile but within 20 inches. • Eitherway works for me. • Steve G • 9/22 • Steve & All, • My first comment is that once you say "Dark" saying "Very Dark" is • redundant and should be stricken. I believe this applies to all the • Indicators that say "dark or very dark". Dark includes very dark, so it is • just extra language to confuse. • Use "layer(s)" so that 1 or more are included. • "of mineral soil material" is not needed. • In a previous email you say " It will not exclude the possibility of a • gleyed or depleted matrix showing up deeper in the profile." • I believe that the present language does eliminate any layers within 20" that don't have redox. so: 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, etc. layers will not fit this indicator. As long as that situation is captured elsewhere in the • indicators it is no big deal. However; as long as 1 must interpret that depleted matrices start immediately below the A horizon, then there seems to be a loophole in the system. For example, a soil with a dark surface layer underlain by 3/2 or 3/1 with 2% redox (Bg?) and then 4/1, 5/1 etc. • (Cg) meets no indicator. • I would ask the entire committee to consider eliminating all references to A or Ap and replace with "layer(s)" throughout the entire document. Think about it. • My rewrite is now this: • VIII. Mineral soils that have a dark surface layer(s) that is directly • underlain by layer(s) that have a matrix chroma of 2 or less and 2% or more redox concentrations and / or a depleted matrix that extends to depth of at least 20 inches below the top of the mineral soil surface layer. • User Note: This hydric indicator is most commonly found in soils derived from dark parent materials such as, but not limited to, phylitte, limestone, carboniferous what ya call it, or lacustrine sediments that are high in clay. • Mike. • 9/22 • Greetings, • I recieved a number of comments and here is the the second draft.  There were several comments about including a reference to spodic and questions about not mentioning dark materials. •  If we put this before the spodic indicators we don't need the spodic reference.  With out the spodic reference this should become Indicator VIII. •  Personally I don't see the need to include "dark minerals" as a criteria. However I'm not against it either so I have added a user note to that effect. •  Any further concerns? • Steve

10. End Result • Dark Mineral indicator developed based on data. • VIII Approved for version 3. • Tested in field. • Re-write for National 1) A__. Dark Mineral Soils. A mineral surface layer with value 3 or less that is directly underlain by a layer with a matrix value less than 4. Within 30 cm (12 inches) of the top of the mineral soil material or directly underlying the mineral surface layer, whichever is shallower, there are 2 percent or more redoximorphic features that extend to either a depth of 50 cm (20 inches) below the top of the mineral soil material or to a depleted or gleyed matrix. The matrix chroma is 2 or less to a depth of 50 cm (20 inches) below the top of the mineral soil material.

11. Field Indicators Features • Dynamic document –changes made as a result of new data, agreed to by the NEHSTC. • Hierarchal key – starts with wettest soils (few morphologies) to the dry-end of hydric soils. • Looks for a combination of soil morphologies at certain depths to determine if the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil. • If a soil meets an indicator it can be considered a hydric soil. If no indicators are met it does NOT mean the soil is non-hydric (professional judgment).

12. Field Indicators Features

13. Three Versions 1995, 1998, and 2004

14. Data and Documentation • Early tours were conducted throughout region to study the wetlands and soils. • UMASS well study set up about 15 sites, wells sunk, veg. data recorded, Eh, etc. Sites were toured by committee and NHSTC. • Each year the NEHSTC hosts a hydric soil tour to address a particular indicator (2002 – disturbed, 2003 – dark pm, 2004 – mesic spodic, 2005 – folists, 2006 spodic, etc.).

15. Data and Documentation • 2007 – ACOE Region 1 purchased 15 soil temp loggers, 10 continuous water loggers, IRIS tubes and wells – deployed on study sites (red soils, dark, spodics, marine sediments, HTM) throughout region. • Review of OSEDs, thesis studies, Reg IV sites, State regulators data, private sector delineation sites.

16. The Merger • With regional supplement coming in to play and general agreement on the need to have one set of indicators, the NEHSTC focused efforts over past two years reviewing both guides, deciding how they differ, which of our indicators fit National, and which of ours needs to be added for our region (New England).

17. The Merger • Members met in each region (frigid, mesic, problem indicators, etc.) to review data, descriptions, OSEDs. • Decided which of our indicators did not fit the National. • Numerous meetings to re-write our proposal for the National.

18. Questions Meets A1! Meets III!

19. Why can’t we be friends? Questions have been asked why the NTCHS was not involved with NEHSTC Indicators. • They were. During early development they were contacted to participate and review. Most declined. • Some disagreements, near fights, personal issues between folks, a race to who could succeed first. • National folks toured the adopt-a-well study, some members at a meeting later said they “never saw one #&$^# hydric soil the whole time they were in NE”. • One member asked to give presentation at a NE meeting and just showed photos of NTCHS members asleep! • New England Hydric Soil Mafia was termed.