IDENTIFYING PROBLEMATIC HYDRIC SOILS DERIVED from RED PARENT MATERIALS in the UNITED STATES Sara Chri
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: IDENTIFYING PROBLEMATIC HYDRIC SOILS DERIVED FROM RED PARENT MATERIALS IN THE UNITED STATES Sara Christine Mack, Master of Science, 2018 Thesis Directed By: Professor Martin C. Rabenhorst Environmental Science and Technology Hydric soils derived from some red parent materials are “problematic” to identify during wetland delineations because they resist redox-induced color changes. These (PRPM) soils can be identified using the F21 – Red Parent Material field indicator, but the distribution and cause of the phenomenon, remains uncertain. The objectives of this study were to identify locations where PRPM occurs for appropriate use of the F21 field indicator throughout the country, and to better understand why PRPM soils resist redox-induced color changes. We found that PRPM is associated with sedimentary, hematite-rich, “red bed” formations and the deposits derived from them. Guidance maps have been developed showing where use of F21 is appropriate to support hydric soil (and therefore wetland) delineations impacted by PRPM. We also demonstrated that the cause of PRPM appears to be related to larger crystallite sizes of hematite in PRPM soils. IDENTIFYING PROBLEMATIC HYDRIC SOILS DERIVED FROM RED PARENT MATERIALS IN THE UNITED STATES by Sara Christine Mack Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science 2018 Advisory Committee: Professor Martin C. Rabenhorst, Chair Professor Brian Needelman Professor Stephanie Yarwood Dr. Jacob Berkowitz © Copyright by Sara Christine Mack 2018 Dedication To my sister, for being my absolute best friend. To my mother, for her unconditional love. And to my grandmother, who passed before completion of this journey. I love and miss you very much. ii Acknowledgements Funding for this research was provided by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Regulator Assistance Program (WRAP), administered through the Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory in Vicksburg, MS. I would like to personally thank my major advisor, Dr. Martin Rabenhorst, for his tireless assistance, mentorship, and unwavering belief in me throughout the duration of this study. I would also like to thank the remaining members of my research committee: Dr. Jacob Berkowitz of the USACE, for his guidance and “practical” approach to this research; Dr. Brian Needelman, for his compassion and the experiences shared with me during my toughest of times; and Dr. Stephanie Yarwood, for the amazing example she sets for female scientists everywhere. I would also like to thank Sharon Waltman, a (retired) Spatial Data Specialist with the USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), for sharing her (GIS) expertise with me in the making of maps for this research. I would also like thank my student colleagues, Kristi Persing, Daniel Smith, and Cedric Evan Park, for all of the hours and effort spent collecting data used in this study. I would also like to thank Dr. Jeff Post, Geologist and Curator-in-Charge of the Minerals Exhibit at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and Dr. Darrell D. Schulze, Professor of Soil Science at Purdue University, for their discussions and council on the mineralogical components of this study. I would also like to thank the faculty and staff of the Environmental Science and Technology Department for their continued support, as well as the coaches, contests organizers, and students I’ve grown to know with the University of Maryland’s Soil Judging iii Team, for teaching me everything that I know. Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to thank all of the USDA-NRCS, USACE, academic, state agency, and private sector participants who submitted soil samples and comments, as well as our colleagues (Steve Monteith, Michelle Etmund, and Amber Shinn) at the Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory (KSSL) in Lincoln, NE for their collaboration on this project. Without the time, support, and local expertise provided by over 50 individuals, this nationwide effort would not have been possible. iv Table of Contents Dedication ..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .............................................................................. 4 Wetlands: Values, Losses, and Definitions .............................................................. 4 Hydric Soils and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils .................................................... 7 Organic Matter Accumulation .............................................................................. 9 Redoximorphic Features ....................................................................................... 9 Problematic Hydric Soils ........................................................................................ 13 Red Parent Material and Early Exploration for the Cause of Problematic Red Parent Material (PRPM) Hydric Soils .................................................................... 16 The TF2 – Red Parent Material Field Indicator ...................................................... 18 The Color Change Propensity Index (CCPI) .......................................................... 20 The F21 – Red Parent Material Field Indicator and Obstacles to F21 Application 22 Early Identification of Red Parent Material and “Terrestrial Red Beds” ............... 24 Mineralogical Characteristics of Hematite and Hematite in the Soil Environment 28 Assessment of the Literature Review and Statement of Research Objectives ....... 33 Chapter 3: The Distribution of Problematic Red Parent Material Hydric Soils - the National and Regional Application of Hydric Soil Field Indicator F21 – Red Parent Material ....................................................................................................................... 35 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 35 Materials and Methods ............................................................................................ 39 General Strategy ................................................................................................. 39 Site Selection ....................................................................................................... 40 Soil Sampling ...................................................................................................... 41 Laboratory Analyses ........................................................................................... 42 Identification of Problematic Red Parent Material ............................................ 43 v Generation of F21 – Red Parent Material Guidance Maps ............................... 46 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... 48 National Overview .............................................................................................. 48 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region .................................................................... 50 Paleozoic “Red Beds” of Appalachia ............................................................. 54 Glaciated Allegheny Plateau and Catskill Mountains .................................... 62 Ontario-Erie Plain and Finger Lakes ............................................................. 65 Newark Supergroup ........................................................................................ 69 Great Lakes Region............................................................................................. 75 Superior Lobe.................................................................................................. 78 Mille-Lacs-Wright-Cromwell-Highland-Moraine Complex ...................... 91 Superior Lake Plain..................................................................................... 92 Chippewa, Wisconsin Valley, and Langlade Sublobes .............................. 94 Ontonagon, Keweenaw Bay, and Michigamme Sublobes .......................... 96 Proglacial Lake Aitkin and Upham ............................................................. 98 Superior Lobe Alluvium ............................................................................. 99 The Kewaunee Formation: Green Bay and Lake Michigan Lobes ............... 100 The Michigan Basin ...................................................................................... 105 South-Central Region........................................................................................ 115 Central Red Bed Plains ................................................................................. 120 Central Red Bed Plains Alluvium ................................................................. 130