Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 48

The most common soil type we encounter in wetlands is the “F” group of hydric soils. These are the loamy mineral soils. The texture needs to be a fine sand or finer. Usually, we are looking at silts and clays.

Of all of the indicators in the “F” group, the two most common ones are the depleted matrix “F3” and the dark surface “F6.” It is not unusual to find both of these in the same soil pit. Both of these indicators are dependent upon soil color as their hydric condition test.

There are many variations of color associated with the “F” indicators. However, a basic rule of thumb is that they need to have a Munsell matrix chroma of 2 or less. There are provisions for chromas greater than 2 found in some of the other indicators. However, for the “F3” and “F6” we need to see colors that are at least as dark as a 2.

There is still some pushback from the old time delineators on these new indicators. For decades we used a single indicator for soil color.

• Matrix chroma is 2 or less in mottled soils
• Matrix chroma is 1 or less in unmottled soils

This has to occur at a depth of 10 inches or the bottom of the “A” horizon whichever is shallower.

This definition served us well but it is no longer in use. When we look at the new “F” indicators though, we see that the old definition is buried in them (sorry for the pun).

One other oldie is the concept of mottling. This term has been replaced with the concept of redoximorphic features. We now refer to dark features as redox depletions and bright features as redox concentrations. Mottling always meant a mix of soil colors. However, it usually was expressed when the dark features were in the matrix (dominant color) and the bright features were individual masses. The use of the redox concentrations and redox depletions is much more descriptive and a change for the better.

The thickness of the indicator feature is also a new concept. Many of the “F” indicators not only require a specific soil color, but also a thickness associated with it. For example, a matrix with a chroma of 2 must be at least 6 inches thick in order to count as a hydric soil feature. To make this a bit more challenging, some of these thickness requirements can be combined with other hydric soil indicators thickness requirements to make up any missing thickness goals. This only applies to certain indicators like the “F3” and “F6”.

The last caveat is that some of these features must occur within certain depth limits in order to count as a hydric soil feature. You must see the feature start at a specified depth and then extend for a certain thickness. One aspect of the “F3” requires that a depleted matrix must start in the upper 12 inches of the soil and extend for at least 6 inches. Thickness and depth are combined.

The “F3” indicator is one of the most frequently found indicators. It is referred to as a depleted matrix. There is a tricky part to this indicator regarding the use of the US Army Corps Regional Supplements. The definition of a depleted matrix is found in the glossary along with a nice graphic of what it means. The problem is that the hydric soils section leads you to believe that the full description of the feature is found within the hydric soil indicator description but it does not. You need to check the glossary!

The description starts with the idea that you have a depleted matrix, therefore, you need to know what a depleted matrix is. This involves an analysis of the soil color and the percentage of redox features.

A depleted matrix is:

The volume of a soil horizon or subhorizon from which iron has been removed or transformed by processes of reduction and translocation to create colors of low chroma and high value. A, E, and calcic horizons may have low chromas and high values and may, therefore, be mistaken for a depleted matrix. However, they are excluded from the concept of depleted matrix unless common or many, distinct or prominent redox concentrations as soft masses or pore linings are present. In some places the depleted matrix may change color upon exposure to air (reduced matrix); this phenomenon is included in the concept of the depleted matrix. The following combinations of value and chroma identify a depleted matrix:

• Matrix value of 5 or more and chroma of 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or
• Matrix value of 6 or more and chroma of 2 or 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or
• Matrix value of 4 or 5 and chroma of 2, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or
• Matrix value of 4 and chroma of 1, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2010).

Common (2 to less than 20 percent) to many (20 percent or more) redox concentrations (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002) are required in soils with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, and 5/2. Redox concentrations include iron and manganese masses and pore linings(Vepraskas 1992).

Once you figure that out you just need to look for depth and thickness of feature.

A layer with a depleted matrix that has 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either:

• 2 in. (5 cm) if the 2 in. (5 cm) is entirely within the upper 6 in. (15 cm) of the soil, or
• 6 in. (15 cm) starting within 10 in. (25 cm) of the soil surface.

The “F6” indicator does not require a depleted matrix. It is a dark surface described as follows:

A layer that is at least 4 in. (10 cm) thick is entirely within the upper 12 in. (30 cm) of the mineral soil, and has a:

• Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 1 or less and 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings, or
• Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less and 5 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings.

I should add that distinct or prominent redox features are defined by the color contrast between these features. Please check the Regional Supplement glossary for a full description. We also printed it on our soil bandana.

These two soil indicators can also be combined to meet the thickness requirements of either feature. This may vary by Regional Supplement so make sure to check with the Corps for any local interpretations.

Have a great week!

– Marc

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 46

Roll – Crimson Tide – Roll, may or may not be your favorite shout at College football games, but if you are a fisherman, sportsman, beachgoer or other visitors to coastal waters where the dreaded Red Tide occurs, it can certainly bring an unwanted experience.

Red tides occur worldwide in oceans, bays, intertidal zones, and are most commonly caused by the upwelling of nutrients from the sea floor caused by massive storms, though anthropogenic causes such as urban/agricultural runoff may also be a contributing factor. During these upwellings, certain species of phytoplankton and dinoflagellates can multiply rapidly. These organisms contain pigments that vary in color from brown to pink to red and discolor the water and hence the name Red Tide. In the gulf coast region of the United States, the most common species causing Red Tides is Karenia brevis, one of many different species of the genus Karenia found in the world’s oceans. The northeast coast of the United States experiences Red Tides caused by another species of dinoflagellate known as Alexandrium fundyense. The growth of these algal blooms depends on wind, temperature, nutrients, and salinity. Red Tides do not occur in freshwater ecosystems. The occurrence of Red Tides in some locations appears to be entirely natural and is a seasonal occurrence resulting from coastal upwelling and the movement of certain ocean currents.

Red tides are often associated with fish kills from the algal production of toxins such as brevotoxins and ichthyotoxins that are harmful to marine life. These toxins can build up in shellfish that are then eaten by other animals. Fish typically exhibit neurotoxin poisoning by swimming in irregular spasmodic motions followed by paralysis, difficulty breathing and death.

Brevetoxins are tasteless, odorless, and heat and acid stable. Thus, these toxins cannot be easily detected, nor can they be removed by food preparation procedures. Humans can be affected by the Red Tide by eating contaminated shellfish, breathing winds that have become aerosolized, and sometimes by skin contact. People who eat contaminated shellfish may suffer from severe gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms including vomiting, nausea, slurred speech. tingling lips, fingers or toes. Swimming among brevetoxins or inhaling brevetoxins dispersed in the air may cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, as well as coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath. People with respiratory illnesses such as asthma may experience these symptoms more severely.

The best way to avoid an unpleasant experience with Red Tides is to monitor reports from health agencies and heed public warnings. You should try to reduce exposure by avoiding winds blowing onshore, reducing time outside, and certainly keeping off the beach. You should use your home air conditioner less and use high quality small particulate matter-capture air filters. If you are driving, keep the vehicle air circulating within the cabin and avoid importing outside air.

Red Tides have been recorded for centuries and are here to stay. Learn more about what you can do to help prevent Red Tides and otherwise assist ocean health by becoming involved with Coastal/Oceanographic Organizations in your area.

Source:

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/redtide.html, What is a red tide? August 6, 2018

https://www.cdc.gov/habs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB)-Associated Illness, June 19, 2018

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 44

When you look at an octopus, it doesn’t appear to even remotely resemble a human. From its eight arms to its strange movements, it looks almost alien. In fact, though, it turns out that octopuses are very smart, social, and in many ways, not too different from humans. Gul Dolen, a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Eric Edsinger, an octopus researcher at Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, discovered this in a rather unique study involving octopus behavior and the drug ecstasy.

Ecstasy, or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine(MDMA), is found most often at parties. In humans, ecstasy causes a variety of reactions in the brain. Fear is reduced and empathy is induced, and the result is a feeling of overwhelming euphoria, often experienced at electronic dance music (EDM) festivals. When ecstasy enters the bloodstream, the molecules of the drug bind to a protein that regulates the flow of serotonin into and out of neurons. This causes a flood of serotonin, which is responsible for the change of behavior in humans. Interestingly, in octopuses, the drug reacts in the same way.

Hoping to discover more about how the brain controls social behaviors, Dr. Dolen dosed octopuses with ecstasy. Before the drug, the octopuses stayed mostly to themselves, ignoring the other octopuses in the tank and spending most of their time with a Star Wars figurine on the opposite end of the tank. But once the ecstasy was given, the octopuses let loose and enjoyed the company of their fellow octopuses. Some even displayed affection, hugging an overturned orchid pot that protected another octopus and showing off their mouths, another sign of affection.

A major takeaway from this experiment is that somehow, despite being separated by 500 million years of evolution, humans and octopuses share a portion of their brain chemistry. This may seem like a small accomplishment, but when our current conception of the brain is so small, this finding could result in huge advances. If we can understand more completely how the octopus brain functions, we may be able to more completely understand how the human brain functions. The list of neurological diseases is long, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s among others, and most do not have any known cure. Perhaps octopuses on ecstasy could be the key to finding these cures.

Source:

Klein, JoAnna. “On Ecstasy Octopuses Reached out for a Hug.” New York Times. New York Times. September 20, 2018. Web. October 21, 2018.

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 42

How significant does a nexus have to be?
By Marc Seelinger

The issue of what is and is not a significant nexus is center to the new EPA Clean Water Act (CWA) rules. In order for a wetland or other water body to be jurisdictional under the Act, it must have this connection to a navigable waterway. The problem is what is a significant nexus?

This whole issue arose as a result of the Rapanos and Carabell Supreme Court case in 2006. Justice Kennedy coined the term “Significant Nexus” in his lone opinion. It paralleled the plurality’s two-part test involving the receiving waters that have a relatively permanent flow and whether those waters have a continuous surface connection to navigable-in-fact waters. However, he went a step beyond the physical connection and introduced a water quality connection.

One other factor is that the plurality Justices did not feel that dredge or fill material normally washes downstream. Both Justice Kennedy and Justice Stevens in his dissent made it clear that this assertion simply is untrue. Justice Kennedy stated that the discharge of dredged and fill material should be treated the same as the discharge of any other pollutant under the Clean Water Act. Justice Kennedy further stated that the intent of the CWA is to maintain wetlands that provide filtering and other attributes to benefit adjacent bodies of water.

So the problem remains. What is a significant nexus?

There are two types of waters we need to assess. The first one is easy. Simply ask the question, is there a physical connection to a downstream navigable waterway? If the answer is yes, it is jurisdictional.

Now there are many ways a wetland could be connected. But for this analysis, we are more or less limited to surface and shallow subsurface connections of a foot or less. This has been the general rule of thumb since about 2007.

With the new EPA rules, there is discussion on unidirectional and bidirectional flow patterns. This further demonstrates the connection to the navigable waterway. What is new is the introduction of non-wetland areas that have bi-directional water patterns and connections to downstream navigable waters. By default, these areas are connected and therefore jurisdictional. Floodplains are an example of this. By the way, this is new.

The remaining waters are either adjacent wetlands that do not have obvious physical connections. These may also be isolated wetlands. Adjacent wetlands by rule are jurisdictional. Isolated wetlands need to have a significant nexus.

So what is a significant nexus?

If there is no physical connection, you are asked to assess the chemical and biological connectivity to the downstream waters. This was the subject of the recent EPA “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters”, report that described in great detail how all waters are connected to all other waters. I believe you would have to have a project on the moon in order to not satisfy the connectivity of one water to another based upon the EPA report.

However, that only addresses the concept of nexus. The issue is significant. Pardon the pun.

Really the issue is the significance of the connection. If the connection from one water body to another is altered, can you prove and quantify degradation to the water quality?

The biggest problem that was identified with the EPA report is the lack of discernment of the significance of one connection versus another. The entire report’s premise was to reduce the number of case by case studies on projects. The idea was that the water body is connected therefore it is jurisdictional. However, Justice Kennedy used the word significant. That remains undefined. Neither the new rules nor the recent EPA report quantifies what is significant.

So what is significant?

That is left for you to decide. Is there a significant loss of water quality that would result from your project?

There is also the issue of whether this loss of water quality going to affect commerce? It is not just that the water quality is degraded, but rather that there is an interstate or international economic loss as a result. Without this commerce connection, there can be no jurisdiction thanks to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

One last thought. What if you project improves the downstream economy? Would that still be jurisdictional as Justice Kennedy’s Significant Nexus only speaks to degradation of the downstream water? Just asking.

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 40

Reading about critically endangered species these days, we are often met with disappointing news. Increasing amounts of overhunting, pollution, and other forms of habitat destruction harm numerous species and cause damage to the environment every day. Fortunately, however, there is good news. One species that was considered to be extinct has been sited by scientists for the first time since 1928.

Dendrolagus mayri, better known as the Wondiwoi tree kangaroo, was considered extinct by many until amateur botanist Michael Smith of Farnham, England emerged from the jungles of New Guinea with pictures that told a different story. Ascending to 1,500 to 1,700 meters through dense bamboo thicket, Smith and his party of four Papuan porters, a local hunter, and Norman Terok, who studies at the University of Papua in Manokwari, saw the first Wondiwoi tree kangaroo in ninety years. Smith was able to capture a few pictures of the marsupial, some of the only pictures known to exist of the animal.

Long before Smith was born, Ernst Mayr, one of the most important evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, was the first person to spot the Wondiwoi tree kangaroo. However, that same day he also became the first person on record to shoot a Wondiwoi tree kangaroo, as was normal in 1928 in order to study the species. It was given the Latin designation Dendrolagus mayri in 1933 and has rarely been seen or even described since. Mark Eldridge, a marsupial biologist at the Australian Museum in Sydney, describes the Wondiwoi tree kangaroo as, “one of the most poorly known mammals in the world.” The only true evidence of its existence, before Smith took his camera to New Guinea, was the pelt of Mayr’s tree kangaroo that currently lies in London’s Natural History Museum.

There is little to no debate over whether or not what Smith saw was actually a Wondiwoi tree kangaroo. Tim Flannery, author of Tree Kangaroos: A Curious Natural History, notes that “The images are clear and reveal the distinctive coat color.” Smith had also described the scratch marks distinctive of tree kangaroos on many of the trees nearby as well as the characteristic smell of their dung. Flannery also points out that the habitat where Smith took his pictures would not suit the habitat of other related tree kangaroo species. To Flannery, this suggests that the Wondiwoi tree kangaroo is “amazingly common in a very small area,” of about 40 to 80 square miles.

For the Wondiwoi tree kangaroos, Smith’s pictures are more than just an interesting discovery: his find could result in a breakthrough in the conservation of all species of tree kangaroos. Roger Martin of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia says, “ It makes the point that if we provide habitat and otherwise leave them alone, then they will get on just fine.” Martin refers to the fact that Wondiwoi tree kangaroos live higher up in the bamboo thickets than hunters tend to hunt. The need for conservation of these animals is more important than ever, as a gold mine has been proposed to be built in the Wondiwoi Mountains which could potentially further threaten multiple species of tree kangaroos. Smith also remarks, “All this just shows that you can find interesting things if you simply go and look.” For all we know, the most extinct species may just be waiting to be discovered.

Source:

Pickrell, John. “Rare Tree Kangaroo Reappears After Vanishing for 90 Years.” National Geographic. National Geographic. September 25, 2018. Web. September 30, 2018.