1

National

Cooperative

Soil

S

urvey Newsletter

Issue 3

May 1998

In This Issue—

Editor’s Note

Issues of this newsletter are

available on the World Wide Web

(www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soildiv).

Click on NCSS and then on the desired

issue number of the NCSS Newsletter.

You are invited to submit stories for

future issues of this newsletter to

Stanley Anderson, National Soil Survey

Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Phone—

402-437-5357; FAX—402-437-5336;

email—sanderson@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov.

History of the MLRA

Approach to Soil Survey

By Thomas E. Calhoun, Soil Survey Division

Program Manager, NRCS, Washington, D.C.

The concept of organizing soil

surveys around major land resource

areas (MLRA’s) is not at all new. It has

been on the docket for study by the Soil

Survey Division and the National

Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) since

the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

In July of 1980, Texas proposed an

update of the soil surveys within

MLRA-77 and held a conference to

evaluate this possibility (Ratliff, 1990).

It was agreed that one legend should be

developed for the MLRA and that the

interpretations should be updated. Wes

Fuchs and Larry Ratliff at the South

NTC became sponsors of the MLRA

approach to updating soil surveys, and

Larry carried this concept into the

National Soil Survey Center in 1986.

The first formal national level

reference to the concept I could find

was by Richard Duesterhaus at the

National Work-Planning Conference

held in Washington, D.C., in 1983. At

that conference, he gave a paper called

“Soil Survey Update Strategy”

(Duesterhaus, 1983), in which he

provided his “visions” for future soil

surveys. These included 1) a generic

guide to soil survey information that

informs customers of the kind of soil

survey information available and where

it can be found, 2) digital soil survey

information, 3) computerized soil

survey data bases and information

retrieval systems, 4) use of

orthophotography as a mapping and

digitizing base, 5) major land resource

areas serving as a basis for technical

information, and 6) user-defined soil

survey products, to name just a few.

Most of these “visions” are just now

becoming realities.

In 1987, Kenneth Hinkley gave a

summary of the “Soil Survey

Productivity Improvement Study” (PIP

report) at the National Cooperative Soil

Survey Conference held in St. Paul,

Minnesota (Hinkley, 1987). Ken had

participated as a team member for that

study, which reviewed the entire Soil

Survey Program and made

recommendations for improving its

efficiency. The study recommended that

soil survey technical staff be assigned

responsibilities according to major land

resource areas rather than political

entities, such as states. It also

recommended establishment of “a

National Soil Survey Center (NSSC) of

soils technical expertise to which

scientists of the world can look for the

most authoritative information on soils

rather than the dispersed or segmented

organization presently used.”

Establishing the NSSC was an

attempt to develop an “institute”

mentality whereby a center of

excellence could be developed that

would support the National Cooperative

Soil Survey Program and other agency

programs. It was called a center rather

than an institute because of the

European institute concept, which was

more academic than what was intended

for the agency. The NSSC was a

forerunner of the technical institutes the

agency has today. Part of the

justification for establishing the NSSC

was the need for soil correlations that

MLRA continued on page 2

History of the MLRA Approach to

Soil Survey ..................................... 1

Keys to Soil Taxonomy for Finland .... 5

The Soil Survey of New York City

as Part of the NRCS Urban

Initiative ......................................... 6

First Subaqueous Soil Survey

Completed ...................................... 8
2

NCSS Newsletter

are nationally consistent. This concept

was another precursor to some of the

current MLRA concepts. After the

NSSC was established, the soil

correlators were assigned MLRA

responsibilities. These responsibilities

have now been transferred to the

MLRA Offices, but the intent of

improving the quality of soil surveys

and having consistent data and

interpretations across political

boundaries is still the focus.

At that same 1987 conference, a

committee report on “Landscape

Analysis and Development of Map

Units” (Cunningham, 1987) made the

following recommendations among

others: 1) landscape management

demonstration areas for a few major

land resource areas should be

established and 2) soil surveys that are

representative of the defining soils and

landscapes of major land resource areas

should be selected to serve as models to

be extended to other soil surveys at

least within a state. The focus of this

committee was to better define the soil

landscape information needed for map

unit descriptions.

In 1988, at a meeting of the State

Soil Scientists in Lincoln, Nebraska, a

work group chaired by Larry Ratliff

recommended that for the next

generation of soil surveys, county

boundaries could be maintained for

publication purposes, but MLRA’s

should be the basis for the inventory

(Ratliff, 1988). More definitive

concepts of the MLRA approach were

developed by a team at the NSSC under

the guidance of Larry Ratliff. During

this same period, additional memoranda

of understanding (MOU’s) were

developed by the states for soil surveys

to be conducted on an MLRA basis.

The Soil Survey Program Manager in

National Headquarters was asked to

develop state soil survey program

allowances for MLRA projects. More

guidance on the development of the

MLRA continued from page 1

MLRA continued on page 3
3

NCSS Newsletter

MLRA approach was provided by a

task force on the “Utility of Soil

Landscape Units” at the 1989 NCSS

Conference (Franzmeier, 1989). This

task force, chaired by Don Franzmeier,

addressed the need for a new kind of

soil survey. In general, the task force

suggested that the new surveys should

be similar within similar large areas, or

MLRA’s.

At the 1993 NCSS Conference, a

committee on “Soil Survey by MLRA”

chaired by Dr. McSweeney

(McSweeney et al, 1993) made

recommendations that included the

following: 1) develop a model

organizational structure for MLRA soil

surveys; 2) refine OBJECTIVE/GOAL

statements for MLRA soil surveys and

disseminate these as soon as possible;

3) develop a soil survey marketing plan

that includes a strategy for marketing or

promoting the MLRA concept; 4) keep

the concept of soil survey by MLRA’s

flexible enough to allow for soil

surveys by other geographic areas (e.g.,

physiographic areas, watersheds, and

soil regions; and 5) finalize work on the

“Soil Survey by Geographic Area”

guidebook and disseminate this

guidebook as soon as possible. The

guidebook was issued in December of

1993 (Soil Survey Staff, 1993).

During 1994, many factors came

together at the national level making the

changeover to the MLRA concept a

serious issue for the agency to consider.

Implementation of the National Soils

Information System (NASIS) was a

reality, and with that came the

capability of managing soil data by

different geographic areas. The Soil

Conservation Service (SCS) was

assigned the federal responsibility for

hosting digital soil surveys for the

nation, and a federal standard for that

data layer was being developed. Such

agencies as EPA and USGS were using

multi-county, multi-state, and national

data sets and were pressuring SCS to

develop a seamless digital coverage of

detailed soil surveys (SSURGO).

USDA embarked on a reorganization of

SCS to the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) with an

expansion of its scope of resource

issues. Up-to-date, coordinated soils

information was more important than

ever. The soil survey data sets needed

to be updated and improved to provide

consistent interpretations between

counties and states. SCS had soil survey

coverage on 91 percent of the nation’s

private lands, and a strategy for making

greater use of this information was

needed. With the 1985, 1990, and

pending 1995 farm bills, soil

information was being looked at on a

national basis and the data needed to be

better coordinated. The demands on

soil survey information were greater

than ever, and more soil scientists were

needed to provide technical assistance

in interpreting and using soil surveys.

Customers were demanding products

more tailored to meet their particular

needs, and a stronger emphasis was

being placed on using soil information

rather than collecting it. The budgets of

the states were getting tighter, and 16

State Soil Scientist positions remained

vacant.

It was time for SCS not only to

reassess how it conducted soil surveys

and how it provided information to its

clients but also to look at the way the

entire soil survey program could be

reorganized, in light of the current

realities, to more efficiently produce

soil information, to bring older soil

information up to current standards, to

improve the quality of the soil data, to

help customers use that information,

and to position the agency so that it

would have a viable soil survey

program in future years. Issue papers

outlining the need for organizational

change and change to an MLRA

approach to soil surveys were presented

to SCS top staff in the fall of 1994 (Soil

Survey Staff, 1994). Shortly thereafter,

the agency top staff gave the division

approval to go forward with planning a

changeover to the MLRA approach to

soil surveys.

In January of 1995, a 25-member

multidisciplinary team was formed at

the NSSC to finalize concepts for soil

survey in the reinvented NRCS. This

team received input from State

Conservationists, State Soil Scientists,

and other key technical disciplines and

formulated detailed information on the

functions, organizational structure, and

staffing for the reorganized soil survey

(Soil Survey Staff, 1995).

At this point, armed with

information developed by the team

early in January, the Soil Survey

Steering Team made its final draft of

the proposal and concepts of the

MLRA soil survey (Soil Survey

Division Steering Team, 1995). A

meeting was called of the National Soil

Survey Center Advisory Group, made

up of four State Conservationists and

four Agricultural Experiment Station

representatives from each of the four

regions, to review this final draft,

provide their comments and

recommendations, and open the

dialogue with other NCSS Agricultural

Experiment Station cooperators. The

proposal for reorganization of the soil

survey to an MLRA concept was

presented to this advisory group, and

their recommendation was to go

forward with the proposal. In

retrospect, this meeting was not

successful in that our discussions at the

meeting were not widely distributed to

the individual State Conservationists or

State Agricultural Experiment Station

representatives. To this day, this lack of

communication with the Agricultural

Experiment Station representatives

MLRA continued from page 2

MLRA continued on page 4
4

NCSS Newsletter

early in the planning process remains as

a primary issue of concern. This

perceived failure to openly

communicate raised concerns among

some partners about the validity of a

“cooperative” soil survey.

After the advisory group endorsed

the reorganization, the Soil Survey

Program Manager presented the

proposal to Regional Conservationists

and State Conservationists at the

Agency Business Meeting held in New

Orleans in February of 1995. This

presentation was followed up by

presentations made by members of the

Soil Survey Division Steering Team at

each regional NRCS meeting in the

spring and early summer of 1995. Also,

teleconferences on the plan were held

with the State Soil Scientists in 1995.

Feedback from State Conservationists,

primarily concerned the placement of

the MLRA Office (MO) boundaries,

was used to refine the plan.

The Soil Survey Division requested

one final presentation of the MLRA

concept to the top staff at their

leadership meeting in March of 1995 at

Beltsville, Maryland. After this

presentation, Chief Paul Johnson,

Associate Chief Pearlie Reed, and the

six Regional Conservationists (Judy

Johnson, Gene Andreuccetti, Dwight

Holman, Charles Whitmore, Diane

Gelburd, and Jeffrey Vonk) assured the

division leadership that they understood

the concept of MLRA reorganization,

that they were committed to

implementation of the concept, and that

the Soil Survey Division was to leave

the implementation of it in their hands.

It has now been 2 years since

implementation of the new soil survey

organization, and as an agency we are

still fine-tuning it. The new

organization is beginning to show some

of the projected benefits. For the first

time in about 12 years, the acreage

mapped in one year (FY-97) showed an

increase rather than a decline over the

previous year, and the acreage goaled

for mapping in 1998 increased rather

than declined. One hundred SSURGO

projects have been certified, and 650

more are currently in the works, of

which 300 should be certified by the

end of FY-98. Various products, such

as three-ring binder publications, soil

surveys on CD-ROM, soil surveys on

the Internet, and new state-tailored

interpretations of soil data, are being

produced, and an increased number of

soil survey manuscripts have been

edited and submitted for publication.

Most of the 17 MLRA Offices are

functioning well as far as providing

quality assurance for soil surveys in

their area of responsibility. They are

also monitoring the scheduling and

progress of the accelerated soil survey

digitizing initiative. Innovative

approaches to providing quality

assurance for soil survey projects are

being developed by the MO staffs.

NASIS 3.1 has been released and is

being used. An good example of how

well the MLRA Offices are functioning

is in Bozeman, Montana, where

manuscripts are developed directly

from the data base and the U.S. Forest

Service has its surveys entered into

NASIS and is able to connect to the

NRCS server to manage their data using

NASIS. Another example is

Morgantown, West Virginia, which has

the highest workload of manuscripts

and ongoing surveys in the nation.

Innovative approaches to providing

quality assurance for groups of surveys

allows them to meet most demands,

even though they are understaffed.

State Soil Scientists are now in

charge of developing a stronger

technical services program and

providing information to clients in a

variety of formats. One example is Bob

McLeese in Illinois, who has developed

plans for providing state coverage of

up-to-date SSURGO sponsored 1

/3 by

local, 1/3 by state, and 1/3 by federal

dollars and for preparing soil surveys

on CD-ROM. Steve Hundley has been

working closely with his customers in

New Hampshire to develop order one

soil survey standards and to help refine

hydric soil indicators for New England.

Similar successes are to be found in

Maine, Tennessee, Washington, South

Dakota, Missouri, and many other

states. More soil scientists than ever are

helping people use the information the

NCSS has been in the business of

producing for nearly 100 years.

We are maintaining a viable

mapping program that provides

information on areas that have never

before been surveyed and provides

updated information on areas where

information has become obsolete. The

regional Oversight & Evaluation Staffs

have made good use of the refined

STATSGO maps and data bases to

support the concept of a “common

resource area” for use in delivery of

Field Office Technical Guide materials.

It is now easier to evaluate maps and

data for national concerns. For

example, the RCA appraisal process

and the districts have made good use of

the improved coordination of soil

information across county and state

lines with the soil productivity rating

process.

The system of providing soil survey

information on a geographic basis to

support programs that are delivered on

a political basis works. Many of the

discrepancies in the soil survey data set

between states and counties have

already been eliminated, and that effort

continues as surveys are updated and

digitized. Quality soil data have been

provided in support of FSA and EQIP.

There are still challenges in some areas

to eliminate other inconsistencies and to

maintain and improve communications

MLRA continued from page 3

MLRA continued on page 5
5

NCSS Newsletter

with partners, but the structure and

communications necessary first to

recognize the issues, then to identify the

problems, and finally to resolve them

are in place and are working.

Bibliography

Cunningham, Bob, chairman of

committee 2. 1987. Landscape Analysis

and Development of Map Units. In

1987 NCSS Conference Proceedings,

pp. 104-131. NRCS, Washington, D.C.

Duesterhaus, Richard. 1983. Soil

Survey Update Strategy. In 1983 NCSS

Proceedings, pp. 30-32. NRCS,

Washington D.C.

Franzmeier, Don, task force

chairman. 1989. Utility of Soil

Landscape Units to the National

Cooperative Soil Survey. In 1989

NCSS Conference Proceedings, pp. 55-

62. NRCS, Washington, D.C.

Hinkley, Kenneth. 1987. USDA-SCS

Soil Survey Productivity Improvement

Study. In 1987 NCSS Conference

Proceedings, pp. 73-75. NRCS,

Washington, D.C.

McSweeney, K., J. Bell, R.

McLeese, and C. Love. 1993. Soil

Survey by MLRA: Positioning the

NCSS for the 21st Century. In 1993

NCSS Conference Proceedings, pp.

195-201. NRCS, Washington, D.C.

Ratliff, Larry F, session chairman,

work group session number 4. October

1988. Next Generation of Soil Surveys.

In National Workshop for State Soil

Scientists Proceedings, pp. 191- 197.

National Soil Survey Center, NRCS,

Lincoln, Nebraska.

Ratliff, Larry F. March 26, 1990.

MLRA-77 Update and Evaluation

Correspondence 1980-1990. National

Soil Survey Quality Assurance Staff,

NSSC, NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Soil Survey Division Steering Team.

1995. Soil Survey in the Reinvented

NRCS. A presentation including

overheads for the NRCS Agency

Business Meeting, February 1995, and

Regional Business Meeting in 1995.

NRCS, Washington, D.C.

Soil Survey Staff. December 1993.

Soil Survey by Geographic Area.

NSSC, NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Soil Survey Staff. August 1994.

Issue Paper on MLRA Approach in Soil

Survey, and Decision Memo for the

Chief, NRCS on Soil Survey Program

Reinvention. NRCS, Washington, D.C.

Soil Survey Staff. January 1995. Soil

Survey in the Reinvented Natural

Resources Conservation Service.

NSSC, NRCS. Lincoln, Nebraska.

MLRA continued from page 4 have not used an international soil

classification system. They used a

national system that was designed for

soil management. Observations below a

depth of 50 cm were seldom made. As

the soil scientists explored the potential

of the system described in Soil

Taxonomy as a soil classification

system for Finland, they found the

seventh edition of the Keys to Soil

Taxonomy (644 pages) somewhat

formidable. The 19-page “Keys to Soil

Taxonomy for Finland” will remove

that obstacle. Because the Keys to Soil

Taxonomy is computerized, it was easy

to select the orders and then delete the

portions that do not apply to Finland.

This process of selection could be used

in other countries where soil scientists

are reluctant to adopt the system

described in Soil Taxonomy as their

national soil classification system. A

state or MO might wish to prepare

similar keys for its state or area. This

technique could be used in teaching soil

classification to students who are

interested only in the soils of a limited

area.

The criteria for diagnostic horizons,

diagnostic soil characteristics, soil

moisture regimes, and soil temperature

regimes were not included in the “Keys

to Soil Taxonomy for Finland.” These

criteria could easily be added if

including them is considered desirable

in the future. If Finnish soil scientists

encounter soils or characteristics that

are not included in the Finnish keys,

they should first consult the Keys to

Soil Taxonomy. Also, they should have

one or more persons in the country who

follow accepted changes in the

classification system described in Soil

Taxonomy and evaluate their

application to classification of the soils

of Finland. The “Keys to Soil

Taxonomy for Finland” and the keys

for any other area must be dynamic just

as the system of soil taxonomy is

dynamic.

Keys to Soil Taxonomy for

Finland

By Dr. Delbert L. Mokma, Department of

Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State

University.

Dr. Delbert L. Mokma, Professor in

the Department of Crop and Soil

Sciences at Michigan State University,

has recently been working with Henry

Mount and Dr. Robert Ahrens at the

National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln,

Nebraska, to complete the “Keys to

Soil Taxonomy for Finland.” This 19-

page document contains the keys to

only the orders, suborders, great

groups, and subgroups that occur in

Finland. The keys are based on those in

the revised edition of Soil Taxonomy,

the taxa of which were listed in the

February 1998 issue of the NCSS

Newsletter. Finnish soil scientists are in

the process of reviewing the keys.

During recent trips to Finland by Del

Mokma and Henry Mount, 46 pedons

were described and sampled. Data from

these pedons will be used to

substantiate or change the keys.

Until recently, Finnish soil scientists
6

NCSS Newsletter

The Soil Survey of New

York City as Part of the

NRCS Urban Initiative

Those contributing to this article include

Tyrone Goddard, Steve Carlisle, Luis Hernandez,

and Steve Indrick, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, New York; Ray Bryant

and John Galbraith, Cornell University; and

Eugenia Flatow and Robert Alpern, New York

City Soil and Water Conservation District.

Just as forest soils are strongly

affected by the presence of a high

concentration of trees per unit area, so

are urban soils highly influenced by the

presence of a dense human population.

All soil on earth has been influenced by

humans to some degree, but only in

urbanized areas has technology allowed

such wholesale alteration of the natural

soil condition.

In cities, much of what is termed

“soil” is derived from sources other

than mother nature. Urban parent

material may consist of earthy fill

material that may be similar to or

vastly different from the natural soil

material below, fill from garbage

material and construction debris,

dredgings from watercourses;

composite material of asphalt and

concrete in various stages of

deterioration and decay; and huge areas

having an artificial hard surface. The

soils in many areas, even those derived

from natural parent material, have been

subject to special stresses, often for

long periods of time. These stresses

urban initiative, the questions “Where

to begin?” and “What services to

provide?” had to be addressed.

Representatives from the NRCS began

by meeting and talking with community

leaders, nonprofit organizations, city

agencies, and elected officials. From

these initial meetings, the agency

ascertained what the local needs, issues,

and concerns were. Throughout the

process, the agency stayed focused on

its commitment to build a strong and

lasting local partnership through

effective communication. A consensus

was reached by all partners that a

comprehensive urban soil survey that

addressed the unique characteristics of

urban soils as well as the specialized

demands of urban customers was

needed. A soil survey project area was

selected in South Latourette Park to

demonstrate NRCS soil survey products

for park land and open land in urban

settings.

The soil survey of South Latourette

Park represents a milestone in the

classification of human-influenced

soils. Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff,

1975), the USDA system of soil

classification for making soil surveys,

was developed under the concept that

soils form by forces of nature over

thousands of years, and drastic

modifications of soil characteristics by

human activities were considered

atypical, of limited extent, and of minor

importance. Soils that are drastically

altered by human activity were classed

at the great group level as Udorthents

but were not identified at the more

specific soil series level, as other soils

have been. For the purpose of soil

survey, the soils covered with a high

amount (more than 85 percent) of

pavement or buildings were grouped

into map units under the broad

include compaction, vibration, and

exposure to urban pollution.

In New York City, the Soil and

Water Conservation District Board

identified the following concerns for a

city soil survey early in the planning

discussions:

• Aquifer recharge, where ground water

under the city itself is a major source of

water, as in the federally designated

“sole source aquifer” in Brooklyn and

Queens;

• Leachate control, where active and

inactive landfills have been used for

dumping of toxic materials, as in the

inactive landfills adjoining Jamaica Bay

and Pelham Bay;

• Habitat protection, especially in

threatened freshwater wetlands and salt

marshes and on restricted sites where

pockets of nature survive despite

neglect and development;

• Sediment control, where waterfront

erosion and soil carried by combined

sewer overflows are significant sources

of polluted near-shore sediment;

• Park landscaping and management, in

soils of varied origins and qualities, in

areas more or less subject to urban

stress and pollution;

• Development of nature-based

alternative infrastructure for stormwater management (“bluebelts”) in an

urbanized drainage area and for bioremediation of landfills;

• Construction siting and design, where

proposed projects test the carrying

capacity and seismic stability of land

and infrastructure.

For the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS),

addressing these concerns was the

challenge as it embarked on the first

serious urban soil survey in two

decades.

Before the NRCS selected New

York City as a pilot for the agency’s NYC continued on page 7
7

NCSS Newsletter

designations of “miscellaneous land

types” called Urban land, with only

broad reference to the material

underneath. Neither of these broad

designations carried information

specific enough to allow interpretations

relative to use and management, as was

provided by soil series and phases and

their Interpretation Records.

In South Latourette Park, humaninfluenced soils are extensive and are of

major importance to the use and

management of the park. The park itself

represents an important and limited

land resource for tens of thousands of

Staten Island residents. Reflecting this

importance and the need for more soil

specific information, several new soil

series were established for drastically

human-influenced soils, which carry

relatively narrowly defined ranges of

characteristics and soil interpretations

for urban land use. In all map unit

descriptions that accompany the soil

survey of South Latourette Park, narrow

ranges of properties derived from soil

series are given and the interpretations

that most apply to urban users are

specifically targeted.

Soil quality can be considered the

character of the soil that makes it

suitable for various functions in the

environment. In the urban ecosystem,

soil quality is especially important and

fragile. Nowhere else is soil managed

so intensively and intimately as in the

urban environment, where large

populations of humans live in a

confined area. The soils in these

environments are buffeted by

innumerable foot strikes. They act as a

storehouse for the enormous amounts of

solid wastes that humans generate. The

soils absorb some of the poisonous

exhaust gases emitted from the many

cars, buses, and trucks. The strength of

the soils is taxed as the soils provide

foundations for multitudes of structures.

Beyond all else, the soils are counted

on to contribute to a healthy, highquality living environment. In urban

areas soil properties that influence

rooting, the water-holding capacity, and

the availability of nutrients are

important measures of soil quality for

plant communities. Likewise, the

content of organic matter, organisms,

other factors that influence runoff and

infiltration, soil compaction, structure,

and texture are important in measuring

soil quality for hydrologic cycles.

Another part of the issue of soil quality

is the ability of the soil to store and

recycle contaminants, and the impact of

these contaminants on the soil and the

environment. Unfortunately, monitoring

or managing urban soil quality is at best

poorly understood. The soil survey of

Latourette Park, which includes new

urban soil series and a heavy metals

study, is a first step towards a more

complete understanding of this

profoundly important topic.

The soil survey of New York City is

designed to help urban dwellers to

better use and manage their soil

resources. The first part of the program

is what we have called a reconnaissance

survey of the city at a mapping scale

of 1:62,500. This will be followed by

detailed soil surveys of open areas and

intermediate soil surveys of the more

built-up areas. The scale for this

detailed mapping will vary but will

often be at 1:4,800. The soil survey of

South Latourette Park has been

completed at this mapping intensity.

New soil series for anthropogenic

soils are being proposed and evaluated

during field mapping in some parts of

the city. Percent of human artifacts,

kind of human artifacts, and thickness

of transported fill or truncated soil and

its effect on other soil properties were

used to characterize new soil series.

Other soil properties, such as bulk

density, compaction, organic carbon,

and pH, are being evaluated as

characteristics of urban soils.

In addition to the ongoing special

studies of physical soil properties

significant to soil quality, other special

studies unique to soils in an urban

environment will be undertaken.

Already completed is a study of soil

quality in the North Meadow Area of

Central Park for use in developing a

renovation plan. This project is an

intensive study that measures water

infiltration and movement in the upper

part of the soil. Similar studies are

anticipated during the course of the

survey. A study is underway to

determine the level of soil

contamination by heavy metals. This

study is part of a research project

intended to measure the level of

contamination, determine area

distribution, and develop protocols for

future studies. A ground-penetrating

radar study was successful in

identifying soil composition in landfills.

The soil survey of New York City is

a cooperative project. Among the

participants are the New York City Soil

and Water Conservation District,

Cornell University, and the NRCS.

Other major cooperators are the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), the New York City Department

of Environmental Protection, the New

York City Department of

Transportation, the New York City

Department of General Services, and

the New York City Department of Parks

and Recreation. It is hoped that this

project will serve as an example of

interagency collaboration and

innovative design and project methods.

Formation of the Technical Advisory

Committee (TAC), made up of

representatives of all of the cooperating

Urban Initiative partners, provides a

monthly forum for discussion and

feedback among the interested parties.

NYC continued from page 6
8

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual

orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is

an equal opportunity provider and employer.

First Subaqueous Soil

Survey Completed

By Dr. George P. Demas, Soil Scientist,

NRCS, Snow Hill, Maryland.

The Maryland Soil Survey Program

has completed what may be the first

ever soil survey of underwater (or

subaqueous) soils. The project, a

Subaqueous Soil Survey of Sinepuxent

Bay, Maryland, was completed in early

1998 as part of Dr. George P. Demas’

Ph.D. program under the direction of

Dr. Martin C. Rabenhorst, Professor of

Pedology at the University of

Maryland, College Park. The research

resulted in a significant change in the

pedological definition of soil contained

in Soil Taxonomy to include

pedogenically altered materials in

permanently submersed estuarine areas

that support rooted, flowering,

submersed aquatic vegetation.

Up until the completion of the

project, permanently submersed areas

were referred to as “sediment” and

were commonly mapped by state

geological agencies and the U.S.

Geological Survey. The research

showed that these materials have

undergone pedogenic alteration and

therefore fall within the scope of

USDA-NRCS soil survey activities.

The approach developed by Drs.

Demas and Rabenhorst combined

terrestrial concepts of soil survey

(including terrain analysis and the soillandscape paradigm) with estuarine

processes of subaquatic landform

development. Soil morphological

descriptions and taxonomic placement

of the soils indicated that subaqueous

soil characteristics and distribution are

related to the underwater landform type

(e.g., shoals and overwash fans) and

position on the subaqueous landscape.

In addition, chemical and physical

analyses of the soils indicate that the

four processes of the generalized theory

of soil genesis (described by Roy W.

Simonson in “Outline of a Generalized

Theory of Soil Genesis,” Soil Science

Society of America Proceedings 23:

152-156, 1959) were active in shallow

water environments.

The project also employed an

interdisciplinary approach to determine

if subaqueous soil attributes are

significant to the growth and survival of

submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV).

With the help of Dr. J. Court Stevenson,

SAV researcher and Professor at the

Center for Environmental Studies at

Horn Point, Maryland, the study

examined SAV biomass production in

relation to water quality and

subaqueous soil characteristics. The

results of study indicate that

subaqueous soil attributes, such as

organic-carbon content, sulfide content,

bulk density, and subaqueous soil

fertility, are controlling factors in SAV

distribution.

The project, funded by the USDANRCS and the Maryland Agricultural

Experiment Station, has the potential to

enhance estuarine restoration efforts

underway in such areas as the

Chesapeake Bay; Delaware Inland

Bays; Pamlico-Albermarle Sounds,

North Carolina; and Naragansett Bay,

Rhode Island. For example, in areas

where water quality has improved

enough for SAV growth in the

Chesapeake Bay, restocking efforts

have not been successful, probably as a

result of subaqueous soil attributes.

SAV consists of rooted, flowering

plants that rely on root uptake of

nutrients, such as nitrogen and

phosphorus. Some subaqueous soil

attributes have a deleterious effect on

SAV root survival. Subaqueous soil

maps could provide a means to identify

potential successful SAV restocking

sites. Other environmental applications

include the identification of areas that,

when dredged, may have a serious acidsulfate weathering potential if placed on

upland sites, identification of potential

clam and oyster restocking sites, and

identification of areas that should be

protected for future benthic organism

colonization.

For more information about the

study or mapping protocol, contact Dr.

Demas or James Brown, State Soil

Scientist, Maryland Soil Survey Staff.

The results of the study should be

published in a series of articles during

the next year. The concepts underlying

the study are described in an article

entitled “Subaqueous Soils: A

Pedological Approach to the Study of

Shallow Water Habitats” in the June

1996 issue of Estuaries (37: 229-237).

NCSS Newsletter