1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

May 2001

Issue 15

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—

stan.anderson@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov.

Are Classification and

Interpretation Mutually

Exclusive Processes?

By Thomas E. Calhoun, Soil Scientist, Soil

Survey Division, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

I

 recently attended a meeting of the

 MLRA Leaders in which one

brief topic of discussion was the need

to maintain the Official Series

Descriptions (OSD’s) and whether or

not to incorporate into them some of the

estimated chemical and physical

properties, water features, phase

criteria, and productivity data that had

been recorded on the respective Soil

Interpretation Records (SIR’s). I am not

picking on the MLRA Leaders. I have

witnessed this same discussion in other

forums, such as Soil Business Area

Analysis Group (SBAAG) meetings,

NASIS systems analysis meetings, and

discussions at the National Soil Survey

Center.

This topic of discussion has become

known as the infamous “National

Standard” issue.

When we created NASIS and with it

the capability of separating the soil data

map unit from the soil survey legend

(map unit symbol), we inadvertently

created two camps with differing

thoughts on the soil survey process. We

have always had in our ranks of soil

surveyors those we called the Lumpers

and those we called the Splitters. Now

it seems we have the Interpreters and

the Classifiers. In some circles the

differences between the Interpreters and

the Classifiers over the issue of a

“National Standard” have become so

divisive that to even utter the phrase

“National Standard” requires that the

offending utterer pay the penalty of

buying all who heard the utterance a

round of beer.

It is always dangerous to say what

you believe others are thinking, but I

have never been known for frivolous

discretion. So here is what I think the

Interpreters are saying about the OSD

issue. (Please note that I did not say

“National Standard.”)

1. Within NASIS, our rules for

interpreting soils are that we will

interpret for the entire range of any

component we identify in the data

map unit. In other words, we are no

longer limited to interpreting just

those properties within the range of the

series for which the component is

named.

2. Basically, we interpret what is

actually there; we do not interpret a

concept (the series).

3. Since we are not confined by

the series concept, there is no need

to be concerned about the limits

or boundaries of the soil series.

Therefore, there is no need or, at the

least, there is no priority or urgency to

capture that information from the SIR’s

that were used in defining the series

limits.

In all sincerity, that was some good

thinking. We really got out of the box,

if you will, and re-engineered our soil

interpretations so they would be more

meaningful. For years we had to ask

ourselves what we were interpreting.

Were we interpreting what was actually

on the ground, or were we interpreting

the series concept? This became a

critical question when our customers

started asking us how reliable our

Are Classification and

Interpretation Mutually

Exclusive Processes? ..................... 1

New Soil Quality Test Kit

Products Developed ....................... 3

Publication of Guidelines for

Soil Quality Assessment in

Conservation Planning .................. 4

Soil Quality Institute Forum ............... 4

Summit on the Soil Survey on

CD-ROM and the World

Wide Web ...................................... 4

Soil Analysis is Key to Age of

Archaeological Site ........................ 5

Urban Soils Forum .............................. 6

Language Matters ............................... 6
2

NCSS Newsletter

interpretations are. When we started

trying to develop reliability statements

about interpretations, we had to ask,

“Are we talking about how reliable an

interpretation is for the actual range of

the soils delineated within a map unit,

or are we making a statement about

how often the soils within a delineation

fall within the criteria of the soil series

concept upon which the interpretation is

based?”

The decision was to interpret

what was really on the ground, and

meaningful reliability statements could

then be developed. But, I digress.

Since, according to this argument,

the limits of the series are not

meaningful, then by extension the series

itself is not meaningful. After all, a

series is defined solely by its limits. If

the series is not important, then by one

more small insignificant extension soil

taxonomy is not meaningful, since the

series is part of the classification

system. Now you may begin to

understand why it is dangerous to

explain what others may be thinking.

You never know about all those

extensions.

On the other hand, the Classifiers are

equally as adamant about the need not

only to capture the information from the

SIR’s but also to program all the series

limits into NASIS so that soils can be

classified automatically as pedons are

described.

I write this paper in a somewhat

lighthearted manner, but in fact these

are serious issues impacting the way we

carry out our soil survey business these

days. The differences over these issues

are so great that it has been easier to

ignore them all together. Now as we

advance with implementation of

NASIS, we are at the point of totally

losing the class-limiting information

once stored on the SIR. That loss will

make the decision on how to proceed

for us, and I maintain that is not the

way to make these decisions.

Responding to the needs of our

customers is important. Most of those

needs can be described in terms of

types of interpretations of soils data.

So, it is easy to slip into the mode of

thinking that the ultimate, if not the

sole, purpose of the soil survey is to

provide those interpretations. Even if

providing the interpretations were the

sole purpose, soil taxonomy, the soil

series, and the associated limits of the

series would not be superfluous.

Just try reading the data associated

with a data map unit to a colleague and

then ask, “Is that the same thing you are

mapping?” My point is that the series

and soil taxonomy provide the function

of relaying concepts in a very

structured, standardized, and visual

way. They help each of us to form a

common picture in our minds of how a

soil looks, how it fits the landscape.

The very taxa of the system relay

concepts on moisture, temperature,

parent material, landscape position,

age, etc. that are not effectively relayed

by just looking at cold data.

The way we map soils is captured

by Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of

Soil Classification for Making and

Interpreting Soil Surveys. According to

the first chapter of this book:

The morphology of each soil, as

expressed by a vertical section

through the differing horizons,

reflects the combined effects of

the particular set of genetic

factors responsible for its

development.

This was a revolutionary

concept. One did not need to

depend wholly on inferences

from the underlying rocks, the

climate, or other environmental

factors, considered singly or

collectively; rather, the soil

scientist could go directly to the

soil itself and see the integrated

expression of all these in its

morphology. This concept made

it not only possible but also

necessary to consider all soil

characteristics collectively, in

terms of a complete, integrated

natural body, rather than

individually. Thus, the effect of

any one characteristic or a

difference in any one depends

on the others in the

combination. Experience has

shown that no useful

generalizations about single

characteristics can be made for

all soils.

I propose that when we look at

individual attributes in the data map

unit, we are losing the power of

relaying to one another what the soil

looks like. We lose the power of being

able to make those useful

generalizations.

The soil series allows us to

compartmentalize and better understand

the soils draped across the landscape.

Our map units are, in fact, designed to

group like things as much as possible.

Without the series, the groupings we

make become more erratic and we find

ourselves back to where we were 50

years ago, when we needed a principal

correlator who had seen everything to

go everywhere to ensure that we were

describing and mapping soils

consistently. If there are no limits set,

no pictures drawn that we as individuals

can look at and use as a basis of

comparison, we can no longer produce

a nationally consistent soil survey

inventory. We only have observations

and interpretations that have meaning

for minute spots across a landscape. We

lose the ability to relay concepts; we

lose the ability to transfer information

from an area we know to an area we are

learning about.

So, what am I, a Classifier or an

Interpreter? I see the need for both. I

think the power we have developed in
3

NCSS Newsletter

NASIS to effectively and efficiently

handle data and provide better

interpretations of how soils react on

their landscapes is essential if we are

going to continue to meet the demands

of our customers. I believe that soil

taxonomy (of which the series is a

part) allows us to achieve consistency

in our work and enables us to share

information and learn from each other.

I think that soil taxonomy is essential

for the development of our science of

pedology. I do, however, have a greater

sense of urgency about capturing the

information we have used in developing

our concepts of soils, i.e., series limits

from the SIR’s, than do some of my

colleagues.

In recent years, we have spent a

great deal of time and effort changing

the way we go about making, updating,

and maintaining soil surveys. We now

want to improve the surveys by

eliminating duplicated and overlapping

concepts and eliminating the

inconsistencies that characterized the

surveys created when we limited our

vision to a single survey area. To make

these improvements, we need to know

what the limits were for the series

concepts we were using when we

made the survey. We need to know

which of those are real and which are

artificial when we look at soils

throughout their extent on their

particular landscape segment. I

believe it to be essential to have that

information if we are going to improve

our inventory, but I do not believe it is

necessary at this point to have it all

programmed into NASIS.

If I were forced to choose, I guess

I would choose to be a Classifier

because I am more concerned about

the degradation of our science of

pedology and the loss of the concepts

we use when mapping soils than I am

about losing the ability to interpret

point data. 

New Soil Quality Test Kit

Products Developed

From “USDA NRCS Technology News,”

March 2001.

Two additional products havebeen developed to enhance the

value and usability of the Soil Quality

Test Kit. First, the Soil Quality Test Kit

Guide has been translated into Spanish.

The Guide is an 82-page booklet

containing procedures for 12 on-farm

tests, guidance for interpreting results,

data recording sheets, and instructions

for building a test kit. The Soil Quality

Test Kit is effective in creating an

awareness of the importance of soil

quality. It can be used to compare soils

under different land management

systems, track changes in soil quality

over time, or demonstrate the effects of

practices, such as conservation tillage,

on soil quality.

The Institute of Soils of the National

Institute of Agricultural Technology of

Argentina translated the Soil Quality

Test Kit Guide into Spanish. The Soil

Quality Institute (SQI), with the help of

Manuel Rosales, Colorado conservation

agronomist, reviewed the Spanish

translation.

In addition, the SQI has developed

an Excel spreadsheet for Test Kit data.

The spreadsheet, available in English

only, will calculate test results and basic

summary statistics when raw test data

are entered.

The spreadsheet and the Spanish

version of the Guide are available on

the SQI Web site at http://

www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/

kit2.html.

For more information, contact:

Michael Hubbs

Soil Quality Institute

(334) 844-4741 ext.177

mhubbs@eng.auburn.edu 
4

NCSS Newsletter

Publication of Guidelines

for Soil Quality

Assessment in

Conservation Planning

From an html file posted by the Soil Quality

Institute, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, United States Department of Agriculture

(http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/

Assess.htm).

You know that soil quality iscritical in many natural

resource issues, but do you know how

to assess and monitor soil quality?

The 47-page Guidelines for Soil

Quality Assessment in Conservation

Planning describes a step-by-step

process for assessing soil quality. It will

help you decide whether to do an

elaborate or simple assessment, which

tools to use, and what management

practices to use to address soil quality

concerns.

The guidelines are presented in the

context of the NRCS nine-step

conservation planning process. The

information is primarily intended for

use in a planning process but is also

useful in informal assessments or as an

educational resource for teaching about

soil quality.

The document illustrates the

practical use of tools and information

developed by the Soil Quality Institute

(SQI) and links soil quality assessment

to specific practices that help solve soil

quality problems.

The Guidelines are available in pdf

format on the SQI Web site.

If you have questions or comments

about the Guidelines, contact Michael

Hubbs, NRCS, Soil Quality Institute,

mhubbs@eng.auburn.edu. 

Soil Quality Institute

Forum

By Ann M. Lewandowski, National

Resources Conservation Service, Soil Quality

Institute (alewand@soils.umn.edu).

The Soil Quality Institute recentlyestablished an e-mail listserve

called “SQIforum” to facilitate

communication among NRCS

employees and partner conservationists.

Any subscriber may post

announcements and questions related to

the research and application of soil

quality technology. The Soil Quality

Institute will post announcements of

new products and Web site updates.

To subscribe to the listserve, send an

e-mail message to:

listproc@nrcs.usda.gov

On one line in the body of the

message, write:

subscribe SQIforum [your first

and last name]. 

Summit on the Soil Survey

on CD-ROM and the

World Wide Web

By Nathan McCaleb, Chief, Soils Support

Branch, National Cartography and Geospatial

Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Fort Worth, Texas.

A summit focussing on publishing soil surveys on CDROM and the World Wide Web will be

held at the National Cartography and

Geospatial Center in Fort Worth, Texas,

on June 12, 13, and 14, 2001. The

primary purposes of this summit are to

(1) develop specific guidelines for

States to use in building products for

CD or Web-based publications and

(2) determine what tools are needed for

enhancements to these products. The

results of this summit will hopefully

identify a way to reduce the cost of soil

survey publications, provide a way to

publish soil surveys faster after

completion of the fieldwork, and

improve the quality and usability of the

soil surveys.

Presentations will be made by the

following States:

• Alabama

• Alaska
5

NCSS Newsletter

Soil Analysis is Key to

Age of Archaeological Site

By Joyce Scheyer, Northeast Area Liaison,

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Connecticut is one of the olderstates in our Nation, but some

sites may not be as old as they seem.

Shawn McVey, Assistant State Soil

Scientist in Connecticut, led the effort

to sample soils in and around a

recently discovered rock shelter

containing artifacts in Voluntown,

Connecticut. The samples were

requested by Nick Bellantoni,

Connecticut State Archaeologist, who

became suspicious of the type of

artifacts found and the context in which

they were found.

unexpected archaeological

samples.

The site appears to be a hoax.

Several news articles about scientists

arguing for or against the authenticity

of the site have recently been published.

The story was covered by the

Associated Press and published on the

Web and in newspapers, including the

Hartford Courant and the Norwich

Bulletin. McVey provided copies of the

articles, which have been archived at

the National Soil Survey Center in

Lincoln, Nebraska, for future

reference.

For more information, contact

McVey at (860) 871-4044 or

Shawn.McVey@CT.usda.gov. 

• Arkansas

• California

• Indiana

• Kansas

• Oklahoma

• Oregon

• Vermont

A participant from each of these

States will be asked to make a 15-20

minute presentation on the CD-ROM or

Web work that the State has done. A

discussion of all the formats and styles

will take place after all the

presentations are completed. 

Shawn McVey holding an artifact at the

archaeological site in Voluntown, CT.

The site is within the boundaries of

the Pachaug State Forest. Concerns

were raised that the site and artifacts

might be considered sacred by the

Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan

Tribes. The artifacts on the site

appeared to be evidence of a different

ancestoral history and development

than is currently understood.

The National Soil Survey

Laboratory (NSSL) in Lincoln,

Nebraska, characterized the soils under

a special research project for the

archaeological site. Soil samples

arrived in Lincoln in the beginning of

August 2000, and analysis of the data

was complete by February 2001.

The buried artifacts, predominantly

pipes and pendants of extraordinary

design, were concentrated in small

circular areas lined with charcoal.

Roots were abundant outside these

circular areas but were strangely absent

within the circular areas. Some of the

artifacts were fashioned out of copper,

and proponents of the site believed that

the deteriorating copper artifacts were

preventing root growth into the areas

containing artifacts. The difference in

the copper content was measured

between sites. Soil analysis showed that

concentrations were too low to inhibit

root growth in the soils around the

artifacts, indicating that the artifacts

may not have been in place as long as

expected. There were other

inconsistencies between paired soil

samples from around the artifacts and

the rest of the site, such as

discrepancies in the age of the charcoal

and the presence of undecomposed leaf

litter. These findings indicated that the

artifacts probably were planted, perhaps

as recently as the previous fall.

The results from laboratory analysis

of soils at the site were very helpful to

Bellantoni. He expressed his thanks to

the NRCS State Soils Staff and the

NSSL for assisting in a key part of the

investigation of these special,

Copper snake artifact.

Whale artifact.
6

NCSS Newsletter

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or 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, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Urban Soils Forum

By Joyce Scheyer, Soil Scientist, USDA,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

I

n an essay entitled “Soil Survey in

 the Twenty-First Century,” which

appeared in the May 2000 issue of the

NCSS Newsletter, Horace Smith and

Berman D. Hudson, USDA, Natural

Resources Conservation Service,

observed the following about the model

of soil as a structural mantle:

This model relates to the use

of soils for the infrastructure

necessary to modern societies. It

has direct application to such

diverse activities as urban and

suburban development;

construction of dams, highways,

and airports; and onsite waste

disposal. The model relies

heavily on estimations of soil

strength and plasticity as well as

the soil’s ability to transmit

heat, water, and energy. The soil

survey of the 21st century will

require enhancements to the

way this model is applied.

I propose an urban soils forum for

future issues of the National

Cooperative Soil Survey Newsletter.

Every once in a while, we will share a

question from the field about urban

soils that appears to be of general

interest. Send your replies to the

editor of the newsletter for publication

in the next issue

(stan.anderson@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov) .

 All questions and responses printed in

the newsletter will be anonymous, but

personal responses can be requested

directly from Joyce Scheyer

(joyce.scheyer@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov).

Question 1.—I was thumbing

through the Soil Survey Manual and the

“National Soil Survey Handbook,”

trying to see if there are any guidelines

as to when to call a soil an urban phase.

In residential areas at what density of

houses do you give a map unit the name

of an urban land complex, such as

Alpha-Beta-Urban land complex, 8 to

15 percent slopes? I have heard that, for

NRI purposes, urban land has a housing

density of at least one house per 1.5

acres. Is there any kind of guideline for

mapping?

Question 2.—What is the best way

to map highways—as phases,

components, named series, or

miscellaneous areas? Has anyone

established a map unit for highways of

a certain size? 

Language Matters

By Stanley Anderson, Editor, USDA, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, National Soil

Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Note that the wording of the following recommendation

probably fails to express the author’s

intended meaning: “Shorten the

timeframe in which soil survey

information is available to the

customer.”