1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

Issue 5

November 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.

Soil Survey Field

Methods in the Late

1890’s and Early 1900’s

By David W. Smith, Soil Scientist, USDA,

Natural Resources Conservation Service, West

Regional Office, Sacramento, California.

Macy H. Lapham, a soilsurveyor who worked in the

soil survey program in the United

States from 1899 to 1945, mapping soils

in many of the Western States and then

serving as Inspector for the Western

Division of the Bureau of Soils,

published a book entitled Crisscross

Trails: Narrative of a Soil Surveyor in

1949. In his words: “[I offer this book]

as an unpretentious historical record of

the organization and development of

the soil survey in which the recital of

associated personal observations and

incidents has been included.”

I recommend the book to anyone

who is interested in the story of the

early soil survey and who can get hold

of a copy. The book is out of print and

hard to obtain.

Early Field Methods

Lapham’s first season of fieldwork

began in the spring of 1900, in the

Sevier Valley of southern Utah. After a

cross-country train ride to Richfield,

Utah, he met up with Frank D. Gardner

(who had mapped in the Utah Valley the

first season of 1899) and was “ushered

into the technique of soil survey.”

About his first field day, he wrote:

After a hearty breakfast, attired in

old clothes, stout shoes, and

canvas leggings, I was ready for

the field. With two frisky western

horses and a light ambulance-like

canvas covered wagon, we

stopped in a vividly green alfalfa

field on a red alluvial soil. Here I

was shown how to handle a sixfoot auger and to note the

character of the fine sandy loam

soil, the boundaries of which

were sketched on the pages of a

notebook.

Lapham summarizes the field

methods used in 1900 as follows:

The usual western field

equipment consisted mainly of a

cumbersome electrolytic bridge

and field kit for determining the

character and amount of soluble

salts, popularly but inaccurately

known as “alkali.” Included were

a six-foot soil auger with

extensions; a compass; protractor

and scale; a shovel or spade; and

a copy of the usually inadequate

county or other available base

map. Technique of determining

and mapping soil boundaries was

acquired by experience. At that

time there were no soil surveyors

with previous training and no

place in this country or elsewhere

at which training in soil

classification and mapping might

be learned. Soil boundaries,

determined by noting differences

in texture, color, structure, and in

mineral character—by means of

frequent borings—were, in the

absence of a suitable base map,

sketched into the pages of a

blank township plat book ruled

off into sections. These were also

Field Methods continued on page 5

Soil Survey Field Methods in the

Late 1890’s and Early 1900’s ........... 1

Soil Survey Interpretations: A New

Perspective via “NASIS” ............... 2

Oxyaquic Soils—A Short Course:

Continuing Activities of the

New Hampshire Soils Team ............ 4

Sequence of Soil Orders for the

Centennial Calendar ....................... 7

Stories, Tales, and Bald-Faced Lies ..... 8

Paha ............................................... 8

Pit Implosion .................................. 8

John Kimble and Maurice Mausbach

Honored ......................................... 8
2

NCSS Newsletter

Soil Survey

Interpretations: A New

Perspective via “NASIS”

By Bob Nielsen and Russ Kelsea, Soil

Scientists, USDA, NRCS, National Soil Survey

Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

The objectives of the NASIS(National Soil Information

System) soil survey interpretations

system are as follows:

Interpretations are consistent, and

large shifts in soil survey interpretive

results do not occur among similar soils

that have insignificant differences in

physical, chemical, or climatic

properties.

• Thus, soils with relatively similar

physical, chemical, or climatic

properties will have relatively

similar NASIS interpretive results

for any given practice, program

application such as CRP, or other

use or management involving

soils. NASIS interpretive results

provide the user with either numeric

ratings that can be arrayed or

descriptive ratings that can be used

in reports.

Interpretations are natural, and the

interpretive results represent the natural

gradation of a soil’s physical, chemical,

and climatic characteristics across

landscapes and broad geographical

areas.

• The interpretive result is a

natural fit, and slight shifts in

soil interpretive properties create

similar shifts in interpretive

response.

Interpretations are defensible and

require few or no subjective exceptions

to the basic interpretive rules to

correctly array soil interpretive numeric

rating values across large geographical

areas.

• This feature brings NASIS

interpretations into alignment with

NRCS national, state, and local

programmatic and assessment

requirements.

Threshold Response

Evaluations vs. Continual

Response Surface Evaluations

The following examples can be

applied to the installation of agricultural

waste holding facilities where slope is a

limitation if it is too steep.

Threshold response evaluations are

subjective or arbitrary classes, such as

“slight,” “moderate,” or “severe,” that

are defined by soil properties limits. In

the example of threshold response

evaluations below, the slope

interpretive rating is “slight” if the

slope is less than 6 percent, “moderate”

if 6 to 15 percent, and “severe” if more

than 15 percent.

• For some sites, this statement is

true (more than 15 percent slope).

With the arbitrary linear approach, an 8 percent slope receives the same rating as a 14 percent slope, while a 15 percent slope

receives a rating of “severe.”
3

NCSS Newsletter

• For others, the statement is false

(less than 6 percent slope).

• For others, the statement is not

quite true or false. The point breaks

are arbitrary (6 to 15 percent), and

all sites that fit within the break

points are assigned the same

rating.

Continual response surface

evaluations differ from threshold

response evaluations in that slopes

of less than 6 percent receive a rating

of 0, slopes of 6 to 15 percent receive

a rating between 0 and 1, and slopes

of more than 15 receive a rating of 1.

The difference, as illustrated in the

example, is that a slope of 8 percent

receives a numerical rating of about

0.15 and a slope of 14 percent receives

a rating of about 0.95. This approach

shows that even though a soil with 10

percent slope and a soil with 14

percent slope may be rated as moderate

for a particular interpretation, the 14

percent slope has a greater degree of

limitation than does the 10 percent

slope.

• For some sites, this statement is

true. If the slope is more than 15

percent, the rating is 1.00

• For others, the statement is false.

If slope is less than 6 percent, the

rating is 0.00

• For others, the statement is not

quite true or false. The numeric

rating is a function of the response

surface, and sites are assigned a

number between 1 and 0.

The following soil interpretation for

conservation buffers is an example of

the continual response surface concept

applied to conservation practices. The

results from the NASIS conservation

buffers soil interpretation can be used

to evaluate the suitability of soils for

this conservation practice. The numeric

rating for each soil characteristic

With the continual response approach, an 8 percent slope receives a numerical rating of 0.14, which is significantly different

from the 0.95 rating for the 14 percent slope, which is similar to the 1.00 rating for the 15 percent slope. Thus, similar slopes

have similar ratings.

considered in the conservation buffers

interpretation is relative to the scale

where 0 is no limitation and 1.0 is a

severe limitation.
4

NCSS Newsletter

Oxyaquic Soils—A Short

Course: Continuing

Activities of the New

Hampshire Soils Team

By Stephen J. Hundley, State Soil Scientist,

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Durham, New Hampshire.

L

ong before the first soil survey

was conducted in New England,

the pioneers recognized that much of

the landscape is underlain by very firm

and dense soil material. Locally called a

“hard pan,” this material behaves a lot

like concrete when it is dry, is nearly

impermeable to water and plant roots,

and perches surface water from

snowmelt in the spring, resulting in the

onset of the “mud season.” Modernday soil scientists recognize this

phenomenon as an interruption in

saturation, a situation where the upper

portion of the soil is saturated because

of perching of water on top of the “hard

pan,” the middle portion of the soil (the

“hard pan” itself) remains relatively dry,

and the lower portion is saturated once

again because of the ground-water

system. This interruption in saturation

is very significant in the assessment of

soil behavioral characteristics and in

the development of soil interpretations

for different kinds of land use.

During the winter of 1993, soil

correlators from around New England

gathered in Orono, Maine, to agree

upon how these kinds of soil would be

classified under the recently revised

system of soil classification. There was

unanimous agreement that these soils

do, in fact, perch surface water in the

spring and should be assigned to an

Oxyaquic subgroup in the taxonomic

system. No one in the New England soil

science community, however, had ever

actually conducted field investigations

during the spring to document the fact

that these soils perch water.

In 1995, with financial support from

the Global Change Initiative and with

great enthusiasm from the New

Hampshire soils staff, monitoring sites

were established in three locations in

New Hampshire. One of the sites was

expanded so that soil scientists could

monitor soil-water behavior at four

locations representing an entire

landform, from the crest of the hill to the

foot slope. Kathy Swain took charge of

this study site on the outskirts of

Concord and has been monitoring the

site for 2 years.

To date, much to the surprise of the

soil science community, two of the four

sites have remained dry throughout the

spring, when these soils should be

perching water. The soil scientists have

no good explanation. These soils are

very representative of the type of “hard

pan” soils that occur through the

region. If certain soil conditions or

landscape positions preclude these

soils from perching water, then there

may be a need for a major paradigm

shift in how soil scientists interpret the

behavioral characteristics of the soils.

The New Hampshire soils staff

developed an intensive data collection

and interpretation program at the

Concord Oxyaquic Study Site. The

initial effort included installation of

special instruments at each site, called

tensiometers, to monitor the

unsaturated soil moisture content.

Assistance was requested from the

National Soil Survey Laboratory and

the U.S. Geological Survey. The week of

August 18, 1997, commenced a flurry of

activity.

Intensive soil investigations and soil

sampling were conducted by Warren

Lynn, Research Soil Scientist from the

National Soil Survey Center. Kathy

Swain and Peter Whitcomb worked

continuously with Warren, typically

putting in 10- to 12-hour days. Phil

Schoenberger, Research Soil Scientist

from the National Soil Survey Center,

brought four Compact Constant Head

Permeameters with him to conduct

extensive data collection on the

saturated hydrologic conductivity of

the “hard pan.” New Hampshire has its

own permeameter, so at times during the

week there were up to five

permeameters functioning

simultaneously. Phil received a lot of

much needed assistance from Laura

Morton, Soil Scientist WAE in

Concord; Marc Southerland and Marie

Danforth, NRCS volunteers; Francesca

Latawiec, Principal Planner with New

Hampshire Office of State Planning; and

Ann Titus, Merrimack Conservation

District Administrator. Through a

cooperative arrangement with USGS, we

were able to utilize the expertise of

Joseph Ayotte, Hydrologist, and make

use of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

technology. With the assistance of Joe

Homer, Joe Ayotte conducted GPR

transects across the study site to

develop imagery that provides a

“picture” of the nature and properties

of the underlying “hard pan.” We

cannot forget the tremendous effort

that was needed to hand dig the soil

pits to enable proper investigation and

soil sampling. Four soil pits about 3 by

5 feet in size were dug to a depth of 5
5

NCSS Newsletter

feet through this “hard pan” material,

which behaves like concrete. Much

credit goes to Pete Whitcomb, Kathy

Swain, Marie Danforth, and Laura

Morton and to Marc Southerland, the

human backhoe,

As the volumes of data start coming

in, they will need to be compiled and

interpreted. Additional studies are

planned at this site to help complete the

picture of what is going on in terms of

soil-water behavior. All of this

information will enable the soil science

community to better predict the

behavior of these kinds of soil under

specific kinds of land use.

Preliminary observations completed

during the week of data collection

indicate that surface water may not

necessarily perch on top of the “hard

pan” in certain locations. Some

preliminary evidence indicates that the

“hard pan” is made up of many

discontinuous bands that act as

hydrologic barriers. Instead of perching

on the “hard pan,” however, water may

cascade through discontinuous “hard

pan” layers, flowing laterally through

sandy layers and spilling over one

barrier to the next—like a giant,

elaborate underground fountain.

This kind of information and

documentation is critically important in

our attempt to provide knowledgeable

and meaningful interpretations to

developers, consultants, farmers, home

buyers, and other property owners. It is

very valuable information for the proper

siting and installation of septic

systems. Having scientifically based

documentation of this nature provides

credibility to the National Cooperative

Soil Survey and adds to our reservoir of

knowledge about soil behavior. The

information that comes out of projects

of this nature ensures that NRCS soils

information and interpretations and the

data extracted out of the NASIS data

base are technically sound and legally

defensible.

usually without provision for

correcting errors in the original U.

S. Land Office Surveys. Bearings

were determined by compass, and

courses were plotted by

protractor and scale. Topographic

quadrangles of the U.S.

Geological Survey, where

available, were made use of as

base maps; but these were

frequently on small scale or of

earlier publication, and required a

great deal of revision in bringing

roads and other cultural features

up to date.

Transportation in the field was

usually afforded by hired horse

and buggy; at times this was

supplemented by a saddle horse.

Distances were measured by an

odometer attached by a metal clip

to the front axle of the buggy.

This consisted of a dial traversed

by yellow, red, and blue hands

actuated by a spur or sprocket

wheel turned by a metal pin

driven into the wooden hub of

the vehicle. This projecting pin

engaged the spur wheel with each

revolution of the buggy wheel.

The dial was calibrated in units of

number of revolutions of the

wheel. With a standard-size wheel

of 42 inches diameter, 100

revolutions were equivalent to a

mile; the number of revolutions in

multiples of 100 up to 40,000 were

recorded. Careful determination of

the wheel diameter was

necessary. It was usually

necessary to dismount from the

vehicle and read the instrument

from the ground for accuracy,

though much of the time this

could be checked from the seat

for approximate distance traveled.

A bell mounted on the back of the

Field Methods continued from page 1 instrument was struck by a small

hammer on completion of each

100 revolutions of the wheel. It

often became necessary, even in

those horse and buggy days to

“get out and get under” (to fix the

equipment). In extremity we could

resort to the simple expedient of

tying a bit of cloth to one of the

buggy spokes and recording the

revolutions with a tally register.

Field parties were expected to

obtain accommodations with

farmers or in local towns and

villages near enough the scene of

operations to avoid undue

expense and interruption in

fieldwork necessitated by long

drives. In the thickly settled

Mormon communities of Utah

this was usually not difficult; but

the problem presented grave

difficulties in other areas.

Lapham talks about using a plane

table and alidade while mapping in the

Salinas Valley during 1901:

At the time of this early soil
6

NCSS Newsletter

survey, some simple equipment

had been acquired by the Bureau

with which we undertook our first

experience in plane-table

surveying in the construction of a

base map upon which soils were

delineated. This consisted of a

tripod upon which was mounted a

detachable board, in one side of

which was fixed a small brass box

containing a compass needle.

With a piece of heavy drawing

paper attached to the board, and

when set up in the field and

oriented with the compass needle,

sights were taken by means of a

simple alidade; this permitted the

sketching of roads . . . windmills,

courses of streams, [etc.]. At the

end of the day these were inked

in, and soil types indicated by

colored pencils. With latitude in

recognition and mapping of soil

types at the time, a half dozen

colored pencils in the vest pocket

might take the place of a hundred

or more mapping units in the

complicated soil map legend of

today.

These early plane-table surveys

were crude; but with experience in

technique, they have served well

for many years, and are still

serving a useful purpose in the

absence of suitable topographic

or aerial base maps.

Lapham chronicles the first attempt

to use an automobile in mapping:

[Sacramento Valley, California,

1904] . . . the auto was making its

bid as a practical means of

transport. I foolishly became

infected with ambition to

substitute one for the old slow

moving horse drawn vehicle [and]

engaged in an abortive attempt to

introduce auto to soil survey. . . .

This consisted of a narrow-gauge

vehicle powered by a single

cylinder air-cooled motor

mounted on rear. Chain and

sprocket connected it to the rear

axle. When started with crank . . .

usually at expense of blisters, it

made a terrible clatter, and would

maintain speed of 15-20 mph on

smooth oiled road [of which there

were few]. It was without

speedometer, but with ingenuity

. . . I installed odometer . . . and

finally succeeded in mapping a

few miles of highway with its

bordering soils. I believe this to

be the first instance in which any

form of auto transportation was

used in the soil survey. Invention

is, however, at times the mother of

necessity and we soon returned

to the slower and more

dependable horse and buggy.

The history of soil survey during

its infancy is truly rich, and as we

approach the centennial celebration

of the soil survey, it is good to reflect.

I hope that this abbreviated look back

has captured your interest and has

provided knowledge that can be used

as we carry the work forward. Certainly,

the excerpts from Macy Lapham’s

Crisscross Trails: Narrative of a Soil

Surveyor have enhanced the

storytelling. It is only fitting to close

with this end quote from Macy’s

book:

When the old horse and buggy

stepped out of the picture and

was replaced by the automobile,

and when Dr. Marbut brought to

us the principles of modern soil

science, a new era was ushered

into the Soil Survey. Modern field

equipment and modern methods

of observation and record have

relegated the soil surveys of

yesterday to a background of

historical interest and of

outmoded pedological and

agricultural significance.

Nevertheless, to one who has

served through a pioneering

period of slower tempo,

recollection of the old horse and

buggy jogging along a dusty

country road with plane-table by

side of the driver and a feed of

oats and hay in the rear, brings

nostalgic memories of many

peaceful, pleasant country

scenes.
7

NCSS Newsletter

Sequence of Soil Orders

for the Centennial

Calendar

By Loyal A. Quandt, Soil Scientist, USDA,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

National Soil Survey Center.

The centennial calendar, whichshows the 12 soil orders in

the current system of soil taxonomy,

will be distributed before the end

of this calendar year. Climatic

conditions, primarily moisture and

temperature, have played a major role in

the processes of soil formation.

Following is a description of the

rationale for the sequence of soil orders

assigned to the individual months in

the calendar.

January is associated with Entisols,

which are young soils at an early stage

of development.

February, a very cold month, is

associated with Gelisols, which are the

coldest soils and have a layer of

permafrost.

March, one of the wettest months, is

associated with Histosols, which are

wet soils.

April, which is a month of transition

from colder to warmer temperatures, is

associated with Inceptisols, which are

characterized by incipient change in

soil development.

May is associated with Alfisols,

in which effective rainfall results in

clay leaching and enrichment in the

subsoil.

June is associated with Mollisols, in

which accelerated vegetative growth

results in the development of a dark

surface soil.

July is associated with Ultisols, in

which hot and humid conditions have

resulted in a clay-enriched subsoil and

lower fertility.

August is associated with Oxisols, in

which very hot and humid conditions

Histosols

1999
8

NCSS Newsletter

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.

have resulted in maximum soil

weathering.

September is associated with

Aridisols, which formed under hot and

dry conditions in arid areas.

October, a month of color changes in

plants, is associated with Spodosols,

which are dominantly in areas of cooler

soil temperatures.

November is associated with

Vertisols, in which soil cracks are very

pronounced in late fall prior to

precipitation.

December is associated with

Andisols, which are volcanic soils in

the Northwestern States.

This sequence of soil orders will

enable the user of this calendar to

associate soil climatic conditions with

soil properties and soil development.

Brief descriptions of the soil orders are

included on the calendar. Technical

descriptions of the orders are included

in Soil Taxonomy, which will be

published within the next few weeks.

Stories, Tales, and BaldFaced Lies

Edited by Henry Mount, Soil Scientist,

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, National Soil Survey Center.

Following are two stories fromHenry Mount’s collection of

folklore about soil scientists during the

first 100 years of the soil survey

program.

John Kimble and Maurice

Mausbach Honored

At the 1998 annual meeting of theSoil Science Society of America

(SSSA) held in Baltimore, Maryland, Dr.

John Kimble, Research Soil Scientist,

USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, National Soil

Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska, was

given the International Soil Science

Award and Dr. Maurice J. Mausbach,

Deputy Chief for Soil Survey and

Resource Assessment, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, was

named a Fellow of SSSA.

Pit Implosion

Contributed by Fred Minzenmayer, Soil

Scientist, USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service.

I

 was on a sampling trip to southcentral Kansas during the 1980’s.

We had a backhoe operator who dug a

deep pit in sandy material. Five or six

soil scientists scrambled into the pit,

and only I was left on solid ground.

“Guys,” I warned, “that pit doesn’t

look too safe.”

“Fred, get your butt down here!”

Cleveland Watts yelled.

I got into the pit, and it immediately

imploded, covering all of us to our

waists. We could not extract ourselves

from the sandy material. We were stuck.

The backhoe operator immediately

jumped onto his machine and yelled,

“I’ll free yuh!”

As the steel teeth from the backhoe

came at us, I yelled, “Don’t try to

scoop us out. You’ll slice off our arms

and legs if you try. Dig a hole beside

us!”

The backhoe operator worked and

worked until each of us was able to

crawl like ants onto the surface of

mother earth. The price had been heavy,

however. He had totally mucked up an

area that must have been 50 by 50 feet.

About that time the landowner came

walking up and yelled at us. “What the

heck is going on! I thought you were

only going to dig a little hole.”

Paha

Contributed by Ken Hinkley, Soil Scientist

(retired), USDA, Soil Conservation Service

(now the Natural Resources Conservation

Service).

Dr. Wayne Sholtes was theleading instructor for the Soil

Science Institute at Ames, Iowa,

during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Before

that time, I was one of his college

students at Iowa State who took a

field tour. We rode in a bus over the

glaciated landscapes of Iowa looking

for pahas.

“Today, I will buy a cup of coffee for

the first student that identifies a paha,”

he told us during the ride.

We students powwowed and

decided to play a trick on our professor.

One soil scientist knew this territory

well. He would give a signal to us when

he spied one. The signal was given that

morning, and all 30 students yelled

“Paha!”

We thought sure that Dr. Sholtes

would buy each of us a cup of coffee.

Instead, we were surprised when he

came out of a coffee shop with one cup

of coffee and 30 straws.