1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

Issue 17

November 2001

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.

The Battle of Holguin Hill

By Alan C. Terrell, Soil Data Quality

Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, MO9, Temple, Texas. Background

information by Bill Johnson, Soil Scientist,

MO8, Phoenix, Arizona.

Background

An e-mail message from Bill Johnson to

Russel Barmore, Kenneth Adams, and Hayes

Dye.

I just had to share this e-mail with

you. It is classic Terrell. You need a

little background information to fully

appreciate it.

When the revised Thermic

ORTHENTS were posted for peer

review, “Young Bill” Svetlik questioned

the classification of Holguin. He

suggested it be classified as a

HaploCAMBIDS. Terrell said that

based on the CaCO3 described it would

probably make a HaploCALCIDS.

Yesterday Lynn Loomis wrote Terrell

an e-mail to say that he found some old

lab data for Holguin and that it didn’t

have a calcic. I wrote Terrell and asked

him if he was finally ready to concede

that “Young Bill” was right. This e-mail

is Terrell’s response. Enjoy.

“Old Bill”

The Battle

An e-mail message from Alan C.Terrell to

Lynn Loomis, Jerry Rives, Rusty Dowell, and

Dale Sprankle.

Gentlemen (loosely speaking),

The classification of the subject soil

series has come under attack. I’m

marshaling the troops (you guys) to

help in the battle that is brewing. The

stakes are high. The outcome is

uncertain.

Holguin is currently on a hill named

Torriorthents. We have held this

position for several years now, since

1997 to be exact. This hill has been

attacked by battle-hardened, highly

trained commandos from the west.

They fired the first round in a surprise

attack, and renamed the hill

Haplocambids.

In a reconnaissance of the

battleground, I found an opening, a

weakness, in the armor of the attackers.

I counterattacked and renamed the hill

Haplocalcids.

Meanwhile, back at the field

headquarters, General Loomis, the field

general in charge, received some

counterintelligence information from

Headquarters in Lincoln. The calcium

carbonate relied upon to sustain the

battle and hold the hill was not

sufficient to stave off an anticipated

counterattack. I sent a communication

out that things looked bleak on the front

lines, and that holding Haplocalcids hill

was going to be costly, and victory was

not certain.

Our battle plans need revision, and

we need reinforcements. General

Loomis, I think that we should hold

Haplocalcids hill, but to do so will

require further intelligence and

supplies. I suggest you send out a small,

but elite group to the battlefield. Revisit

the battle site, take notes, make

observations, and bring samples from

the hill back to the field headquarters. I

would suggest you run local tests on the

samples, paying particular attention to

the calcium carbonate percentages. Call

me at general Headquarters in Temple

and we can covertly discuss sampling

The Battle of Holguin Hill ................. 1

New Tool Provides Access to Soil

Survey Maps and Data .................. 2

Soil Data Viewer 3.0 .......................... 2

Technological Change:

The Psychology of Trying

Something New ............................. 3

W. Dennis Nettleton Retires .............. 3

Soil Quality Information Series

Adds Rangeland Soils ................... 4

Use-Dependent/Dynamic Soil

Properties Data Meeting ............... 4

Ecoregion Mapping ........................... 5

Connecticut Soils Judged ................... 7

SSSA Membership............................. 7

Horace Smith Announces

Retirement ..................................... 7

Status of Implementation of Field

Data Recorders.............................. 8

Language Matters ............................ 10
2

NCSS Newsletter

procedures, as these electronic lines of

communication may not be secure.

With this newly gathered

intelligence, we will either lay

permanent claim to the hill, and declare

victory, or retreat, living to fight

another day. General Loomis, I know

you have other battles to fight, and I

leave timing to your discretion.

However, a long delay just puts off the

inevitable battle that must be fought.

Thanks for your help, and good luck

men.

ACT 

Terrell gets reinforcements. All General

Loomis could spare was part of a soldier,

one rifle, and a box of Twinkies. (Photo

courtesy of Intelligence Headquarters,

Lincoln Nebraska).

New Tool Provides Access

to Soil Survey Maps and

Data

From “USDA NRCS Technology News,”

September 2001.

The Soil Data Viewer (SDV) hasbeen developed as a companion

tool to the Customer Service Toolkit

(CST). SDV provides access to the soil

survey database for processing and

displaying soil data and information

through a list of interpretations, soil

interpretive groups, and physical and

chemical soil properties. It can be used

as a stand-alone tool independent of

CST and in either GIS or non-GIS

mode.

SDV is an easy-to-use tool for

geospatial analysis of soil information

for resource assessment and

management. An extension to

ArcView, it allows the user to easily

create tabular reports or soil-based

thematic maps and offers several

methods for processing map unit

components. SDV shields the user from

the complexity of the soil database and

incorporates rules for the appropriate

use of soil data.

Version 3.0 of SDV, to be released

soon, uses the new SSURGO Version 2

data format, which includes soil data

and interpretations generated by NASIS

(National Soil Information System).

States are beginning to generate and

certify SSURGO data sets in this

format.

For more information and technical

assistance, contact:

Robert D. Nielsen

National Soil Survey Center

Lincoln, Nebraska

(402) 437-4149

bob.nielsen@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov 

available as a downloadable

ARCVIEW extension or on CD-ROM.

This version of Soil Data Viewer will

install on Windows 95, 98, NT, and

2000 Professional operating systems. A

Web-downloadable version and user

guide can be found at: http://

www.itc.nrcs.usda.gov/soildataviewer/

updates.htm, under Stand-alone Soil

Data Viewer 3.0.

Soil Data Viewer 3.0 is designed to

work with the new SSURGO Version 2

data structure and will not work with

previous SSURGO products. The new

SSURGO data set includes SSURGO

spatial data and the new SSURGO

version 2 soil attribute data. Complete

SSURGO version 2 data sets containing

both the spatial and new attribute data

are available on a limited basis. These

updated SSURGO data sets will

become more commonly available as

previous versions of SSURGO products

are reattributed and certified for

distribution.

Users needing pre-certified

SSURGO version 2 attribute data

should contact the state soil scientist

responsible for the respective area and

request a NASIS 5.0 data export. The

contact information for the NRCS state

soil scientist can be found at http://

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

personnel/sodir.html. Upon receiving

the data export, the user will link the

spatial and attribute data using the

procedures described in http://

nasis.nrcs.usda.gov/products/

updatedbf.htm. This process will

create an interim SSURGO version 2

data set that can be used with Soil Data

Viewer.

For more information and technical

assistance, contact:

Robert D. Nielsen

National Soil Survey Center

Lincoln, Nebraska

(402) 437-4149

bob.nielsen@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov 

Soil Data Viewer 3.0

From “USDA NRCS Technology News,”

November 2001.

The NRCS Soil Survey Divisionis proud to announce the release

of SOIL DATA VIEWER 3.0. A

version of Soil Data Viewer designed

for other agencies, partners, and public

and NRCS non-CCE computers is
3

NCSS Newsletter

The five characteristics offer a quick

but effective way to screen a new

technology and determine its relative

potential for adoption. They also can be

used to identify potential barriers to

adoption. For example, if a new

technology is rated high in every

category but observability, then

marketing efforts should focus on

overcoming this weakness. You can

learn more about this topic by reading

the book Communications and

Innovations—A Cross-cultural

Approach, 2nd Edition, by Rogers and

Shoemaker. 

Technological Change:

The Psychology of Trying

Something New

By Berman Hudson, Senior Soil Scientist,

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Lincoln, Nebraska.

I

t took about 50 years for half the

 school districts in the U.S. to

adopt kindergarten. In comparison, it

took only 5 years for nearly all school

districts in the U.S. to adopt the “new

math.” Some innovations are adopted

much more quickly than others.

Furthermore, differences in the

acceptance rates for new technology are

both understandable and predictable.

Based on more than 50 years of study,

researchers have identified five

characteristics that determine how

quickly a new technology will be

adopted and if it ultimately will be

successful. These characteristics are

relative advantage, compatibility,

complexity, trialability, and

observability.

Relative advantage is the extent to

which a new technology or idea is

perceived to be more beneficial than the

technology or idea it is designed to

replace. Innovations that have a strong

relative advantage, such as hybrid corn,

will be adopted rapidly and soon will

diffuse throughout a population. In

contrast, innovations that have only a

small relative advantage will be

adopted slowly if at all. For example, a

few years ago it seemed that watches

with back-lighted displays might totally

replace those with moving hands.

However, that did not happen. A

sufficient number of people simply did

not see a relative advantage in having

the time displayed numerically to the

nearest second.

Compatibility is the degree to which

a new technology or idea is consistent

with the lifestyle, values, attitudes,

existing infrastructure, and needs of

potential adopters. Even if an

innovation has a high relative

advantage, it might be a poor candidate

for adoption if it rates very low in

compatibility. For example, rice

growers can easily adopt a new variety

of higher yielding rice, but they may

resist the idea of giving up rice

production and going into the catfish

business.

Complexity is the relative ease with

which potential adopters can

understand and implement a new

technology or idea. For example, most

Americans use calculators, ATM

machines, and cell phones because,

although the underlying technology is

complex, they are extremely simple to

use. A much smaller number of people

use global positioning systems (GPS),

partly because they are still too

complex at the user interface.

Trialability is the extent to which

potential adopters can implement

something a little bit at a time. For

example, farmers are more likely to

adopt a new crop variety if they can try

it out in a few small areas until its

advantages are proven. This option

allows them to try the new technology

with minimal risk. All other things

being equal, innovations that rank high

in trialability are likely to have a high

rate of adoption and diffusion

throughout a population.

Observability is the extent to which

the relative advantage of a new

technology can be seen. For example,

an innovation that shows an immediate

and pronounced positive effect might

be adopted rapidly. In contrast, an

innovation with benefits that are hard to

measure or that do not show up for

several decades would be adopted very

slowly if at all.

Photo courtesy of Dr. Nettleton.

W. Dennis Nettleton

Retires

By Dr. Carolyn G.Olson, National Leader for

Soil Survey Investigations, National Soil Survey

Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Lincoln, Nebraska.

W. Dennis Nettleton, Research Soil

Scientist on the Soil Survey

Investigations Staff at the National Soil

Survey Center in Lincoln, Nebraska,

retired from NRCS on October 1, 2001.

Following military service, Dennis

began his career as a student trainee for

the Soil Conservation Service in 1956.
4

NCSS Newsletter

Upon completion of a Ph.D. at North

Carolina State in 1965, Dr. Nettleton

was assigned to the SCS Riverside

Laboratory in Riverside, California, as

a research soil scientist. In 1976,

Dennis moved to Lincoln, Nebraska,

following the combining of three

research laboratories into the present

central location.

Dennis is internationally known for

his work on the micromorphology of

soils, soil genesis, arid soils, and

paleosol classification. He has

provided assistance and has been a

liaison to NRCS field offices for a

number of years. He will continue his

interests as a volunteer for NRCS. 

Soil Quality Information

Series Adds Rangeland

Soils

From “USDA NRCS Technology News,”

October 2001.

The popular Soil Quality Information Sheet series has

been expanded to cover topics relevant

to rangeland soils. The series describes

soil properties that change in response

to management and provides

information related to several indicators

used in rangeland health assessments.

The information sheets support

rangeland inventories and monitoring

and provide management strategies for

planning purposes.

The information sheets are intended

for as wide an audience as possible.

The information is primarily intended

for use in the planning process;

however, it can also be used as an

educational resource for teaching about

soil quality on rangeland. These

information sheets are a collaborative

effort of the Soil Quality Institute

(SQI), Grazing Lands Technology

Institute, and National Soil Survey

Center, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, USDA; the Jornada

Experimental Range, Agricultural

Research Service, USDA; and the

Bureau of Land Management, USDI.

The Rangeland Soil Quality

Information Sheet titles include:

“Introduction,” “Indicators for

Assessment and Monitoring,”

“Aggregate Stability,” “Compaction,”

“Infiltration,” “Organic Matter,”

“Physical and Biological Soil Crusts,”

“Soil Biota,” “Water Erosion,” and

“Wind Erosion.” The information

sheets are available on the SQI Web

site at http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/

survey/SQI/range.html. Hard copies can

be ordered by e-mailing a request to

jbauer@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov.

For more information, contact:

Arlene J. Tugel

Soil Quality Institute

(505) 646-2660

atugel@nmsu.edu 

Use-Dependent/Dynamic

Soil Properties Data

Meeting

By Arlene J. Tugel, Soil Scientist, Soil

Quality Institute, Natural Resources

Conservation Service.

Use-dependent and dynamic soilproperties and the development

of a database for these properties were

discussed at a meeting held in Lincoln,

Nebraska, August 13-15, 2001. The

meeting was co-sponsored by the

National Soil Survey Center (NSSC)

and the Soil Quality Institute (SQI). In

his opening remarks, Bob Ahrens,

Director, NSSC, said, “Your goal for

this meeting is to make plans for the

development of a database that includes

temporal soil properties. We need to be

sure we include data that is needed, not

just more data.”

Over 21 people representing the

NSSC, the Institutes (Soil Quality,

Grazing Lands Technology, and

Watershed Science), and the USDA

Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

attended the meeting. Specialists in

rangeland, forestry, erosion models,

water quality, agronomy, and urban land

presented the perspectives and data

needs unique to their disciplines.

Representatives from the NSSC and

SQI explained how dynamic soil

properties can add value to soil surveys

and soil interpretations and provided

information on current and past

activities related to the collection of

data, the development of a database,

and GIS considerations.

Concepts and models that can help

to integrate data for soil properties that

change were also presented and

discussed. Bob Grossman, NSSC,

described a method of coupling useinvariant and use-dependent data. Jeff

Herrick, ARS, described soil resistance

and resilience (figure 1) and showed

how these relate to the capacity of the

soil to function. Arlene Tugel, SQI,

presented a new technology from

Soil Function, Resistance

and Resilience

Low resistance

and high resilience

Soil with 

high resistance

Compaction

disturbance

Time (years)

Soil function

(% of capacity)

(Seybold, etal, 1999)

Low resistance

and low resilience

Figure 1
5

NCSS Newsletter

rangeland ecology, the State and

Transition Model, and showed how this

conceptual model integrates vegetationsoil-management interactions and can

provide a framework for organizing

information about dynamic soil

properties.

The following goal emerged from

facilitated work sessions: Develop

information linked to soil

components that includes soil

properties that change with use,

management, and time (seasonal,

diurnal, etc.) and that are important

for understanding soil ecological

processes and functions.

The group also summarized our

current situation and needs in regards to

soil properties that change (i.e., usedependent or dynamic soil properties):

The current database

contains many data elements

that can be considered use

dependent (e.g., soil organic

matter or carbon). However,

the current NASIS map unit

component data structure and

dictionary do not provide

adequate use dependent/

dynamic soil property values,

and the related interpretations,

plant/soil interactions, and

ecological functions. The

availability of dynamic soil

information will facilitate the

application of new science

(e.g., models, precision

agriculture, ecological site

descriptions, and

bioavailability of heavy metals

in urban ecosystems) in order

to more accurately inventory

the soil resource, make

assessments, and develop

better management

alternatives. This will allow

NRCS to provide more

complete and relevant

technical assistance to our

clients in order to better

enhance and protect our

natural resources.

For example, NRCS is embarking on

the application of two erosionprediction tools (WEPS 1.0 and

RUSLE2). These models are dependent

on dynamic near-surface properties and

hence are highly use dependent. Use of

soil property values that reflect the

effects of past management on the soil

will provide a more accurate prediction

of erosion.

A short-term plan for the next 15

months was developed. Activities

include the development of an initial

problem statement report, a literature

review of framework options for

organizing the database, and an

evaluation of the framework options

using existing data. A preliminary longterm plan was prepared. It indicates

user input, development of the

framework, identification of data needs,

testing methods, peer review, database

programming, development of data

collection methods, policy, cost

analysis, and budget and marketing

considerations.

There was a common understanding

among the participants that all of us

who are involved in the design and

development of the database and the

collection of data will be called upon to

look at and present data in ways that

may be different from those in our

current standard soil survey databases.

In order to meet future data needs, new

and innovative approaches will deserve

consideration.

The results of the meeting were

presented to the Soils Division

Leadership Team on August 16, 2001.

Horace Smith and others acknowledged

the contributions and good work of all

of the participants and encouraged the

group to continue its activities. Bob

Ahrens recommended and Horace

agreed to the designation of Craig

Ditzler, National Leader for Standards

and Classification, and Bill Puckett

Director, Soil Quality Institute, as cosponsors for the Use Dependent/

Dynamic Soil Properties Database

group. MO and State Office

representation early in the effort to

design a database was encouraged .

If you want more information about

the meeting or would like to participate

in this effort, contact Rick Bigler

(rick.bigler@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov),

Arlene Tugel (atugel@nmsu.edu), or

Curtis Talbot (curtis.talbot@usda.

gov). 

Ecoregion Mapping

By Sharon W. Waltman, Soil Scientist,

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

National Soil Survey Center.

Although the role of Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) in

the history of soil conservation and

natural resource planning is a familiar

one to USDA soil conservationists and

scientists, this framework of geographic

regions with similar patterns of soils,

climate, geology, water resources,

potential natural vegetation, and land

use is rarely used by scientists working

in the area of water quality and

ecosystem management concerns.

Instead, a framework developed by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) called “Ecoregions (Level III

and IV)” is used by State regulatory

agencies working in partnership with

USEPA to determine acceptable water

quality standards for nutrients and

agrichemicals. In addition, U.S. Forest

Service (USFS) scientists choose to use

the “National Hierarchy of Ecological

Units” to do their ecosystem

management work.

To foster more effective working

relationships (sharing of data and

knowledge) among Federal and State
6

NCSS Newsletter

Abstract of the Paper About Common Ecological Regions

In 1996, nine federal agencies with mandates to inventory and manage the nation’s

land, water, and biological resources signed a memorandum of understanding

entitled “Developing a Spatial Framework of Ecological Units of the United

States.” This spatial framework is the basis for interagency coordination and

collaboration in the development of ecosystem management strategies. One of the

objectives in this memorandum is the development of a map of common ecological

regions for the conterminous United States. The regions defined in the spatial

framework will be areas within which biotic, abiotic, terrestrial, and aquatic

capacities and potentials are similar. The agencies agreed to begin by exploring

areas of agreement and disagreement in three federal natural-resource spatial

frameworks—Major Land Resource Areas of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Hierarchy of

Ecological Units of the USDA Forest Service, and Level III Ecoregions of the US

Environmental Protection Agency. The explicit intention is that the framework will

foster an ecological understanding of the landscape, rather than an understanding

based on a single resource, single discipline, or single agency perspective. This

paper describes the origin, capabilities, and limitations of three major federal

agency frameworks and suggests why a common ecological framework is

desirable. The scientific and programmatic benefits of common ecological regions

are described, and a proposed process for development of the common framework

is presented. 

scientists dealing with water quality and

other environmental concerns, Common

Ecological Regions (CER) for the

United States were developed from

1996 to 2001. Part of this effort

included the development of a

background and process paper for

journal publication. This article,

prepared by members of the Common

Ecological Regions Interagency

Steering Committee and Technical

Team, is entitled “Developing a Spatial

Framework of Common Ecological

Regions for the Conterminous United

States.” It was published in

Environmental Management 28: 293-

316 (2001) and is available on the Web

(http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/cer/

cerarticle.htm). The authors are Gerard

McMahon (U.S.Geological Survey),

Steven M. Gregonis (USFS), Sharon W.

Waltman (NRCS), James M. Omernik

(USEPA), Thor D. Thorson (NRCS),

Jerry A. Freeouf (USFS), Andrew H.

Rorick (USFS), and James E. Keys

(USFS). Reprints can be obtained by

sending an email request to

ecomap_nitt@usgs.gov.

Dr. Berman Hudson, Senior Soil

Scientist, NRCS, serves as the chair for

the CER steering committee, and Thor

Thorson, Soil Data Quality Specialist,

NRCS, MO 1, Portland, Oregon, and

Sharon W. Waltman, Soil Scientist,

National Soil Survey Center, serve on

the technical team along with

representatives from all member

agencies. This project involves

ecoregion and MLRA mapping efforts

by nine federal agencies (NRCS; USFS;

Agricultural Research Service; Bureau

of Land Management; USGS, Water

Resources Division and Biological

Resources Division; U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service; National Park

Service; and USEPA).

To learn more about Common

Ecological Regions, see the CER Web

site (http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/

soils/cer/).
7

NCSS Newsletter

Connecticut Soils Judged

By Shawn McVey, Assistant State Soil

Scientist, USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Tolland, Connecticut.

Drumlins, flood plains, and kame terraces held the answers for

over 40 college students participating in

the Northeast Regional Collegiate Soil

Judging Contest hosted by NRCS and

the University of Connecticut in

October. Students competed in timed

events against each other and in teams,

attempting to properly identify and

describe five soils commonly found in

Connecticut. Students judged soil

morphology, profile and site

characteristics, soil classification, and

soil interpretations related to urban

development. The top scoring teams,

University of Maryland, Ohio State

University, and University of Rhode

Island, will advance to the National Soil

Judging contest held in Minnesota. For

more information contact Shawn

McVey at 860-871-4044. 

Contestants examining a Pootatuck series

profile.

Horace Smith

SSSA Membership

By Robert Ahrens, Director, National Soil

Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Membership in the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA)

has steadily declined over the past

several years. Here are some facts on

membership:

• Twenty-four scientists from the

National Soil Survey Center are

members.

• Eleven State Soil Scientists are

members.

• Recently, the CSA (Crop ScienceSoil Science-Agronomy) published a

list of graduate degree recipients in the

field of soil science and their advisors.

Only 22 percent of the recipients of

advanced degrees in soil science and

about 50 percent of the advisors are

members of the SSSA.

All scientists associated with the

National Cooperative Soil Survey are

encouraged to join the SSSA. There is

strength in numbers, and we all benefit

from promoting our profession. There

are several membership options. One

includes membership without

subscription to the Soil Science Society

of America Journal at a reduced cost.

For more information on joining, access

the SSSA Web site (http://www.asacssa-sssa.org/membership/). 

Horace Smith Announces

Retirement

By Robert Ahrens, Director, National Soil

Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Horace Smith, Director of the Soil Survey Division,

announced his retirement effective

January 2002. Horace is a native of

Clarkton, North Carolina, and received

his B.S. degree from Virginia State

University and an M.S. degree from

The Ohio State University.

Horace came up “through the ranks”

serving in various positions as a soil

scientist in SCS and NRCS for over 38

years. He began his career as a field

soil scientist in Illinois and was

promoted to project and resource soil

scientist positions in Ohio and

Maryland. Of all his accomplishments

during his time in the field, he is most

noted for piloting the soil survey of the

District of Columbia. This survey was

one of the National Cooperative Soil

Survey’s first efforts to map an

extensive metropolitan area, and it set

the standards for making soil surveys in

urban areas. Horace was Assistant Soil

Scientist in Maryland before moving on

to Assistant Principal Soil Correlator at

the Northeast National Technical

Center. He served as the State Soil

Scientist in North Carolina from 1984

to 1995 and fostered strong

relationships and cooperation with the

Division of Environment and Natural

Resources and the North Carolina

Center for Geographic Information and

Analysis. The partnership is still strong

today and continues to enhance the soil

survey program in North Carolina.

As Regional Soil Scientist at the

Southeast Regional Office, Horace had

responsibilities for oversight and

evaluation. In 1996, Horace assumed

the position of Director of the Soil

Survey Division. As Director, Horace

was a strong advocate of the MLRA

concept of managing soil surveys and

was instrumental in the establishment of

MLRA soil survey offices. He
8

NCSS Newsletter

promoted digitizing soil surveys and

helped to secure additional

appropriations from Congress for these

efforts. Horace was strongly committed

to the field soil scientists and initiated

recognition awards for field soil

scientists and members of the National

Cooperative Soil Survey.

Horace was the recipient of many

awards and honors, including the

Achievement Award from the Soil

Science Society of North Carolina. He

also had several special assignments to

foreign countries, including Mexico,

The Gambia (Republic of West Africa),

and Taiwan.

Horace provided strong leadership

to the soil survey program. Because of

his extensive field experience, he felt a

certain kinship with the field soil

scientist and was a strong advocate and

promoter of the resource soil scientist

and the field soil scientist.

Horace plans to retire in the Raleigh

area and pursue various hobbies and

enjoy his family. 

Status of Implementation

of Field Data Recorders

By Lyle Steffen, Geologist, National Soil

Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

At an MLRA Leaders Business Meeting held July 10-12, 2001,

in Plymouth, Massachusetts, Joe Moore

led a discussion on issues raised by Soil

Data Quality Specialists. The third

priority issue was “Implementation of

Field Data Recorders.” This article

describes some of the data recorders

that are available, their limitations, their

current use in the agency, and the status

of future implementation in soil survey.

What’s Out There?

Portable electronic field data

recorders are available in three different

platforms. Palm Pilots are the smallest

units, have the least computing power,

and have severe limitations for data

collection, storage, and transfer. Pocket

PCs are small (less than 0.5 pound)

hand-held computers that are

programmable and can be used for field

data collection. The discontinued Apple

Newton is an example of a Pocket PC.

Neither the Palm Pilots nor the Pocket

PCs are typically rugged enough for

day-to-day field use. Hammerheads are

larger (2 pounds), rugged, hand-held

computers that are shock-, water-, and

dust-proof.

At least three companies build

Hammerheads that are rugged enough

for day-to-day field use. Tripod Data

Systems (TDS, a Trimble Company)

builds the Ranger and Husky machines,

DAP Technologies has the Microflex

line, and Harvestmaster has the Allegro

Field PC. The machines cost from

$3,000 to $7,000 with the minimum

software, peripherals, cables, and

connectors required for field mapping,

electronic data collection, and data

transfer to desktops. They typically use

Windows CE or a proprietary CE

operating system.

Compaq, Hewlett Packard, and

Casio make Pocket PCs priced around

$1,000. This price typically includes

the minimum software, cables, and

connectors to record field data

electronically and transfer it to desktop

PCs. Pocket PCs typically run on a

version of Windows CE, but the HP

Jornada is capable of running a pocket

version of Microsoft Office.

Limitations

Currently, screen size, screen

visibility in daylight, screen resolution,

the number of gray scales that can be

represented on digital orthophotos, and

data entry without a keyboard continue

to be problems with all field data

recorders. The rapid evolution of

hardware also presents a problem for

users trying to maintain an inventory of

high-quality machines while utilizing

government procurement procedures.

Most operating systems for hand-held

devices are a version of Windows CE.

The preferred data synchronization

technology is USB, so it would be

prudent not to purchase any field data

recorders until the field units and

NRCS Common Computing

Environment (CCE) machines have

Windows 2000 or XP operating

systems or another system capable of

supporting USB technology.

There is no commercial soils

mapping software available for any

hand-held field data recorder. There are

currently no commercial soils or field

data collection forms available for these

machines. Programming data collection

forms is not straightforward in

Windows CE or NS/Basic CE software.

Who’s Using What?

The National Soil Survey Center

(NSSC) staff does not know the extent

to which field data recorders are used in

soil survey work. It does not know if

any soil scientists have mapped soils

using the Pocket PCs or Hammerheads

or if any programmed data collection

forms are available for any of these

Using the Microflex PC 9800 with an attached

GPS unit.
9

NCSS Newsletter

hand-held computers. Henry Mount

established a list serve over a year ago

for field soil scientists to post their

experiences with electronic mapping

tools. After some initial postings when

the list serve was first set up, there have

been no postings for several months.

NSSC staff has used the obsolete

Apple Newton to complete a few Order

1 soil surveys of farm fields. It used the

Newton to record soil properties at grid

points on a spreadsheet form. A GPS

unit was used separately to

georeference the grid points. The

electronic data were transferred to a

laptop computer, and the spatial

variation of soil properties was

displayed in ArcView.

Some field soil scientists are

integrating GPS units and digital

cameras in their field work. MLRA

staff members who are updating

existing surveys record field site

locations using GPS and then import

the GPS coordinates into the University

of Wisconsin’s 3DMapper software so

that they can see where they were on

the ground at the time they made their

field observations. 3DMapper software

shows georeferenced landscapes in

three-dimensional blocks with an

orthophoto base and soil lines. Idaho is

training all their soil scientists in the

use of 3DMapper.

The NSSC recently purchased two

Pocket PCs—a Casio EG800 and a

Compaq 3760—to evaluate prior to

purchasing Personal Data Assistants

(PDAs) for use in an Electronic Field

Data Collection and Analysis course

being developed. This course will

eventually be offered to soil scientists

and other disciplines in all NRCS

offices. The course will focus on

collecting field data electronically using

GPS, digital cameras, and PDAs. The

course will include downloading data

into desktop PCs, basic image

processing, and importing electronic

data into other applications (Microsoft

Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and

3DMapper).

Based on information gathered at

Basic Soil Survey courses held in

Lincoln, most recent college graduates

can use ArcView GIS software on

desktop PCs. Beyond these few

examples, it is not known what other

types of hardware and software are

currently being used by soil scientists to

collect field data or map soils.

Future Implementation

Gary Hallbauer at the Cartographic

and Geospatial Data Center in Ft.

Worth has been assigned the task of

researching the hand-held computer

market in order to recommend three

different systems for NRCS to

purchase. One system would be of the

Palm Pilot genre. Managers would use

it to monitor schedules and email. The

second system would be a field data

recorder to replace the Newton in NRI.

The third system would be a hand-held

computer that integrates GPS

technology with GIS software.

Micheal Golden, MLRA 9 Leader,

is the soil science representative on a

recently formed work group that is

evaluating rugged, mobile field data

collectors for NRCS. Frank Jeter, who

is on the Information Technology

Center staff in Ft. Collins, is leading the

group. The group plans to host two or

three projects in 2002 to evaluate

different machines in order to make a

recommendation for an agency

purchase in 2003.

Before recommending

implementation of hand-held computers

or Pocket PCs as field data collection

tools, the NSSC must know what

works. After the NRI and Ft. Collins

evaluations are completed and the

NSSC staff has evaluated Pocket PCs, a

recommendation can be made on what

products to purchase in 2003. If any

soil scientists have field experience

with any Hammerhead or Pocket PCs

(other than Newtons), please contact

Mike Golden

(micheal.golden@tx.usda.gov) or Lyle

Steffen

(lyle.steffen@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov). 
10

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.

Language Matters

By Stanley Anderson, Editor, USDA, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, National Soil

Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

For reasons that remainmysterious to me, my former

boss (now retired) cited me as the

contact person for a list of “factoids”

that NRCS posted on the Web during

the centennial of the National

Cooperative Soil Survey. These

factoids were collected from Bob

Ahrens, Berman Hudson, and other

NRCS soil scientists. They were

submitted to me for editing. I spent less

than 1 hour on them and then forgot

about them, until people started calling

me to ask about the validity or source

of the factoids. An innocent bystander, I

had no idea how to answer the

questions, which I learned to fob off on

Tom Reedy, a soil scientist at the center

who sits near me.

The queries about the factoids

discontinued after a while, until August

30 of this year, when an employee for

National Geographic called me.

I believe she was an editor charged

with the responsibility of checking both

the facts and the factoids to be included

in a story about soil erosion that was to

appear in an upcoming issue of

National Geographic. As soon as she

used the word “factoid,” I tried to fob

her off on Tom, but she asked her

question anyway. She was concerned

about the following factoid:

In the spring of 1934, a dust

storm originating in the Great

Plains carried an estimated

200 million tons of soil to the

Northeastern United States

and out to sea. This storm

caused “muddy rains” in New

York and “black snows” in

Vermont.

She asked me whether the

measurement was in metric tons or in

short tons. I had never heard of a metric

ton (or a short ton, for that matter) and

thought that a ton was a ton (2,000

pounds), so I told her that I was not the

person to ask, that I would transfer her

to Tom. “Just tell me this,” she

responded. “Does the USDA have a

policy about reporting metric or short

tons?” Again, I had never heard of a

metric ton, so I transferred her to Tom,

though I listened to his end of the

conversation.

The editor indicated that the

Discovery Channel had a similar

factoid, but one that estimated that 350

million tons was removed from the

Great Plains in a dust storm in 1934,

probably in the same storm referred to

in the NRCS factoid. She wanted to

know which figure to use. She said that

she was inclined to use the NRCS

number because, after all, it came from

the Federal Government.

I have reservations about her

reasoning.

First, since this phone conversation I

have learned that 1 short ton is the

equivalent of 0.907 metric ton. Thus,

the difference between a short ton and a

metric ton does not explain the

discrepancy between the different

figures in the two factoids (200 million

tons and 350 million tons).

Second, I wonder about the term

“factoid.” The suffix “oid” implies that

the term refers to something that

resembles a fact without actually being

one, that it refers to a sham fact or a

false fact. The Random House

Dictionary of the English Language,

second edition, 1987, defines the term

as follows:

something fictitious or

unsubstantiated that is

presented as fact, devised

especially to gain publicity

and accepted because of

constant repetition.

The fact is, the meaning of the term

appears to be drifting, so that it can

now describe not only sham facts but

also ones that can be verified, for

example, by National Geographic. That

is to say, the term can now refer to valid

facts. If this is the case, I wonder how a

“valid” factoid differs from an ordinary

fact. Perhaps, the difference is that the

factoid is somehow extraordinary.

Third, studying the NRCS factoid

more closely, I wonder why National

Geographic wanted to verify it at all.

The statement defines itself as an

estimate. Note the words “an estimated

200 million tons of soil.” Also, consider

the end of the first sentence, where the

200 million tons is carried not only to

the Northeast but also “out to sea.”

Imagine measuring that. It appears that

this factoid is a horseback opinion, that

the number “200 million” was pulled

out of thin air, as it were. In other

words, this is a factoid in the original

sense of the term.