1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

November 2002

In This Issue—

Editor’s Note

Issues of this newsletter are

available on the World Wide Web

(http://soils.usda.gov/). Click on NCSS,

then on Activities & Newsletters, and

then on the desired issue number.

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.

Review of The Earth

Around Us

By Carolyn G. Olson, National Leader, Soil

Survey Investigations, National Soil Survey

Center, NRCS, Lincoln, Nebraska.

The Earth Around Us: Maintaining

a Livable Planet, edited by Jill

Schneiderman and published in 2000

by W.H. Freeman, NY (455 pp., ISBN

0716733978, $27.95 hardcover), is

definitely worth a visit whether your

professional interests are in the earth

sciences, in environmental policy

decisions, or in the ethics of

environmental sustainability or whether

you just enjoy readings in the natural

sciences. Jill Schneiderman has

convinced an impressively diverse

group of authors to participate in this

endeavor. The book title is a reflection

of her respect for Rachel Carson’s

views expressed in the book The Sea

Around Us (Carson, 1979). In

recounting Carson’s view that science

should be a part of everyday life, not

separated from it, Schneiderman

introduces this collection of works with

the hope that these will present every

reader with an engaging, yet serious,

view of our earth, its resources, and our

responsibilities as its residents.

The book is divided into seven titled

sections: “Records of Time and

History” “Scientific Judgments and

Ethical Considerations,” “Resources

Reconfigured,” “Local Manipulations,”

“Inventive Solutions,” “Whole Earth

Perturbations,” and “Global

Perspectives.” Each section is

introduced by a short paragraph

summarizing key points. Within the

sections are four or five chapters, each

written by a different author from

academia, the government, or the

private sector. The diversity of authors

and writing styles makes for an overall

intriguing look at our environmental

world. The chapters are short and

concise, are easily read in one or two

sittings, and are completely

independent of one another. The subject

matter is presented clearly, usually

explained in laymen’s terms. Some

chapters are presented in a case-history

format. The collection is targeted to

attract those interested in the earth

sciences as well as those in public

policy decision-making positions with

more limited scientific training. Also, it

is written with enough technical

background to appeal to the most

seasoned scientist among us.

Appropriately, former MacArthur

fellow Susan Kieffer sets the stage

with a discussion of time scales in

chapter 1. The definition of “rare” is

treated as fluid, depending upon its

reference to time scale. A “rare event”

in the context of human lifespans is

quite different from a “rare event” in

earth history.

Individuals familiar with naturalist

writer John McPhee and the late

Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard

paleontologist, will enjoy chapters

composed of excerpts from some of

their larger works. In chapter 2,

McPhee travels a portion of Interstate

80 from California to Nevada with

geologist Deffeyes and vividly

describes the incredibly different

picture that he, the layman, and

Deffeyes, the professional, each see in

observing the same natural setting.

McPhee then segues to a narrative on

James Hutton, often called the founder

of modern geology, and Hutton’s early

observations of the earth. Gould’s

Review of The Earth Around Us ........ 1

An Editing Assignment ....................... 3

Central States Forest Soils

Workshop ....................................... 3

How Soils Can Become PM10 ........... 4

Lindo J. Bartelli: A Personal

Commentary ................................... 6

Russian Fulbright Scholar Aids

Northern Circumpolar Soil

Database Development .................. 6

New SOILS Web Site Online ............. 7

Standard Data Format Facilitates

Use of Soil Survey Data ................. 7

Soil Survey Images ............................. 8
2

NCSS Newsletter

excerpt discusses the human time scale

relative to geologic time scales and

suggests that if we are inclined to

emphasize the human time scale, we

must move toward an environmental

ethic based on the “golden rule.”

Each chapter in Part II gives the

reader pause for thought. Almost

imperceptibly, the authors skillfully

weave philosophical arguments into

scientific concepts that we, as scientists,

have either taken for granted or have

not taken the time to consider. Naomi

Oreskes, a science historian from the

University of California, San Diego,

examines the use of computer models in

the earth sciences to describe systems

that are too large or complex to study

by other means. She points out that the

closer a model comes to full

representation of a complex earth

system, the more difficult it is to

evaluate. The risk of wrongly

supporting a false-theory model is only

academic until the model is used as a

basis for public policy decisions.

A few chapters deal specifically with

Federal Government issues. In chapter

7, Gordon Eaton, former Director of the

U.S. Geological Survey, describes how

public needs and funding have

increasingly shaped governmentsponsored research through time.

George Fisher, from Johns Hopkins,

attempts to describe sustainability and

faith as described by religion and what

that actually means in terms of difficult

choices in resource allocation, land use,

and species diversity. Two chapters

assess government-sponsored

management of Federal lands.

Part III discusses our perception of

natural resources, their availability, and

whether we need to reevaluate

development in the twenty-first century.

Parts IV and V should be familiar to

soil scientists and other earth scientists

who regularly deal with public reaction

to environmental issues large and small.

One of my favorite chapters is one

about soils by Ron Amundsen,

University of California, Berkeley. In

this piece, Amundsen’s deceptively

engaging style reminds me of Garrison

Keillor’s story-telling from Lake

Wobegon in A Prairie Home

Companion and William Logan’s book

Dirt: The Ecstatic Skin of the Earth

(Logan, 1995). In a friendly and

unassuming manner, Amundsen

makes some strong statements about

the manipulation of soils. He uses

terms seldom associated with soils,

such as “domesticated” and “not

reproducible.” We are challenged to

think about human-induced changes to

soils, many of which are largely

permanent.

Several chapters address water

issues. The Edwards aquifer in Texas is

explained in lay terminology along with

its use and management. The answers

to some serious questions posed here

may determine the sustainability of

the aquifer. Will it remain a viable

water supply for future generations?

Another chapter discusses the history of

water catchment in the Catskill

Mountains of New York State and

damming of the rivers for the sole

purpose of supplying drinking water to

New York City. This was a domestic

Three-Gorges-dam crisis of our own

making, displacing people at onequarter their land’s worth in the early

1900s. It is the eastern USA equivalent

of the debacle surrounding the

diversion of water from Owens Valley,

California, to supply Los Angeles, as

described in Reisner’s Cadillac Desert

(Reisner, 1986).

In several chapters, coastal systems

are discussed in the context of the

mitigation of natural and manmade

hazards. Nineteen of the twenty most

densely populated counties in the USA

are coastal counties. Development

increases risks, vulnerabilities, and

economic costs. These factors must be

weighed against their impact on natural

systems. Chapter 18 is a historical

discussion of the dredging of New York

Harbor and the subsequent location and

relocation of sites for dredged material.

Amusing, yet informative, chapters 16

and 17 illustrate the folly of trying to

outbuild nature.

Paul Doss illustrates wetland

identification and mitigation from a

hydrogeologist’s perspective. This

chapter should strike a chord with soil

scientists as well. Finally, no discussion

of inland water would be complete

without a chapter on dams. The twist

here is that this case history describes

the process negotiated by several

public and private entities that has

resulted in a positive environmental

solution following a catastrophic dam

failure.

Later chapters approach earth

systems and our responsibilities as a

population on earth from a more global

perspective. Steven Stanley, a respected

Johns Hopkins paleontologist, tackles

the relation of climate, the ocean

circulation conveyor belt, and ice age

initiation. He warns of the

consequences of increased use of fossil

fuels. Kirsten Menking, Vassar College,

examines thick Owens Lake sediments

and addresses climate proxies through

time. Robin Hornung and Thomas

Downham aptly explain solar radiation,

ozone depletion, and their

consequences to human health and

terrestrial biology.

Victor Baker’s thought-provoking

essay on the philosophy of science and

deductive reasoning brings us almost

full circle to McPhee’s chapter

connecting the observer and the

observed in geology. E-an Zen

discusses the transition toward

sustainability that next generations will

have to face and the difficult choices

needed to be made by a globally aware

populace. What entities can be

sustained on a global basis that will

meet the needs of a much larger but

necessarily stabilized human

population? What standard of living

will be acceptable?
3

NCSS Newsletter

Finally, and most appropriately,

C. Edward Buchwald summarizes this

collection with his title question, “What

else should my neighbor know?” He

leads us in a discussion of the major

issues of which we, as residents of the

earth, need reminding: world

population, urban growth, inappropriate

consumption, and limits to natural

resources. In a manner similar to E-an

Zen’s earlier exhortation, we are

reminded that the stewardship choices

we make now will greatly impact our

descendants and their ability to sustain

a living planet.

As a whole, this book has only a few

annoyances. The bibliography is listed

in one section near the end of the book

rather than at the end of each chapter,

where access would be more

convenient. It requires that the reader

flip back and forth to find specific

references. In order to effectively

search the bibliography, the reader must

recall the number or title of the

appropriate chapter. As with any book

consisting of chapters by authors from

many backgrounds and different kinds

of professional expertise, the reader is

occasionally taken aback by differences

in writing styles when moving from

chapter to chapter.

Overall, Schneiderman has managed

to collect a group of papers that are

entertaining as well as informative.

Each chapter has a message for

scientists and laymen alike. We need to

maintain a healthy respect for natural

systems. The effect that humans have

on nature has become increasingly

devastating. A paraphrase of the

question that politicians often ask their

constituents as election day nears may

be the best summary of this book’s

intent: “Have we left the earth any

better off than when we arrived?”

References

Carson, R. 1979. The Sea Around Us.

Oxford University Press, NY. 250 pp.

Keillor, G. “It was a quiet week in Lake

Wobegon,” from A Prairie Home

Companion, National Public Radio

weekly series.

Logan, W.B. 1995. Dirt: The Ecstatic

Skin of the Earth. Riverhead Books,

New York. 202 pp.

Reisner, M. 1986. Cadillac Desert:

The American West and Its

Disappearing Water. Viking Press,

NY. 582 pp. 

An Editing Assignment

Supplied by John Kelley, Soil Data Quality

Specialist, USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.

John cannot remember who wrote this

description. He thinks that it “probably came

from TN or NC.” He calls it “a little editing

assignment.”

722G—Pigeonroost-Rock outcrop

complex, awful steep

This unit consist of fairly deep, dry,

awful steep soils and sandstone rock

ledges, which are might-nert straight

up-and-down. Slopes range from 0 to

90 percent, mostly they are closer to 90

percent.

Typically, the surface layer of the

Pigeonroost soil ain’t bad, if it wern’t

so steep and rocky. In most places, you

have to crawl up and slide down. This

is dangerous, not only because you risk

breaking a laig, but there are plenty of

bodacious rattlesnakes ready to put the

bite on the slider or crawlers.

The subsoil, in most places, is a

gooey, sticky mess. I don’t know what

it is in other places, cause it’s got so

many rocks in it I can’t dig. Water,

which is good for drinking, oozes out in

some places. The rock cliffs act as a

barrier to both man and beast. If you’re

up you can’t get down; if you’re down,

your can’t get up.

Generally speaking, this stuff ain’t

good for nutin’ cept growing trees.

Consequently, the U.S. Forest Service

owns a whole bunch of this stuff.

Thesoils are so steep and move aroun

so much that the trees have to grow in

odd shapes just to stay on the mountain.

Sometimes they are in the shape of a

bow. Tree mortality, usually the result

of falling off the mountain, is quite

high. Green briers grow to might-nei

big-round as a corn stalk. Lots of purty

blossoms grow in the ground cover.

These areas ain’t no trouble to

manage. Most folks try to stay out of

um. Sometimes, however, a young,

inexperienced logger will try to harvest

the best of the worst trees. Them that

don’t get snakebit, usually go busted,

sometimes from falling off rock bluffs.

Artifacts, from logging operations, are

scattered plum through the delineation.

Occasionally, a bearded, unkept forester

wanders out, some, however, don’t.

These areas are well suited to some

kinds of wildlife, specially short lagged

varmits and crawling critters. Long

legged critters can’t make a go of it.

Pizen snakes are common to many.

Capability classification - Bad

Woodland group - Worse 

Central States Forest Soils

Workshop

By Jeff Glanville, Soil Scientist, USDA,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Columbus, Ohio.

The 22nd annual Central States Forest Soils Workshop was held

October 15-17 in northwest Ohio. Over

130 registered participants saw a

variety of soils and land uses.

After registering Tuesday afternoon,

we were introduced to northwest Ohio

by some excellent presenters. Much of

northwest Ohio is in what was known as

the Great Black Swamp, referring to the

conditions before drainage carried away

much of the surface water. This area is

the former lakebed of Lake Erie, where

glacial ice blocked drainage to the
4

NCSS Newsletter

east. The land is generally very flat.

Dunes, beach ridges, and other sandy

deposits are on the higher parts of the

landscape.

The heavy textured soils on this

flat landscape generally were poorly

drained in the past. Starting around

1850, agricultural drainage and ditches

provided a means to remove excess

water and grow crops, and the forest

was gradually cleared. Today, only a

few small forests remain.

Maumee State Forest was the first

stop Wednesday morning. It is the only

State forest in northwest Ohio. It is

located in the Oak Openings region,

which is basically a big sandy area. The

dominant soils in the forest are those of

the Ottokee, Tedrow, and Granby

series. Here, we saw a 50-year-old pine

plantation being thinned by low-impact

equipment. Lab data from the Spinks

soils pit here showed fine sand textures

from the surface to a depth of 60 inches

and a clay content ranging from 1.5 to

3.9 percent.

The next stop was the Lange Tree

Farm. The dominant soils on this farm

are those of the Ottokee, Spinks, and

Granby series. The tree species planted

since 1972 include red oak, white oak,

eastern white pine, black walnut, and

baldcypress. A windbreak with eastern

white pine, American arborvitae, and

Norway spruce was planted through the

Northwest Ohio Field Windbreak

Program. Lab data from the Granby

soils pit here showed loamy fine sand

textures from the surface to a depth of

60 inches and a clay content ranging

from 3.9 to 5.7 percent.

After lunch, we saw a riparian buffer

installed through the Conservation

Reserve Enhancement Program and a

field windbreak in the adjacent field.

Dave Berna, retired Ohio NRCS

forester, discussed the benefits of field

windbreaks.

The Wednesday afternoon field stop

was at the Ridgeville Corners

wastewater site. This community in

Henry County uses irrigation as a

tertiary treatment of wastewater. A total

of 26 acres of newly planted trees is

irrigated, as well as 7 acres of existing

forest. This project was a multi-agency

effort, with materials or assistance

provided by Maumee State Forest,

NRCS Maumee Valley Resource

Conservation and Development, the

National Tree Trust, and several local

Soil and Water Conservation districts.

Most of this area is on Fulton soils. Lab

data from the soil pits here showed

dominantly clay textures in the Bt

horizon and a clay content of around 65

percent.

The final forest soils field stop, on

Thursday morning, was at Goll Woods

State Nature Preserve. Goll Woods is an

old growth forest, where a variety of

site conditions enable different forest

communities to exist. Here, we saw a

soil monolith of Lenawee silty clay

loam. Also, while walking on a nature

trail, we saw big bur oak trees.

We went on a fine guided tour

Profile of Spinks fine sand, Maumee State

Forest.

How Soils Can Become

PM10

By Philip D. Camp, State Soil Scientist,

and Jeffrey J. Schmidt, Community Assistance

Coordinator, USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Phoenix, Arizona.

PM10 is particulate matter that is 10

micrometers or less in diameter. It is

commonly known as dust or fugitive

dust. These particles are very small and

can invade the natural defense

mechanism of the human respiratory

tract, penetrating deep into the lungs.

Consequently, PM10 can cause a wide

variety of health problems, especially in

children, the elderly, and people with

preexisting respiratory or

cardiovascular disease.

Particulate matter consists of solid

or liquid substances that are visible or

invisible. These particles vary in shape

and size, including large drops of

liquid, microscopic dust particles,

tobacco smoke, and aerosols. The

A wall of dust.

through the Sauder Manufacturing plant

in Archbold. This plant makes a variety

of residential and institutional furniture.

Church pews appeared to be the main

product of this particular plant.

This was an outstanding workshop.

The food was good, the weather was

decent, and the program and presenters

were excellent. Thanks again to all who

participated. 
5

NCSS Newsletter

particles affect visibility and can be

transported for long distances by winds.

The small particles can be dangerous to

human health because their size makes

it possible for them to pass through

nostril hairs and enter the lungs. The

smaller the particle, the deeper it can

penetrate into the lungs, where it can

become lodged and cannot be easily, if

ever, expelled.

The potential for soil to release dust

into the atmosphere depends largely on

the kind or size of soil particle and the

condition of the soil surface.

Suspendible particles are in most

natural soils. Particles in the PM10 size

range are often bonded tightly to other

particles, making large aggregates.

Energy (usually in the form of increased

windspeed and/or traffic over the soil

surface) is needed to break the

aggregates into smaller particles.

Destruction of the bonds can give way

to the generation of fugitive dust.

PM10 can be suspended, while particles

greater than 80 um rarely stay in

suspension because they are too heavy.

Soils have four main constituents:

mineral matter, organic matter, air, and

water. Minerals are the major

constituents in soils and are derived

from the parent material by weathering.

Organic matter is derived mostly from

decaying plant material that is broken

down and decomposed by animals and

micro-organisms living in the soil. Soils

generally contain relatively small

amounts of organic matter because of

limited plant growth and rapid

decomposition of dead plant matter.

Air and water fill the pore spaces

between the mineral and organic matter

in soils.

Mineral particles range in size from

2,000 um to less than 2 um and are the

bases upon which soil texture is

determined. Soil mineral particles can

be classified as sand (2000 to 50 um),

silt (50 to 2 um), or clay (less than 2

um).

The textural class of a soil is

ascertained by estimation of the

particle-size distribution in the field

through the “feel method” or

analytically through laboratory

measurement. Once the percentages of

soil particles are ascertained, the soil

textural triangle is used to classify the

soil further. Field determinations are

commonly within 3 percent of

laboratory-derived values. Local soil

surveys made available by the Natural

Resources Conservation Service use

these textural classes.

PM10 originating from soil is

composed of clay particles and large

silt particles. Soils with high amounts of

these particles have a high potential to

generate PM10. All soils that are high

in content of clay have the potential to

generate PM10 under the right

conditions. The quantity of PM10 that

is actually generated is closely linked to

the management of those soils or the

amount of mechanical disturbance. Soil

disturbance changes soil structure. Soil

structure is an important physical

characteristic of any soil. It is produced

by the aggregation of particles of sand,

silt, and clay into larger units called

“peds.” A soil with a large amount of

clay particles may generate low levels

of PM10 if disturbance is limited or soil

moisture levels are elevated. A soil with

a low content of clay and silt, however,

could generate noticeable levels of

PM10 if frequently disturbed under dry

conditions by traffic or tillage

equipment.

When the soil is manipulated or

disturbed by tillage, animals,

weathering, or vehicular traffic, the

natural soil structure can be destroyed.

This destruction allows particles less

than 10 um in size to be easily

suspended in the air. As soil aggregates

break away from larger aggregates and

become smaller, their ability to be

suspended in the air increases

significantly. Increased traffic or

surface disturbance increases the

potential for these smaller particles to

become fugitive dust. Clay content,

relative humidity, soil moisture, and the

speed and direction of the wind are

among the factors that can affect the

bonding strength between particles,

which determines the amount of PM10

generated. 

Dust resulting from land planing.
6

NCSS Newsletter

England; they could speak English and,

hence, were the supervisors.

Bart brought great enthusiasm to his

job as Illinois State Soil Scientist. He

did stumble, however, when he bought

surplus military shoulder bags, which

he distributed to the soil scientists. Of

course, they were named “Bart Bags”

(pictured on page 1 of this newsletter).

Bart left Illinois to become an assistant

to Billy Ligon in the South, where he

increasingly became involved in

interpretations and subsequently in soil

survey management. Bart eventually

became Principal Correlator and, in that

capacity, he actively supported the first

S-5 forms, which Dave Slusher and

Keith Young developed. These forms

initially had only engineering, particle

size, permeability, and perhaps shrinkswell class. Later, after Bart became

Director of Interpretations, replacing

A.A. Klingebiel, clay, bulk density, and

organic matter were added. I had a role

in that. I visited Washington and in 15

minutes, with Keith Young present, we

added the three properties at my

suggestion. Joe Nichols, who is now

retired, recently told me that Bart liked

the cell type generated in the MIAS

system and gave him the go-ahead.

Today, there is continued interest in cell

maps (Zhu et al., 2001, Soil Sci. Soc.

Am. J. 65: 1463). Fifty years ago, at the

1963 National Work Planning

Conference, Lindo Bartelli chaired the

committee “Soil Surveys in UrbanFringe Areas.” The title is extremely apt

for an agency mission. It might be very

applicable as the basis today for

involvement in Homeland Security.

Bart wanted to succeed Dr. Kellogg

but was not selected. I think that Bart

would have moved the soil survey

rapidly into management and

interpretations and away from

taxonomy and genesis. The irony is that

as more modern soil surveys became

available, Bart’s leadership would have

been increasingly valuable. Further,

computers now have changed much and

made it possible to execute Bart’s

vision.

Bart showed a marked capacity for

growth in both people skills and

technical skills. He became a good

public speaker. His last professional

position was as an administrator,

School of Forestry and Wood Products,

Michigan Technical University,

Houghton. The position required very

complex set of interactive skills,

probably more than was required of an

SCS manager. While in that position, he

wrote a very fine paper on

interpretations (Bartelli, L.J. 1978.

Technical classification system for soil

survey interpretation. Adv. Agron. 30:

247-289). The paper has not been

properly appreciated, in my opinion.

Bart came home scientifically (as well

as geographically) with the publication

of that paper. 

Russian Fulbright Scholar

Aids Northern

Circumpolar Soil

Database Development

From “NRCS Technology News,” JulyAugust 2002.

To further the development of the Northern Circumpolar Soil

Database, Dr. Sergey V. Goryachkin

from the Institute of Geography,

Russian Academy of Sciences,

Moscow, Russia, worked with the

National Soil Survey Center (NSSC) in

Lincoln, Nebraska, for 7 months under

a Fulbright Grant. He was part of the

Russian group that had contributed to

the development of the Gelisol Order of

Soil Taxonomy and the Cryosols of the

World Reference Base for Soil

Resources (WRB) in the late 1980s and

early 1990s. That work had been an

activity of NRCS, the International

Lindo J. Bartelli: A

Personal Commentary

By Robert Grossman, Research Soil

Scientist, National Soil Survey Center, NRCS,

Lincoln, Nebraska.

Of the group that guided the soil survey from 1960 to 1980,

Bart (“Black Bart” to some) was the

soil scientist who most strongly

emphasized the customer and the need

for a management which would achieve

this emphasis. To Bart, function was

more important than form. He wanted a

soil survey that worked. He was not

strongly concerned with genesis and

taxonomy. It is no accident that he

championed the development of the

early S-5 forms. Bart was a modern soil

scientist with a dash of the rebel and

with an assurance, shared by many of

his contemporaries, that came from

having been in combat in World War II.

He was very much a member of

Brokaw’s “Finest Generation.” Also, he

was comfortable with his heritage.

I met Bart while I was a graduate

student at the University of Illinois,

1954-1958. Bart was the State Soil

Scientist, having taken over for A.A.

Klingebiel, who went to Washington as

Director of Interpretations under Dr.

Kellogg. I helped Bart with his Ph.D.

thesis (SSSAP 20: 388-395, 1960). Bart

would have me over for dinner

occasionally. His wife, Sig, was a good

cook, and as a graduate student, I

considered a home-cooked meal a real

treat. Bart and Sig had two daughters.

Bart’s family worked in the iron mines

of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

His wife was of Finnish extraction,

which put her a rung up the ladder from

Bart in the society of the Upper

Peninsula. (The Finns were from the

Petsamo Region, an important source of

iron ore for Europe before World War

II.) At the top of the ladder of workers

were the miners from Cornwall,
7

NCSS Newsletter

Union of Soil Scientists, and the

International Permafrost Association to

improve the classification of soils with

permafrost. While this activity was

ongoing, they began creating a large

soils database for the circumpolar

region. Dr. Goryachkin’s Fulbright

Grant was to allow him to help improve

the Circumpolar Soil Database.

Dr. Goryachkin analyzed the

relationships among Soil Taxonomy

and the Canadian, WRB, and Russian

soil classification systems to determine

whether information available in one

could be combined with that in another

and whether an overall database for

many uses and users could be created.

He found large differences in

approaches among the four

classification systems. For example, the

Canadian system uses soil

nomenclature that is closer to that of the

Russian system than to that of the U.S.

system, but the Canadian and Russian

systems differ in their understanding

and diagnostics of the gleysolic order

and subgroups. In addition, the U.S.

and Russian systems are very similar in

their approaches to aquic and gleyic

features.

In spite of these challenges, progress

was made in the development of the

Northern Circumpolar Soil Database.

The Russian pedon database, which has

250 georeferenced profiles, was linked

to the NSSC database. The Russian

national map was correlated to the

subgroup level of Soil Taxonomy, and,

on this level, Soil Taxonomy worked

very well. Dr. Goryachkin, together

with NSSC staff, developed a map of

subgroups of the Gelisol order using the

Russian classification. Finally, the

whole Northern Circumpolar Soil

Database was fit into the four

classification systems—U.S., WRB,

Canadian, and Russian—mainly at the

subgroup level of Soil Taxonomy or

equivalent levels in the other systems.

The database was tested in an

application for vulnerability of northern

soils to physical disturbances. The

resulting map shows the areas that have

a high potential for erosion, such as

Iceland and the northern part of

European Russia.

Having a Fulbright scholar at the

National Soil Survey Center was a

benefit to the NSSC and its activities in

the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Dr. Goryachkin’s visit has enhanced our

contacts with many scientists in Russia,

and his contribution while here

increases the compatibility and

flexibility of the northern soils database

and the understanding of different soil

classification systems. We hope that

similar exchanges will take place in the

future.

For more information, contact:

John Kimble

National Soil Survey Center

(402) 437-5376

john.kimble@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov 

New SOILS Web Site

Online

From “NRCS Technology News,” October

2002.

The new SOILS Web site (http:// soils.usda.gov) has been

developed by combining the popular

National Soil Survey Center and Soil

Survey Division Web sites. The

reorganized site has a new look and

offers many new features and functions,

such as improved navigation and

loading speed. The SOILS site not only

provides user access to soil

information, but also offers soil science

educational material, standards for the

National Cooperative Soil Survey, and

a lot more.

Beginning October 1, 2002, all

URLs previously linked to the site

hosted by Iowa State University are

forwarded to the home page of the new

site. Users will need to establish a

bookmark for the new site, hosted at the

Fort Collins NRCS Webfarm.

For more information, contact:

Gary Muckel

National Soil Survey Center

gary.muckel@usda.gov

(402) 437-4148 

Standard Data Format

Facilitates Use of Soil

Survey Data

From “NRCS Technology News,” October

2002.

Soil survey data exported from the National Soil

Information System (NASIS) in the

new SSURGO Version 2 format is the

standard data delivery format for users

of soil survey data. Since its

introduction more than a year ago, the

new data format has been integrated

into the Customer Service Toolkit and

Soil Data Viewer. RUSLE2 (Revised

Universal Soil Loss Equation) and the

Windows(c) Pesticide Screening Tool

use it. Data exported from NASIS can

be imported into Microsoft Access(c)

using a database template available on

the NASIS Web site http://

nasis.nrcs.usda.gov/, and a full set of

documentation for the SSURGO

Version 2 format is available at http://

nasis.nrcs.usda.gov/documents/

metadata/ssurgo2_0.

All of this is good news for users of

soil survey data. For example,

application specialists at the Farm

Services Agency (FSA) are working

closely with scientists at the National

Soil Survey Center to acquire soil

survey data needed for the next

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

signup. Although much of their

discussion is focused on the

scientifically sound application of soil

survey data, simply acquiring the

appropriate data is an important
8

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.

Soil Survey Images

By John Kelley, Soil Data Quality Specialist,

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Raleigh, North Carolina.

The questions asked by those whoprepare survey manuscripts

include: “What kind of film should I

use for the pictures?” “Can I use color

film for landscapes?” “Can I use a

digital camera?” The answers to these

questions are not always simple.

First, the type of format to be used

by the printer must be determined. Until

recently, manuscripts were submitted in

a camera-ready format. A camera-ready

product is a paper copy formatted for

traditional offset printing. Original

images (color slides and black and

white prints) are provided to the printer

image at a resolution suitable for

publication. The resolution

recommended by the Government

Printing Office for printed documents is

300 dpi (dots per inch). Even though a

printer dot is not the same as an image

pixel, the dot and the pixel are roughly

comparable. For example, a typical soil

survey cover picture is 7.0 x 6.5 inches.

For a quality image suitable for

publication, the following formula

would be used to determine the

minimum number of pixels required:

[(7.0 in. x 300 ppi) x (6.5 in. x 300

ppi)] = 4,095,000 pixels

Thus, a quality picture would require

a digital camera capable of storing a

minimum of 4 megapixels, or 4 million

pixels per image. Prices vary widely,

depending on camera format (point and

shoot or single lens reflex.) The cost of

a 4.0+ megapixel camera ranges from

about $375 to more than $5,000. A 4.0

megapixel camera is available on

government contact for about $450.

The advantage of using film is that it

can always be converted to a digital

image and stored at any resolution

needed in the publication. As a general

rule, on-screen or Web-based photo

images should be scanned at a

resolution of about 72 dpi, images for

CDs at about 150 dpi, and images for

paper publication at about 300 dpi.

The image should be scanned at the

size (3x5, 5x7, etc.) needed for

publication. 

consideration as well. Acquiring the

data is no small task, given FSA’s

requirements—automate the ranking

process as much as possible and use

contemporary soil survey data that is

consistent with the NRCS Field

Office Technical Guide. The task is

greatly facilitated by making soil

survey data available in the same

standard format used by the Customer

Service Toolkit.

The next step in development of this

process is for the models using soils

data in the SSURGO Version 2 format

to access the data directly as opposed to

creating a subset with the model. Soil

scientists have been working with

model developers to help achieve this

next important step. Once it is

achieved, users of models can be

assured that the soils data they are using

is of the same vintage in all models they

run.

For more information, contact:

Russ Kelsea

National Soil Survey Center

(402) 437-5878

Russ.Kelsea@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov 

for mounting and printing. Today, many

of the surveys are being formatted

electronically as “pdf” files utilizing

digital images. This format can be used

for the traditional printed soil survey

report, for CDs, or for posting on the

World Wide Web.

What kind of film should I use for

the pictures? If you are using a film

camera, MO 14 recommends

Fujichrome-Sensia II (100 or 200) for

color pictures and Kodak-Tmax 100 for

black and white pictures.

Can I use color film for landscapes?

You may see a few surveys in the near

future with all of the images in color,

especially on the Web or in the CD

version. If color images are used in the

printed report, they will be grouped (as

soil profiles are). Grouping the color

pictures is a cost-saving measure.

Because of the added expense, the

option of color landscape pictures is not

encouraged, except on the cover.

Can I use a digital camera? The

electronically formatted manuscript can

include both digitally captured images

and images stored on film.

If digital images are acceptable,

should I use a digital camera or should

I continue to use film and scan and

convert to a digital image? There are

many high-quality digital cameras on

the market today. These cameras are

small, lightweight, and easy to use, and

their images are immediately available

for evaluation or use. However, the

camera must be able to capture the