NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY Soil Survey Conference Proceedings San Antonio, Texas January 29 - February 2, 1979 Summary.. ...

14MB Sizes 0 Downloads 24 Views

Recommend Documents

National Cooperative Soil Survey Strategic Plan - NRCS
Share the outreach materials through an online clearing house. o Promote better use of .... clearing house. Members of t

National Cooperative Soil Survey Centennial Highlights - NRCS - USDA
Jul 5, 1998 - pleasure in seeing him when in Berkeley. I highly esteemed his friendship. According to Cline (1979), Whit

soil survey - Library
(Mr. P..A.Leyder) and especially by the soil management section. The latter, in the person or Mr. H.M.Il. Braun, has com

Soil Survey Block Diagrams - NRCS - USDA
Bolfar, Britto, Chateau, Damluis, Deldota,. Dosamigos, Dospalos .... Chaos Crags and covered a large area of the norther

Soil Survey of Leon County, Florida - NRCS
APPROXIMATE SCALES o 50 100. للا. 0. 100. لاساسلالالا. KILOMETERS. >k State Agricultural Experiment Statio

Soil Survey of American Samoa - NRCS - USDA
made by the Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Government of. American Samoa. Soil maps in this survey ma

Soil Survey in Transition - NRCS - USDA
Dec 18, 2014 - Mack Thomas, Jr. Ernest H. Smith, Timothy D. Kring, ... 2007 T. Scott Moore T. Scott Moore, Dennis Gay, J

Soil Survey of Mitchell County, Georgia (1920) - NRCS
W. EDWARD HEARN, INSPECTOR, SouTHERN DIvision. [Advance Sheets, Field Operations of the Bureau of Soils, 1920.] WASHINGT

Reconnaissance Soil Survey of the Red River Valley Area - NRCS
remaining 75,247 persons were living ou farms, which gives n density el' 'alle strictly farm population er" 8.8 'persons

Soil Survey of Henderson County, Kentucky (1967) - NRCS
for the capability unit, woodland group, and wildlife group in which the soil has been placed. Individual colored maps s

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY Soil Survey Conference Proceedings San Antonio, Texas January 29 - February 2, 1979

Summary.. ........................................................................................... i Contents.. ...........................................................................................


Agenda ...............................................................................................


Participants.. .......................................................................................


Administrator’s Presentation .................................................................


Soil Survey in Canada ..........................................................................


Soil Survey in Land Resources Development Centre ................................


Some Problems in Soil Classification and Soil Survey Brought Up.. ........... 19 During Recent Field Work in Latin America Public Participation and the Soil Survey.. ...............................................


Completing Soil Surveys Nationwide.. ...................................................


Soil Potential ......................................................................................


Northeast Regional Work Planning Conference Report.. ...........................


Report of the Land Grant College Representative of the.. ......................... Southern Region


Western Regional Work Planning Conference Report ............................... .35 Committee 1 - National Cooperative Soil Survey.. ...................................


Committee 2 - Use of Soil Family Class in Design of Mapping Units .......... 4 8 Committee 3 - Surface Horizon Characteristics Under ............................. Different Conditions


Committee 4 - Water Supplying Capacity of Soils for Different Plants.. ..... 6 2 Committee 5 - Confidence Limits for Soil Survey Information.. ................. 7 2 Committee 6 - Soil-Water Relations.. .....................................................



Proceedings of -----



San Antonio, Texas.

January 29 - February 2, I979


0 . !

The format for the National Technical Work Planning Conference in San Antonio, January 29 to February 2, 1979, “as changed from recent previous conferences. More time “as allotted at the c o n f e r e n c e f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s to d i s c u s s committee is&es:’ Each’committee had two separate sessions totaling about 6 hours. This resulted in more meaningful and worthwhile inputs. As a result of travel budget restraints and bad weather, overall attendance at the conference “as not as large as some previous conferences. However, there “as a good xross s e c t i o n o f p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d a g e n c y i n t e r e s t s as well 88 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s . This and the fact that the comittees did very well identifying an+ e v a l u a t i n g i s s u e s t h a t a r e i m p o r tant to the NCSS stimulated lively discussions. Overall, the results were very satisfactory. The complexity and importance of thP issues to be resolved by three of the committees are such that additional time is required for further ab~sessment a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . T h e f o l l o w i n g connnittees “ill remain active until t h e n e x t c o n f e r e n c e i n 1 9 8 1 : - S u r f a c e H o r i z o n Charscterist~ics under Diffetient C o n d i t i o n s Chairman - Dr. W. E.‘Lsrs.on,. SEA - Water Supplying Capacity of Soils for Different Plants Chairman - Dr. R. B. Grossman, SCS - Confidence Limits for Soil Survey Information C o c h a i r m a n - Dr. L. P. Wilding, Texas AhM U n i v e r s i t y D r . F . P . M i l l e r , U n i v e r s i t y o f Marylatvi Although the assignments to these committees have been continued, ideas and suggestions from others would be most welcome. Send them to the appropriate committee chairman. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r l o n g - r a n g e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e N C S S (Conrmittee l/l) will be used for policy guidance and will be considered for revisions of the National Soils Handbook. The use of soil family class (Committee #2) i n s o i l s u r v e y s “ a 8 e v a l u a t e d a n d i t “ a s d e t e r m i n e d T h e e s s e n t i a l f a c t o r i n t h e us!e of soil that for some purposes they can be used effectively. It is believed that p h a s e s o f f a m i l i e s f a m i l y clase i s t h e a b i l i t y t o t r a n s f e r i n f o r m a t i o n . can be correlated and interpreted for meaningful uses if the interpretations are readily distinguishable from phases of soil series information. This is yet to be tested. SOILS-5 and SOILS-6 can be adapted to this use. If series and family level data can be identified, p r o c e s s e d , a n d u s e d w i t h o u t l o s i n g t h e i r d i s t i n c t i o n , then the family data can be stored and transferred. The West Technical Service Center Soils Staff has been given responsibility I f i t i s f e a s i b l e , the National Soils Handbook will for developing and testing the procedures. be revised as needed. The work of the connnittee on soil-water reiations ( C o m m i t t e e %6) has been incorporated into the This draft is now being reviewed. current draft revision of Chapter 5, Soil Survey Manual. After this review is completed a general distribution of this chapter is planned for the Fall of 1979. A sincere thank you is extended to all who helped make the National Technical Work Planning T h e contributions from the staff in Texas who gave local Conference in San Antonio a success. supper t , the members of the committees, a n d a l l t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d .

TOUR SCHEDULE Wednesday, January 31, 1979 LV:

Menger Hotel PROMPTLY at

12 noon


Camp Bullis Headquarters




Camp Bullis Headquarters


Site 1 - Edwards Recharge Structure



. i :

Mr. Dusty Bruns, Range and Wildlife Management Specialist, Department of Army, Camp Bullis Dr. Weldon Hammond, Geologist, University of Texas, San Antonio



Site 1

AR: Fair Oaks Subdivision


Stop - Road Cut - Soil Discussion LV:

Fair Oaks



Verstraeten Farm



Verstraeten Farm



Buckhorn Museum



Buckhorn Museum



Menger Hotel


Tour Guides:


Erwin Willard, District Conservationist, SCS, San Antonio Pete Saenz, Range Conservationist, SCS, San Antonio


Bill Dittmore, Soil Scientist, Fredericksburg





Conference Agenda.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .




Conference Presentations .






Soil Survey in Canada.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..John H. Day...................... 12 ,.

Soil Survey in Land Resources Development Centre.....J. Some Problems in Soil Classification and Soil Survey Brought up During Recent Field Work . ITI Latin Amer1ca...................................P.

R. D. Wall.................... 15





Public Participation and The Soil Survey.............Ids Completing Soil Surveys Nationwide...................Victor



Soil Potential....................................... Donald E. McCormack..............

27 28

Regional Work Planning Reports Northeast.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E. J. Ciolkosz................... 30


Southern. ............................................ Fenton Gray ...................... Western..............................................LeRo


y Daugherty .................. 35

Discussion Groups Committee 81 - Long Range Objectives of The NCSS..............................Joe

D. Nichols.........



Conuui~ttee #Z - Use of Soil Family Class in Design of Map Units................J.

E. Brown............



Committee #3 - Surface Horizon Characteristics Under Different Conditions............W.

E. Larson...........

....... . 55

Connnittee #4 - Water Supplying Capacity of Soils for Different Plants............R.

B. Grossman.........

....... . 62



Committee #5 - Confidence Limits for Soil Survey Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..L. P. Wilding..........


Committee $6 - Review and Test Soil Water Section of the Revised Soil Survey Manual.....Maurice

....... . 99

Stout, Jr......



MONDAY 8:30 - 8:50 a.m.

"The Heritage We Guard"

a:50 - 9:oo a.m.

Introduction and Announcements

9:oo - 11:45 a.m.


Committee 81

Committee #3

Committee #5




11:45 - l:oo p.m.

C. A. Fountain

Long Range Objectives of the National Cooperative Soil Survey

Joe D. Nichols

Surface Horizon Characteristics Under Different Conditions

W. E. Larson

Confidence Limits for Soil Survey Information

L. P. Wilding and F. P. Miller


Daniel E. Holmes

l:oo - 1:30 p.m.

Dr. J. E. Miller President, Texas A&M University

1:30 - 2:oo p.m.

Mr. R. M. Davis Administrator, Soil Conservation Service

2:oo - 2:20 p.m.

Dr. Klaus W. Flach Assistant Administrator for Soil Survey

2:20 - 2:45 p.m.


2~45 - 4:05 p.".

Regional Work Planning Reports Northeastern Southern North Central Western


Klaus W. Flach

4:05 - 4:25 p.m.

Report - Canada

4:25 - 4:45 *.m.

Report - Mexico

8:30 p.m.

GENERAL SESSION (Other Federal Agencies)

J. M. Williams


TUESDAY 8:00 - 12:00 M


Committee #2

Use of Soil Family Class in Design of Map Units

J. E. Brown

Committee #4

Water Supplying Capacity of Soils for Different Plants

R. B. Grossman

Committee 116

Review and Test Soil Water Section of the Revised Soil Survey Manual

Maurice Stout, Jr.

12:oo - l:oo p.m.


l:oo L 5:oo p.m.

Meetings Committee 411 Committee #3 Committee #5

8:30 p.m.

John D. Rourke



WEDNESDAY 8:00 - 11:30 arm.

Meetings Committee #2 Committee #4 Committee 86

12:OO - 5:oo p.m.

FIELD TOUR C. M. Thompson L. P. Wilding



THURSDAY 8:00 - 12:00 M

GENERAL SESSION (25 minutes each)

Fenton Gray

Internationalizing Soil Taxonomy

William M. Johnson

Soil Survey Manual

Robert F. Mitchel

Soil Taxonomy Problems, etc.

John E. McClelland

Format for Published Soil Surveys

Donald E. McCormack

Completing Soil Surveys Nationwide

Victor G. Link

Soil Potential

Donald E. McCormack

Public Participation

Ida Cuthbertson

Soil Moisture Study Cadmium-Lead Study National Soil Survey Laboratory Services

Steven Holzhey


12:oo - l:oo p.m.


l:oo - 5:oo p.m.


l:oo - 1:50 p.m.

Committee #l

1:50 - 2:40 p.m.

Committee 113

2:40 - 3:lO p.m.


3:lO - 4:oo p.m.

Committee #5

4:oo - 4:50 p.m.

Committee #2

K. W. Flach

FRIDAY K. W. Flach

GENERAL SESSION (Reports) 8:00 - 8:30 a.m.

Task Force - John E. McClelland

a:30 - 9:oo a.m.

Task Force - Donald E. McCormack


FRIDAY (Continued) 9 : o o - 9:50 a.m.

Committee 1~4

9:50 - 1o:zo a.m.


10:X) - 11:lO a . m .

Comittee 86

11:lO - 12:00 M


12:oo M




Peter E. Avers U.S. Forest Service Watershed and Minerals 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W., Suite 301 Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Ida Cuthberteon Coastal Zone Management for NE; Community Planning; Public Participation Soil Conservation Service Washington, D.C. 20013

Donald L. Basinger Assistant Director South Technical Service Center Soil Conservation Service Ft. Worth, Texas 76501

LeRoy Daugherty Department of Agronomy Box 3Q New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003

J. E. Brown Soil Correlator West Technical Service Center Soil Conservation Service Portland, Oregon 97209 Shelby Brownfield State Soil Scientist Soil Conservation Service Boise, Idaho 83702 Louie I.. Buller Soil Correlator Midwest Technical Service Center Soil Conservation Service Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 Jark Chugg "urea" of Land Management Denver Service Center ,'~.nver, Colorado 80225 Xdward J. Ciolkosz Assistant Professor of Soil Genesis The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 .-


Harold Cosper Economics, Statistics, 6 Cooperative Service Room 435, Federal Building U.S. Courthouse Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 James R. Culver State Soil Scientist Soil Conservation Service Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 R. M. Davis Administrator, SCS P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013

John Day Soil Survey Program Institut de Recherche sur les Terre6 Central Experimental Farm Fame Experimentale Centrale Ottawa, Ontario Kia 0C6


James DeMent Lockheed Electronic Systems and Services Division 1830 NASA Road Al Houston, Texas 77058 Leroy DeMoulin Division of Watersheds Bureau of Land Management Building 50 Denver, Colorado 80225 Raymond Dideriksen Director, Inventory and Monitoring Division Soil Conservation Service Washington, D.C. 20013 William J. Edmunds Department of Agronomy Virginia Polytechnical Institute Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 Klaus W. Flech Assistant Administrator for Soil Survey Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013

R. Follett Agricultural Research Service Room 330-A Administration Building Beltsville, Maryland 20705


Carl B. Fountain Deputy State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service Temple, Texas 76501 Westal W. Fuchs Assistant Director, Soil Survey Operations Division Soil Conservation Service P.O. BOX 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013 Talbert Gerald Soil Correlator South Technical Service Center Soil Conservation Service Ft. Worth, Texas 76501 Charles B. Goudey Leader, Soils 6 Geology Group U.S. Forest Service 630 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111 Fenton Gray Department of Agronomy Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Robert B. Grossman Soil Scientist National Soil Survey Laboratory Soil Conservation Service Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 Diva H. Harju Code 1542 i3ur~c‘au hf Reclamation P.G. "ox 25007 "rnwr, Colorado 80225 E. 1.. Harris Dept. of Soil 6 Crop Sciences Texas AhM University College Station, Texas 77843 Daniel E. Holmes Director, South Technical Service Center Soil Conservation Service Ft. Worth, Texas 76501 Steve Holzhey Head, National Soil Survey Lab Soil Conservation Service Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 Theron Hutchings State Soil Scientist Soil Conservation Service Salt Lake City, Utah 84138

William M. Johnson Deputy Administrator for Technical Services Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013 Leon W. Kimberlin Chief Agronanist Ecological Sciences h Technology Division Soil Conservation Service Washington, D.C. 20013 Kermit Larson Waterahed Management U.S. Forest Service Washington, D.C. 20250 W. E. Larson Soil 6 Water Management Research Unit 201 Soil Science Building University of Minnesota 1529 Gortner Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Gerhard B. Lee Department of Soils University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Victor G. Link Director, Soil Survey Operations Division Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013 Helaine Markewich U.S. Geological Survey Reston, Virginia 22092 John E. McClelland Director, Soil Classification and Correlation Division Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013 -. Donald E. McCormack Director, Soil Survey Interpretations Division Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013 Eilif Miller Principal Soil Scientist Cooperative State Research Center Science and Education Administration Washington, D.C. 20250



Fred P. Miller Professor. Soil L Water Resources Universit; of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 0

Jarvis Miller Director of Experiment Station Texas A6M University College Station, Texas 77843 Robert F. Mitchel Assistant Director, Soil Classification and Correlation Division Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013 Joe D. Nichols Head, Soils Staff South Technical Service Center Soil Conservation Service Ft. Worth, Texas 76501 A. Osman The Arab Center for The Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands P.O. Box 2440 Damascus, Syria

Harold I. Owns Agronomist 6 Soil Conservationist , Extension Service 1 Science and Education Administration Washington, D.C. 20250 H. F. Perkins Professor, Soil Fertility Department of Agronomy University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 Wayne Pettapiece Agriculture Canada - Soil Survey 14605 - 11S Avenue Edmonton, Alberta, Canada TSL 2M7 Richard A. Piper Code 737 Bureau of Reclamation P.O. Box 25007 Denver, Colorado SO225 John W. Putnum Leader, Comprehensive Resource Inventory and Evaluation System ERSfUSDA 1405 South Harrison Road East Lansing, Michigan 48823


Larry F. Ratliff State Soil Scientist Soil Conservation Service Auburn. Alabama 36830

E. N. Richlen Regional Soil, Scientist Soil, Air, and Water Staff croup USDA - Forest Service P.O. Box 7669 Missoula, Montana 59807 John D. Rourke Head, Soils Staff Northeast Technical Service Center Soil Conservatiqn Service Broomall, Pennsylvania 19008 E. M. Rutledge Assoc. Prof. of Soil Morphology Department of Agronomy University of Arkansas Fayettsville, Arkansas 72701 Pierre Segalen Office de la Recherche Scientifique at Technique Outre-Mer 70-74 Route d' Aulnay 93140 Bondy FranCf Maurice Stout, Jr. Head, Soils Staff Midwest Technical Service Center Soil Conservation Service Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 James R. Talbot Engineering Division Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 20013 Charles Thompson State Soil Scientist Soil Conservation Service Temple, Texas 76501 peter Veneman Assistant Prof. of Soil Genesis, Morphology and Classification University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 Earl E. Voss State Soil Scientist Soil Conservation Service Champaign, Illinois 61820 J. R. D. Wall British Embassy Apartsdo 2350 San Salvador El Salvador Central America


‘~ C. J. W. Westerveld Head, Soil Survey Division Netherlands Soil Survey Institute Wageningen Strichting voor Bodemkartering Staring Building P. 0. Box 98, Wageningen 11, Marikeweg The Netherlands Lawrence P. Wilding Department of Soil and Crop Sciences Texas AbM University College Station, Texas 77043 Melvin Williams Staff West Technical Service Center Soil Conservation Service Portland, Oregon 97209 J

Head, Soils

Keith Young Assistant Director Soil Survey Interpretations Division Soil Conservation Service P.O. Rex 2 8 9 0 Washington, D. C. 20013


NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK PLANNING CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL COOPEAATIVE SOIL SURVEY San Antonio, Texas January 29 - February 2. 1979 The National Cooperative Soil Survey is important to USDA and to cooperative agencies and o r g a n i z a t i o n s , b e c a u s e i t s u p p l i e s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s b a s i c to’all of our work and is basic to many decisions by people who own and manage land and water. The National Cooperative Soil Survey has a reputation for reliable basic data--and it is becoming increasingly efficient at supplying better data faster--because it is truly a c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t . The work of experiment stations and Federal research scientists provides a very necessary support for the national program. Other Federal and State agencies make a vital contribution to specific surveys or specific questions. I am impressed with what all of you have accomplished together. some ways of intensifying or redirecting our efforts.

Yet, we do need to discuss

Every year we applaud the number of acres mapped and the number of manuscripts published. We call for a printout and announce that the fieldwork will be completed by 1997. Yet, you and I know that we will never be able to close the cover , put the soil survey program on a s h e l f , and say, “Now t h a t j o b ’ s d o n e . ” To maintain the soil survey as a valuable tool, we will need to keep it current...we will need to shift emphasis and technique and format to meet new needs. We will need to help more technical and professional disciplines relate soils data to their body of k n o w l e d g e . We will need to adjust to more changes more rapidly than ever before. One obvious need is for new soil survey interpretations in response to a variety of domestic and international c h a n g e s . T h e c o s t o f e n e r g y i s g o i n g o u t o f s i g h t . V a r i o u s f o r m s o f r e d u c e d tillage, w h a t w e c a l l t i l l a g e ” , can cut the fanner’s tractor fuel cost8 by more than 50 percent. It is now being used on more than 40 million acres of cropland--to save energy and to save s o i l , which it does even better. B u t c o n s e r v a t i o n tillage is not a perfected art.

0 “conservation

We need more information about tillage and its environmental effects. We need more knowledge of its adaptability to various soils, especially to the poorly drained soils that warm up I f w e s t u d y t h e m e c h a n i c s o f c o n s e r v a t i o n tillage in relation to soil slowly in spring. p r o p e r t i e s , and help others understand them, we can help refine conservation tillage and expand its use more rapidly. Energy is a hidden but very real cost in fertilizer manufacture and use. Farmers have increased their yields tremendously by applying more and more commercial fertilizers, made from petroleum. Y e t t h e y i e l d i n c r e a s e s a r e l e v e l i n g o f f , a n d w e a r e c o m i n g t o r e a l i z e t h e economic and environmental effects or limitations of using high rates of fertilizer on unsuitable soils. With soil survey information, farmers can tailor the timing and the amount of fertilizer to Farmers may be able to maintain or increase production and still the kind of soil they farm. cut b a c k o n t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f f e r t i l i z e r , thus saving energy and money.


Americans are becoming more interested in saving their environment, cleaning up our Congress affirmed that comair and water. . . i n c o n s e r v i n g n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s f o r t h e f u t u r e . mitment by passing the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act.


Administrator’s speech presented at the National Technical Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, San Antonio, Texas, January 29 - February 2, 1979



Under RCA, SCS and other USDA agencies are appraising the Nation’s soil, water, and related resources; d e v e l o p i n g a n o v e r a l l p r o g r a m t o g u i d e c o n s e r v a t i o n e f f o r t s ; a n d e v a l u a t i n g current strategies. Soil surveys are a key t o t h e n a t i o n w i d e a p p r a i s a l , i n d e c i d i n g :


--Quality and quantity of resources; --Capability and limitation of resources; --Changes in resource status and condition because of past use or farming techniques; and --Costs






S o i l survey facts will be a must in several other USDA emphases: T h e identiiication and preservation of important farmland will get special a t t e n t i o n f r o m goverruxent a t a l l l e v e l s . Land users will have reliable Clean water will continue to be a major concern. l”fornlati& about soil characteristics as well as farming methods and conservation p r a c t i c e s t o f a s h i o n w o r k a b l e “best management practices” for Section 208 and the Rural Clean Water Program. Reclamation of -old or new mined land w i l l r e q u i r e d e t a i l e d s o i l s i n f o r m a t i o n - --TO help decide if prime farmland should be mined, and if so to help the miner meet the strict reclamation standards; --To determine what layers to stockpile before mining and how to respread them after mining; --To help mining firms develop engineering plans; and --To reclaim the old scars under the Rural Abandoned Mine Program. L a n d - u s e ‘ s h i f t s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o t a x o u r a b i l i t y t o s t a y one jump ahead--and o n e j u m p al>ea>There soil surveys -_ have to be in fast-growing areas. More people and industries are moving to the sunbelt--the south and southwest--to S l e e p y r u r a l tow”s are take advantage of warmer climate and lower cost of living. iacing heavy development and doubled or eve” tripled populations. As we already know from other areas, growth strains natural resources, but wise use of soil surveys by local planners and regional and State planning agencies can help ease t h e t r a n s i t i o n , i t s c o s t s a n d e f f e c t s . We will need to work with them on the b e s t uses o f s o i l s u r v e y s i n m a n y p l a c e s . Developing nations are experiencing similar problems with urbanization, agriculture, and the environment. Many of them not only recognize the value of soil sor’~e~S, but a l s o h a v e s o i l s u r v e y p r o g r a m s b a s e d o n s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e s d e v e l o p e d bY the National Cooperative Soil Survey. zany o f t h e i r k e y s t a f f p e o p l e h a v e b e e ” trained at American universities. Through the State Department’s Agency for I”ter”atio”al Development, SCS and experiment station staffs and others have helped ma”Y countries improve their programs. we are l i k e l y t o d o e v e ” m o r e o f t h i s “ c o n s u l t i n g ” w o r k i” the future. Undeniably, t h e d e m a n d f o r s o i l s u r v e y s i s g r e a t e r t h a n e v e r , a n d i t w i l l Continue to grow, W e n e e d c o n s i s t e n t b a s i c s o i l s d a t a o n r u r a l l a n d a n d o” land “ear urban ce”ters...o” p r i m e f a r m l a n d e n d o n n o t - s o - g o o d farmla”d...o” public and on Private l a n d . W e m u s t b e r e a d y w i t h r e l i a b l e s o i l s i n f o r m a t i o n t o m e e t t h e f u t u r e demands we can foresee and those we cannot predict.

- 10 -


At the fame t i m e , the National Cooperative Soil Survey--just .ss every other program-must face the challenge of inflation, perhaps the most important problem in this President Carter has proposed voluntary price and pay standards for private country. He is setting an example within the Federal government, by: companies.


--enforcing strict spending limits and a moratorium on new income tax cuts; --limiting Federal pay increases and limiting job replacements; --curbing costly new regulations; and --promoting more competition in the private sector. The Soil Conservation Service 1980 budget request for soil survey has been cut by $5 million, and we will not be able to carry over f u n d s f r o m 1 9 7 9 . W e vi11 have to find ways t o m a i n t a i n the quality and momentum of the soil survey in spite of the cut in SCS funds, and we are looking to State and~locel g o v e r n m e n t s t o b e a r a larger part of the cost. We do recognize that they are feeling the inflation pinch, too. All of us will need to take individual responsibility in the fight against inflation--to do a better job of managing the funds and the time we do have. We must set priorities and stick to them to get the most for each soil survey dollar. We must also look at everday activities for ways to save m o n e y . For example, we have m a d e remarkable gains in publishing soil surveys--from fewer than 50 a year to more than 100. At the same time we have triwned the costs for printing and binding from almost $28,000 per s u r v e y ( i n t o d a y ’ s d o l l a r s ) t o $ 1 6 , 0 0 0 . Computers, word processors, and better scheduling have been mainly responsible. I would add that these savings have not been made at the expense of quality. The soil surveys have actually improved. Any idea thanncreases e f f i c i e n c y a n d productivi,ty can help us make do with a tighter budget.

The soil survey program must adjust to one more set of changes in the 1980’s_-and that is to 0 shift some people and funds among States to accelerate soil surveys in critical areas, to finish the mapping job, and then to phase down active mapping and to phase up the assessment and interpretation of the many kinds of soils we have delineated. I’m convinced that professional soil scientists in all of the agencies and institutions represented here can meet all of these c h a n g e s . I’m convinced you will find the 1980’s an jnterpsting-:even e x c i t i n g - - t i m e t o w o r k . We will wed t o h e l p e a c h o t h e r i m p r o v e o u r p r o f e s s i o n a l a b i l i t y . IZe will need to freely e x c h a n g e i d e a s a m o n g s o i l s c i e n t i s t s , s o i l c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s . agronomists, geolclgists, b i o l o g i s t s , a n d c o l l e a g u e s i n o t h e r s c i e n c e s . IG will need to communicate not only to other scientists but also to the users of our informaAs you discover new uses and new interpretations tion and the taxpayers who foot the bill. for soils data, you also will need to look for new and clearer ways of describing those interpretations and the value of their use.


we must be sure t o m a i n t a i n t h e h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l e t h i c s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In writing a manuscript for a soil survey, for example, professionalism means that YOU do not let it leave your hands until you are certain of every fact, every statement. You Can’t rely o n someone up the line or i n “ t h a t o t h e r a g e n c y ” t o c a t c h y o u r e r r o r .


E v e r y c o o p e r a t i n g F e d e r a l , S t a t e , o r l o c a l sgency...every e x p e r i m e n t atation...every every soil scientist plays an integral part in the National Cooperative Soil Survey.



W E depend on each other to help the soil survey continue to guide present and future generations in protecting and using natural resources.

- 11 -

Soil Survey in Canada John H. Day Canada Department of Agriculture Ottawa, Ontario I wish first to thank you for the invitation to participate in this work planning conference. My colleague, Dr. Wayne Pettapiece, and I are very pleased to be here. Dr. Pettapiece is Senior Pedologist and correlator for the Alberta Soil Survey. We also bring greetings from our director Dr. J.S. Clark and our other colleagues many of whom are known to you. Since your last meeting in 1977, at which Dr. John Shields reported, most soil surveyors and many soil scientists in Canada devoted much of their time to the final preparations for the International Soil Science Congress in Edmonton. From this point in time I believe most of us are happy to have done it and happy to go on to other things at a somewhat slower pace. Soil Survey Soil inventories continue in all provinces. In some, we are just now completing the first small scale surveys that will indicate the localities where larger scale surveys are warranted. The northern parts of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan remain for the most part unsurveyed as are large portions of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The southern areas where agriculture and urban concentrations are located are completely covered by medium intensity surveys. We are conducting detailed surveys in urbanizing areas. Unfortunately we still have a backlcg of unpublished reports and maps that difficult to banish. We instituted procedures to more quickly release provisional naps and legends to knowledgeable users during the course of the survey and upon completion of the field work. As Dr. Marlin Cline wrote in the bicentennial paper of the Soil Science Society of America (Vol. 41, p. 253) "We have been compelled to acknowledge that soil taxa and mapping units identified by the same name are two distinctly different things". To define our terms and mapping practices we will in the next year publish a "Soil Mapping System" for trial and evaluation. .-

l _

Soil Information system Soil map data is stored in the cartographic data subsystem. The subsystem is developed to the point that we can remove the digitizing and other errors in about four passes and thereafter "plot" a clean map. Single-factor maps or interpretive maps are then plotted. The soil data subsystem handles all non-cartographic data files such as soil profile descriptions, soil analysis, soil names and performancemanagement. The latter file is the least extensively developed, the soil descriptions and soil analytical data files the best developed. - 12 -

Land Evaluation The land evaluation programs, initiated in 1976. was designed to develop procedures concerned with assessing possibilities in the use of land, with the effects of these on the benefits obtained from land, and with the means through which desirable alternatives could be understood and undesirable avoided. The objectives of the program include: a)

to develop and maintain a comprehensive data base of land-related knowledge on rural land use and food production, to be used in advising primary producers, policy makers and governments.


to develop methods to evaluate rural land use on the basis of climate, soil and economic criteria, and to use these to assist and advise in planning rural land use.


to develop methods to evaluate the effects of government policy and policy tools on rural land use change.


to develop studies to test the developed methodologies in critical areas and to refine them where necessary.


The program has evolved and developed primarily by means of research projects carried out under contract. Its achievements to date are the development and planning of a manageable proposal for a first phase land evaluation program, and the subsequent application of the recommendations of this proposal to bring about the development of prototype methodologies and the collection of suitable data bases to deal with the problems of land evaluation. We are now entering a phase of refining and testing of the methodologies and the preparation of example studies and test evaluatiox comparing alternative methodologies and alternative sources of data. Projects in progress include the following: 1.

Growth stage maps for corn and cereals.

The objective is to prepare crop suitability and phenology maps for Quebec. Yield data, crop development data, soil data and climate data are being collected. 2.

Climate statistics for the Canadian Great Plains

The objective is to prepare normal climatic data synthesized on a 10 km grid from Atmospheric Environment Service Station data. 3.

Relationships between crop water balance and crop yield

The objective is to develop and evaluate phenological crop models with emphasis on yield prediction for pasture and hay crops in the Peace River region. These models will be based on quantitative relationships between crop yield and climate, soil water supply, related soil properties and crop characteristics. The study aims at developing yield assessments on a regional basis, in keeping with the requirements of the national land evaluation It will address the problems of inherent soil variability within - 13 -



between mapped soil units as the variability affects regional yield prediction, minimum soil and climatic data requirements for acceptable accuracy in yield prediction, the nature and extent of modifications required to adapt models developed elsewhere to conditions prevailing in the Peace River district of Alberta. 4.

Land evaluation in Saskatchewan and Ontario

The objectives in these studies is to develop methodologies for crop grow and yield modelling for wheat, barley, corn and alfalfa hay. i

- 14 -

NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK PLANNING CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY San Antonio, Texas January 29 - February 2, 1979 SOIL SURVEY IN LAND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CENTRE by Dr. J.R.D. Wall Project Manager Watershed Management Project El Salvador, Central America Firstly, I would like to thank you on behalf o f m y D i r e c t o r , Tony Smythe, for the invitation asking him to attend this working group. I have been nominated to attend in his place and very much appreciate the opportunity of meeting fellow workers and being present during their deliberations. Secondly, I regret that I have been unable to bring with me details of LRDC projects currently in operation so will simply give an outline of LRDC work and follow this up with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the project that I am personally familiar with, that in El Salvador. I think it is worthwhile making it clear that soil survey in UK is undertaken by two different t y p e s o f organisation. On the one hand there are national surveys, resembling the NCSS of USA, in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and on the other hand there is soil survey work being carried out by Land Resources Development Centre in the Ministry of Overseas Development. This latter is specifically at the request of governments of developing countries; it generally takes the form of bilateral aid projects designed specifically to answer requests for advice on d e v e l o p m e n t s t r a t e g i e s i n l a r g e a r e a s . There has been a trend in the last year or two to move beyond the giving of recommendations to participation in implementation. At the present there re some 8 projects in hand in 7 countries utilising 5 0 e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d o t h e r s p e c i a l i s t s . @ Almost all projects require the fielding of a multidisciplinary team of which the pedologist is generally a basic member. The soil input may be in the form of special studies, such 8s singleattribute maps, o r g e n e r a l - p u r p o s e b a s e s u r v e y s a t t h i r d t o f i f t h o r d e r . A few order 2 surveys Interpretative maps are commonly required based have been done, s u c h as f o r r e s e a r c h s t a t i o n s . on the soil map. We have found for many surveys, c o v e r i n g l a r g e o r s m a l l ~‘888, that the land system concept is a considerable help, firstly in understanding the landscape and breaking it down into ever more uniform areas, and secondly in forming the basis of both soil association maps and l a n d m a n a g e ment units. T h e a r e a s w h e r e t h e i m p l i c i t r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n s o i l , l i t h o l o g y , landform a n d v e g e t a t i o n s e e m m o s t o b s c u r e a r e i n g e o l o g i c a l l y o l d , p e r e p l s i n e d l a n d s c a p e s s u c h as in continental Africa; the relationships are clearest in geologically youthful, topographically varied l a n d s c a p e s s u c h as the Pacific Islands, Mexico, Malaysia. *-

The Pedologist, like all team members, has to be versatile as the work may move him from desert to humid tropics to subalpine environments on consecutive projects.


Currently LRDC soil scientista in multidiscipline teams are working in CYprus where an ambitious project is being evaluated to convey water from the better endowed south vest part of the island to the drier south east for domestic consumption and irrigation purposes; in southern Sudan to assist in vital reafferestation of the Imatong Mountains for internal wood needs; in the Cameroon8 to map the best areas for expansion of rubber, oilpalm and coconut; in Sumatra for d e f i n i n g area8 suitable for extensive resettlement of peoples from overcrowded Java, in two r e g i o n s o f T a n z a n i a f o r n a t i o n a l a8ses8ments of land use potential and planning, and in El Salvador for river catchment management planning and implementation. It is this last project that I shall now describe, as an example of the current trend in LRDC to add to the study phase implementation. 0 - 15 -

El Salvador S i t s s q u a r e l y o n t h e circum-Pacific v o l c a n i c b e l t a n d c o n s i s t s e s s e n t i a l l y o f Pliocene and younger basaltic/andesitic volcano Systems. 1t is Subtropical with a markfd w e t S e a s ” ” - d r y S e a s o n S e q u e n c e s t r o n g l y a f f e c t i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s . At 210,000 Km , it is the Smallest american country, y e t with a population in 1978 estimated St close to 5 million is “ne o f t h e m o s t d e n s e l y p e o p l e d . T h e S t u d y SreS, only 70,000 Km*, comprises the cetchment t h e A c e l h u a t e R i v e r a n d i n c l u d e s t h e m e t r o p o l i t a n SreS of the capital city San Salvador. The * population of this catchment is close to one million and is the moSt d e n s e l y p o p u l a t e d CStchmeot of all of Central and South America. This fact lies St the root of the problems which the LRDC team is studying, and which may be summarized as follows: 1. There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e s s u r e o n t h e l a n d f o r s u b s i s t e n c e a g r i c u l t u r e c r o p s , c h i e f l y maize and beans. These Sre traditionally grown by methods which take no cognizance Of t h e n e e d t o c”nserve s o i l . Clean cultivation on the widespread steep slopes, which r e a c h 3 5 ” a n d m o r e , i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The consequences of this under the typically heavy rain Storms are physical Soil loss, reduced soil fertility and greatly increased sedimentation in the river net. One major dam used for hydro-electric power for example, h a s i t s e s t i m a t e d l i f e r e d u c e d b y o n e h a l f SS a r e s u l t o f t h i s s e d i m e n t a t i o n .


2. The ever-increasing, barely restrained urban spread has caused disruption and disorganisation o f n a t u r a l d r a i n a g e , concentrating discharge into Some valleys St the expense of o t h e r s . This has drastically increased river erosion to the point where airport runways, urban Irousing developments, new roads, S e w a g e o u t f a l l s , f o r e x a m p l e , a r e b e i n g a c t i v e l y threatened. Affecting this issue considerably is the presence of young, very weakly c o n s o l i d a t e d e r o d i b l e , p u m i c i t i c a s h d e p o s i t s b e n e a t h t h e c i t y r e a c h i n g d e p t h s o f 1 0 0 III “r more, but thinning out northwards where basaltic clays are dominant. T h e s e two e x t r e m e s of pedologic m a t e r i a l s Sre e x p e c t e d t ” h a n d l e a n d r e a c t v e r y d i f f e r e n t l y both to nStura1 e r o s i o n a n d t o e r o s i o n c o n t r o l meSSures. 3.

The rapidly increasing urban land, s q u a t t e r c o l o n i e s a l o n g b a r a n c a s , SoneS of industry and manufacturing (El Salvador is the m”St i n t e n s i v e l y i n d u s t r i a l i z e d c e n t r a l a m e r i c a n c o u n t r y ) , t h e l a c k o f a u n i f i e d s e w a g e t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m , t h e i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s O f laws c o n t r o l l i n g p o l l u t i o n t h e 6-month d r y s e a s o n , all lead to wster s u p p l y a n d p o l l u t i o n p r o b l e m s w h i c h thre’aten public health, future urban growth, and irrigation and fishing development downstream. To firstly examine problems Snd to produce a catchment management plan, which would be a model for other catchments in the country, the government of the United Kingdom is fielding a team c o n t a i n i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g S p e c i a l i s t s : pedologistjgeomorphologist, a g r o n o m i s t / a g r i c u l t u r a l e n g i n e e r , planner/extensionist, economist, hydrologist, b i o c h e m i c a l e n g i n e e r , s o c i o l o g i s t a n d l a n d t e n u r e s p e c i a l i s t . The work is divided into a study phase of about one year and, depending on the approval and financing of the p l a n , a p h a s e o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f u p t ” f o u r y e a r s .

The place of the Soil Survey in this Scheme is to provide base information for the other specialist. 1 . T h e a g r o n o m i s t / a g r i c u l t u r a l e n g i n e e r r e q u i r e s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f m a i n s o i l types to f a c i l i t a t e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n s o i l a n d c r o p s , p r e s e n t a n d p o t e n t i a l , a n d t o enable appropriate conservation treatments to be designed. 2 . T h e h y d r o l o g i s t n e e d s t o k n o w t h e s o i l s m o s t s u s c e p t i b l e t o r i v e r erosion. 3. The whole team needs to know the soil pattern in order to produce land capability mSPS and to design “ptimsl ways of allowing orderly and planned rural and urban development.

- 16 -



Ideally a” order two or simi-detailed soil survey would be desirable. However, t h e r e a r e t i m e and staff restraints which dictate that the best way to achieve the required information is by maximum use of airphoto interpretation to delineate physiographic units and to examine the majority of these by use of sample strips, namely the lend system method. 0 Fieldwork f o r t h i s i s n e a r i n g c o m p l e t i o n as s a m p l i n g o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o i l s g e t s u n d e r w a y . It is anticipated that the soil map will be produced et 1:50000 u s i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s o f s u b groups possibly phased by depth and texture. The preferred taxonomic system in El Salvador is the USDA Soil Taxonomy. This should work well in general but, based on p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e , I a n t i c i p a t e a f e w p r o b l e m s . As illustrat i o n s , t h e r e a r e e x t e n s i v e areas with mollic e p i p e d o n s o v e r l y i n g v o l c a n i c a s h : e r o s i o n i n such areas leads to juxtaposition of soils of two orders depending solely on the depth of this epipedon. This seems undesirable. T h e v o l c a n i c a s h i n w e a t h e r i n g w i l l b e d i f f i c u l t t o a l l o c a t e t o I n c e p t i s o l s o r Entisols in some instances without detailed laboratory analyses which may not be possible. Furthermore, the presence of allophane-rich soil is know” to produce difficulties in mechanical analysis due to pseudo aggregation on drying: this results in false clay values and wrong assessments of exchange activity and base retention. Identification of the argillic horizon may also prove difficult in the clay-rich basaltic s o i l s , even with resort to thin sections and mineralogical analysis. However, t h e s e a r e a l l “ i f s ” a n d “ b u t s ” a n d h o p e f u l l y t a x o n o m i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i l l n o t b e so troublesome. I console myself with the fact that in the end it is not the name that counts but the actual descriptions.


On the whole I like the USDA Soil Taxonomy and realize that it is still subject to modifications and improvement. I acknowledge the enormous amount of work that has gone behind it but would urge greater speed in response to overseas studies and suggested improvements in order that acknowledged deficiencies can be overcome: I am thinking specifically of Guy Smith’s p r o p o s a l s f o r a new order of Andisols, and other suggestions for improving Oxisols. I would like to round off this talk by making a few remarks on @“me of the committee I attended. With respect to the utility of the Soil Family class, this is something s h a l l h a v e t o c o n s i d e r c a r e f u l l y o n m y c u r r e n t p r o j e c t . It would seem however, that m a p p i n g u n i t i t ’ s a d v a n t a g e s exe few and that savings in time might be o~ffset by the e s t a b l i s h a n d characterise s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l t h e c o m p o n e n t s e r i e s .

meetings which I as a need to

With reepect’to mapping unit variability, I can mention two ways in which the team has attempted to assess or quantify this in previous surveys. I ” o n e , in the Solomon Islands, where the land system approach was successfully used, the fieldwork concentrated on developing soil-land facet links (the,landscape component which makes up a land system and which is fairly uniform in ecological characteristics). Using a transparent dot grid overlay randomly set on stereopairs the number of dots on different facets were counted and, u s i n g t h e a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d f a c e t / s o i l r e l a t i o n s h i p , s o m e s e m i - q u a n t i t a t i v e i d e a of the soils per mapping unit (land system) could be obtained. The other method was used in Nigeria where a comparison was tried between the methodology of a m o r e - o r - l e s s c o n v e n t i o n a l l a n d s y s t e m a n a l y s i s a n d f r e e - t r a v e r s e s o i l s u r v e y a n d o n e in which the soil pattern of land system’s is enalysed by pre-designed, statistically s e l e c t e d t r a v e r s e s . This method has been evolved by David Lang of LRDC and I believe is currently in use in a project in Tanzania. I do not have figures showing the relative savings in time or of the relative accuracy of this method but suspect that the improvements are significant.

- 17 -

F i n a l l y , I sat in on o n e c o m m i t t e e s e s s i o n i n w h i c h t h e f u t u r e s t a f f i n g o f t h e USCS w a s being considered and when some worries were being implicitly expressed regarding the longterm needs for soil specialists. This made me smile in view of the great amount of soil w o r k s t i l l r e m a i n i n g o v e r s e a s - and so I suggest that in the light of this, because of the undoubted salesmanship expertise of Americans and in view of your eminently salesworthy I have a feeling product, Soil Taxonomy, you begin sending more pedologists overseas. that if you don’t you will find that you will lose control over the development of your model.


- 18 -

NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK PLANNING CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY San Antonio, Texas January 29 - February 2, 1979 SOME PROBLEMS IN SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SOIL SURVEY BROUGHT UP DURING RECENT FIELD WORK IN LATIN AMERICA by Dr. P. Segalen BONDY, France During the last few years, ORSTOM pedologists have been working on soil surveys in various Latin American countries. The most important ones have been carried out in Ecuador and Venezuela. In Ecuador, the whole country is being mapped at various scales depending on the possibility o f p e n e t r a t i o n , the availability of maps and local requirements; soil maps are going to be p u b l i s h e d a t s c a l e s f r o m l/100.000 t o l / 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 . In Venezuela only the southern part of the country, k n o w n as “Territorio Federal de Amazonas”, is under survey. This is a m o s t d i f f i c u l t c o u n t r y t o g e t i n t o w i t h h a r d l y a n y r o a d s b u t o n l y some large rivers and a f e w l a n d i n g s t r i p s . Forest covers most of the land, the rest is under savanna; more than 2000 meter high mountains take turns with low lying swampy plains. The rainfall is 2 meters and more. In these countries two sorts of problems have arisen. cation, and the second the soil survey itself.

T h e f i r s t concerns

the soil classifi-

The soil legend is generally established on a p h y s i o g r a p h i c b a s i s . Various areas related mostly with relief are delimiteted and the soils found therein are named at the subgroup level using the Soil Taxonomy. Provisions concerning the possible use of the soils are made. S o m e d i f f i c u l t i e s w e r e e n c o u n t e r e d w h e n t h e q u e s t i o n erase to give names to some high andean s o i l s . Most of the ridges are covered by recent volcanic ash, mostly endesitic or dacitic nutrbrial, which weathers to allophane; the younger soils are endepts of various types. Older ones !li) l o n g e r c o n t a i n a m o r p h o u s m a t e r i a l b u t l a t t i c e c l a y m i n e r a l s . They show conspicuous mollic epipedons and the soils did not seem to fit with the definitions of the Soil Taxonomy. Tiic: man in charge of the survey, F. COLMET-DAAGE, was lucky enough to make field trips with Dr. Cuy SMITH, who made new proposals for andepts and mollisols to take into account the p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r andean soils which can b e f o u n d a l s o i n n e a r b y C o l u m b i a . I n Southern Venezuela, soils showing the morphology of solonetz were found. B u t pH is about 5 and exchangeable sodium is 0,l me’1100 g. In the Soil Taxonomy these soils are accounted for a s tropaquu1ts. Air In Southern Venezuela no maps are readily available for most of the area under study. photographs are often covered by clouds and only radar photographs can give a clear view of the land. In this area, Landsat imagery has proved very useful. A comparison has been made between a c l a s s i c s o i l s u r v e y a n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c a r r i e d b y d i f f e r e n t coloured v i e w s . The following methodology has been proposed and tried by G. SIEFFERMANN who worked several years in this *rea. First of all a check area has been chosen on a diazo p r i n t e n l a r g e d a t t h e s c a l e o f l / 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 . T h i s a r e a c a r r i e s f i v e o r s i x d i f f e r e n t s o i l u n i t s ,identified a t s u b g r o u p l e v e l . T h e t o t a l surface is about a hundred square kilometers, i s e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e , a n d r e p r e s e n t s a l s o t h e vegetation pattern of the surrounding area.

- 19 -

The check zone is spotted on the diaso eheet and e grid mep gives its coordinetea. These limits are given to e computer through e punch card.


Each radiometric channel has been studied separately end thoee that give the beet information ere retained: channels 5 and 7. The histograms given by eeeh channel are cut out into 8 or u n i t e . The computer outputs ere compared with the ground truth with e treeing et the eeme scale of about 1125.000. Different combinationa of chennele ten be made end the compsrieon of the output of different combinations made with the ground truth allowe the selection of the beet ones. For instance, channels 5 end 7 allow to single out:


- rivers and sometimes to distinguish between black water end white weter rivers. - wet f o r e s t s - dry f o r e s t s

- t r e e BeVennea - o p e n e*“*nnee -

ewempe, end eo on.

T h i s t y p e o f anelyeie lerdr eeeentielly to the delimitetion of phyeiogrephic unitr. B u t ee moat of them ere cloeely releted with Texonomic unite, they em be wry helpful to define soil boundaries. Moreover, the diazo printm at the l topographic documente.

eel. of l/l.OOO.OOO c.n ba ured to prrp.r. high quelity

T h e conclusion of thie study rllowr to rmmmmnd tha following rtepe during e emrll ecrle


soil survey. 1.

Choore on the diero print 4 to 6 of about . h u n d r e d .qurrr kilolpetere .r..e of .r.y ~CCBII, thet eeem to b e q u i t e roprrwntatiw ot tha total aonr undrr study,


work out with the help of thr computrr throqh vrrioue combinrtione


T h e n c h e c k in the field the vrlidity ot thr limite end trko notice ot t h e necermry amendmente.

4. Work out with the help of thr cmputar t a k i n g i n t o eccount thr rmendmmt#, 5.



first drrft.

nru document of tb whole ara under rtudy,

A new field c h e c k ie nrcwarry brtorr tb final drrtt.

S o , the roil survey of than* t w o countrira bree rrierd quit. ditterent problema. The tht concerned the Soil Texonomy itwlt that could tortunrtaly be molwd with thr hrlp of Dr. GUY SMITH. The reoond concerned e mrthodology tor thr aurwy itrali. A proposition ww mrdr using landret imrgery. It iu prrtty costly but enablea to land in my open area. Lart yrrr, l helicopter VII trird, Hervily toreetrd eonen bra et111 rccrnriblr with d i t t i o u l t y .

Erch imepe 180 x 180 km - 20 -

-. .’

Public Participation and the Soil Survey

This week you are assembled as the "national technical work planning conference of the national cooperative soil survey." One word in that title, reveals that there is in fact public participation in the soil survey program. That one word is cooperative. It means people working together for a cotnnon purpose. This week the people working together include those with an interest in forestry, land management, farming, research, teaching, resource planning and, of course, soils. This working together does not take place in a supervisor/subordinate relationship, rather as colleagues striving toward a cormion goal. At this planning conference, in an atmosphere of\free give and take, people are putting forward ideas, discussing issues and trying to influence others. We could label this being cooperative. We could also call it public participation, if it meets the definition we often use. Let's try this definition: public participation is activity undertaken by the public to influence the behavior of those empowered to make decisions. If anyone here this week has undertaken an activity to influence the behavior of those empowered to make decisions about the soil survey program, then we have been having public participation. You decide for yourself. My own feeling is that in the soil survey program there is a conmiitment to public participation, as this conference demonstratz. I am aware of some interesting public participation activities in soil survey in Illinois, tlew York. and Louisiana. I'm sure you know others. You in soil survey are in step with the current philosophy that encourages government to provide opportunities to the public to participate. This philosophy is spelled out in Executive Order 12044, which says that when developing new programs (or regulations) or making major revisions to old programs there must be an early opportunity for the public to partlcipate and cornnent. The philosophy is furthered by the Secretary of Agriculture in Memorandum 1955, which extends the President's directive to all U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) decisionmaking that has broad scope. This memorandum establishes a decision calendar and requires public participation related to these decisions. Along with this Ilemorandum, Notes prepared for presentation by Ida 0. Cuthbertson, Community Planner, Soil Conservation Service, at the National Technical Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, San Antonio, Texas, February 1, 1979.

- 21 -

USDA gives the following guidelines to it's agencies, including Soil Conservation Service (SCSI. for making these decisions of broad scope (such as substantial change in total program outlays): . SCS is directed to actively solicit public connient. . SCS is encouraged to use several means to obtain the greatest possible public input, . SCS is required to have a related Public Participation plan as we begin this decisonmaking. and SCS is required to have a Public Participation Office reporting 'directly to the Administrator. And SCS is imecting these requirements at the national level. You may be interested in the definition of the term, the "public", according to the Executive Order. The public includes other Federal agenci'es, State and local governments. businesses. organizations, and individual imnnbers of the public. The SCS definition says the public includes all those who have an interest in or who may be affected by an SCS-assisted activity. The two definitions are compatible. I I mention these directives to show the emphasis that the Fedct-dl Government places on public participation. Public participation is part of the way that government does business these days. Civcn this emphasis, three major questions come to mind: First. how much public participation are we to have? What arc we required to do? Second. how Imuch ought we to have? After we do what is required, should WC do Imore? Third, how Imuch do we inform the public? How much do we tell people so that they can participate in a meaningful way? 1 will attempt to answer these questions. and I say "dttelllpt" advisedly, for each of these questions there is no single, hdrd Ed fasl Thcrc iibdy be d range of answers, dcprnding on lhc situation. 1:11t i5 there arrothur question lurking in your mind thal we should address first? Are you asking yourself the question - Why bother with public participation? "Why bother" Jo a legitimate question. And there are several dnswers:

lwcduse dl,SWC,‘.

With public participation we have every reason to expect that a better decision will result, partly because tht! decision will have a broader base of support. When representatives of interested groups or individuals participate, they are buying into the decision. They have a stake in the outcome. Public participation often leads to decisions that are feasible, likely to be implemented. Through public participation activities, the decision maker may get early warning about potential trouble. That is valuable information. In soil survey. the decision maker could get knowledge about the needs of potential survey users. That, too, would be useful information.

- 22 -

In fact public participation can be one of the sources of information that is needed in decisionmaking. Which is why, in the Federal Government, public participation is the way of doing business these days--to illlprove decisionmaking. Second, in answer to the "why bother" question, we know there is much skepticism about government these days. Proposition 13 is a watchword. ilore citizens want to know ~more about how the government spends their money. We invite people to participate. Hopefully, this will build trust. The bottom line answer to the "why bother" question is that the government belongs to the people. We in governlnent are elected or appointed officials, entrusted with some very important business that we conduct for the public. When people say--as they have over the past 15 years-that they want more opportunity to help make decisions, then the people are to be given the opportunity. We retain the responsibility for making technical decisions because the people authorized us to do this. WC are their trustees in this regard: And we have the responsibility for making But in the nutter of program planning, priority operational~decisions. setting. choices among alternatives--the people rightfully may give us their views~and we will consider them. So these are some benefits from public participation activities and some reasons why we offer these opportunities. Now, back to the three big questions. As I offer some answers to these questions, you lmight want to have in mind an actual case--say, updating You might also want to keep in the State long-range plan for soil survey. mint1 .this overall guide: Be practical. Use common sense. Let's take that first question: If we are going to provide opportunities for the public to participate, how much opportunity should we provide? Answer: Enough opportunities so that the people or their representatives who have an interest in the issue or will be affected by the decision will have an opportunity to express their views, in the interest of better ~Iccisio~~ltlaking. Let's look at a relevant situation: Updating a long-range p Id,, . As I understand it, in each State there is to be a long-range plan Lath year representatives of the cboperfor completing the soil survey. sting agencies meet together to update the plan. What the representatives do is discuss the plan and make necessary adjustments: Affirming some decisions and revising others. You could call this "partial replanning:" I suspect these decisionmakers use some kind of planning methodology, perhaps something like this, perhaps not in this order: Kecognize the long-range goals, Consider the objectives for the coming year or two, Discuss the product that the survey will yield, Identify the resources available: Personnel, time, dollars, Look at alternative ways of using the resources to reach the objectives,

- 23 -

lliscuss potential users in fields such as health, environmental quality, agriculture, land management, real estate, forestry, building, banking, appraisal, planning, Adjust the implementation schedule, if necessary. After the agency representatives discuss these points, they lmay ask theeselves: If we are going to provide opportunities for the public to participate, how much opportunity should we provide? Ilere are three guidelines, announced by USDA, that help to answer the "how Imuch" question: Participation will be meaningful. It will be broad. It will be open. To be meaningful, the public is to have an opportunity to express its views before the decision is made and the public is to be asked to collnlent on the cmajor issues. To have Imeaningful participation in updating the long-range plan, the representatives ask themselves two questions: (1) What do we want to ask the public to collraent on? (2) When, during the process. do we want to hear collrtlents from the public? After these questions are answered, the agency representatives decide how to do this. There are several ways. I'or example: - Go to the people and ask them sollIe questfons, or - Ask theu to come to you, then ask the111 some questions, or - Send a letter with a card to Imail back the answer, or - Phone theIll. In the case of updating the long range plan, a workshop might be a practical method to use. Dut whatever way is chosen, the people must understand what they are being asked. why their views are wanted, and what will be done with their answers. This is necessary to meet the requircmcnts that participation be open and meaningful. In the case of updating the long-range plan, it might work somothi ng like this: The represcrltdtivcs of the soil survey cooperdting agencies would meet to discuss the long-range plan, decide what questions they want to ask participants, and plan to hold a workshop at a later date. Then the workshop would be planned so participants would accomplish some meaningful task. After the workshop, these representatives would Imeet to consider the collullents, then Imake decisions, including adjustments to the long-range plan. It is likely that some sug!lcstions made by participants could not be accoilatlodated until the following year, and some suggestions not accolluilodated at all. The next step in planning the workshop is to assign people to carry Out these tasks and set some tentative deadline dates. In making assignments, be sure to include the information activities that are necessary to inform the public about updating the long-range plan. Now the representatives have planned for participation. This is the same kind of participation planning that is being done at the national level relative to national decisionmaking for the soil survey program.

- 24 -



Going through that planning process provides Inlost of the answers to our "How lmuch nlust we have? What are we required to do?" first question: In a phrase, the answer is enough to help nlake sound decisions. The next question is "ttow much ought we,to have?" or "Hoti nluch do we do in addition to the amount we must have?" I would suggest that the answer to Question 2 is the same as the answer to Question 1: . . . enough In other words, we don't have a minimuln to help make sound decisions. standard and then optional incrnments, each of which presumably produces incrcnlentally better program planning and implementation. You plan to provide participation opportunities that you think will help make sound decisions. If you need to adjust your participation plan later, you can. WC have been talking about agency representatives planning to provide opportunities for the public to participate--when people can umlertake activities to influence the behavior of those empowered to Itlake decisions. UuL what about the public? How do people feel about activity that we call If you public participation? Put yourself in their shoes for a ilioilient. are invited to participate in some decisionmaking, your firsts reaction I;lay be: “1’111 thankful that as a citizen I am not required to participate, that I have the freedom to do so or not to do so--just as I have the ri,ght to vote or not vote." You may feel that you need more information before you will decide to participate. Still standing in their shots, recall that, as an interested citizen, you would want to know about the opportunity,to participate and about the issues that arye being decided. In our example, people would want to know what the long-range, plan is;,how a soil survey is made. Then, before the interested citizen would decide to participate, you itlust feel that the propdsal will somhow affect you. Thirdly, as this citizen, you nlust feel that by participating you can affect the decision to be Inlade. Fourth, that by affecting the decision, this will soiilehow result in a better outcollIe for you. Finally, as this interested citizen, you must feel that you have the finances, time, irltcllectual and psychological resources that it takes for participatiorl. so aCtr:r progressing mentally through these steps, you, as the interested citizen, arc likely to participate, unless at the last minute something else happens that blocks the path. On the other hand, if you are another citizen, invited to participate, you may feel an obligation to get involved, if you can spare the resources. What do we learn from this exercise of walking in the citizen's shoes? WC 1eat.11 that: 1. The infomation callipaign related to public participation is It is essential if the citizen is to know _v_e_ry important. about the decision to be made. What else could we learn by walking in the citizen's shoes? If the citizen is asked to participate and expresses some 2. opinions, the citizen expects these opinions to be taken into consideration in making the decision. 3. If the citizen is asked to participate, then he or she must choose to spend tiilie, money. and brains on participating, rather than on sonlething else--such as Monday nite football.

- 25 -


If the citizen is asked too many times to participate, or is given a task too complex, or no task at all, the citizen may get "worn out" or discouraged and become unresponsrve.

Looking at public participation through the eyes of the citizen may help decisionmakers plan for it. The important guides to keep in mind are: Be Open--give the public the information they need. Be Broad--invite groups from a wide range of interests. Be Meaningful--make this a useful, pertinent activity for both citizenry and government, Here then are some rules of thumb you might use; - Tell the people about the proposal or decision to be made, the pertinent issues we identified. and the decisionmaking process. Use plain language--forget the agency jargon and technical language. - Invite people to participate, explain how they can respond, and when want to hear from them. - Tell them how their views will be considered in making the decision. - Ask them to comment on specific topics, such as: __-_ __ __

A goal for a Z-year program. Several alternatives. The entire proposal. Priorities among a number of things. Related problems that they foresee.

- And ask them to give you their reasons for saying what they did say. These rules of thumb go a long way toward answering Question #3. "How much do we inform the public?" The short answer is: Give people enough backqround about the decision, issues, and process so they can thoughtfully provide meaningful comments. tlow you tell them is as important as what you tell them. Here, the mormation Officer can help immenselrput out a brochure or flyer. You can use simple diagrams to explain the decisionmaking process and pictures to show how you make a soil survey. And, as you follow the guidelines, are practical, and use comnon sense, feel assured that if you Imake a good faith effort to provide opportunities for open, broad, and meaningful participation, you will be on the right Good luck road. Public participation can be a fascinating adventure. to you as you begin. Thank you.

- 26 -

NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK PLANNING CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY San Antonio, Texas January 29 - February 2, 1979 COMPLETING SOIL SURVEYS NATIONWIDE by Victor C. Link Director Soil Survey Operations Division It is the goal of the National Cooperative Soil Survey to complete soil surveys nationwide on all lands at the earliest practical date. Approximately 67% (1.43 of 2.27 billion acres) of the Nation,has s o i l m a p p i n g completed. Current This leaves approximately 840 million acre6 to be mapped. :~nnunl mapping production is about 55 million acres. At this rate it would Delaware, Maryland, t:lke nhout 16 years to complete the remaining acreage. Other State8 Rhode Island, Hawaii, and the Caribbean Area are already completed. range from about 35% to nearly 100% completed. At the current rate of production, sofl!? States will require 25 to 30 years to complete the onceover soil mapping. Without management tlue stated goal will not be reached. 0 To achieve a” orderly completion, some adjustments of positions and CO-02 funds between States will be necessary. A long range plan will be developed to guide adjustments. It is anticipated that States with firm commitments with local cooperators for acceleration and completion of statewide mapping can be allowed 1,) ccmlplete their plan a8 s c h e d u l e d . l’l!~, pIan will br hastad on the c u r r e n t f u n d i n g levrl a n d availnhlr soil scirntists, hot11 SCS a n d n o n - S C S . Adjuetmentn will be made to the plan as conditions changr. There w i l l b e p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e p l a n f o r m a i n t a i n i n g s o i l s c i e n t i s t s i n S t a t e s after mapping is completed. The soil scientist staff remaining will be determined by program needs and workload analysis.



NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK PLANNING CONFERENCE OF THE NATlONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY San Antonio, Texas January 29 - F e b r u a r y 2 , 1 9 7 9 SOIL POTENTIAL by Donald E. McCormnck Washington, U.C. Soil potentials are ratings of soil quolity with the application of modern technology t o overcomf s o i l limitations. Their purpose is to help achieve sound decisions about the use end management of land. ‘ T h e y we c o n s i d e r a b l y more versatile and more useful than ratings of soil limitations, a n d a v o i d 8omc o f t h e p r o b l e m s that ‘us~ra haw w i t h s o i l linlitntiona, c.S., If o sol1 has ~~were l i m i t a t i o n s Cor u g i v e n lund “Be, then i t s h o u l d n ’ t b e wx?d for that p u t - p o w . This i s n o t true o f CO”r*E, a n d wea n e v e r i n t e n d e d , b u t i s a m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that iti m u c h t o o co~unon. WV a p p r e c i a t e c o m m e n t s by.Wil Westervcld i n d i c a t i n g uw of soil potentiule in the Netherlands. W e ‘t~ope that t h e c o n c e p t bc tested in o t h e r n a t i o n s oad by our coopcruting agencies in the U.S. We would lihc f o r y o u t o hcep u s i n f o r m e d o f y o u r we of soil potenticila and srwd us c o p i e s o f t h e a s s u m p t i o n s , definitions,‘criterio, and r a t i n g cluclaes that you develop. The rating of soil potential is achieved using the following expression: SPI = I’ - CM - CL, whet-c


- pcrlormnnce standard

C M - corrective mcaeuroe

Each t e r m i s defined in the Nutionnl S o i l s Howlbook, SccLion 4 0 4 , and W e w o u l d l i k e t o 8ec mow cfforta w e woo’t g o i n t o t h a t d e t a i l here. like the Canfield ( O h i o ) S u b d i v i s i o n Hegulntions w h e r e corrcctivc mensurc~ were d i s c u s s e d i n t e n s i v e l y l o c a l l y , a n d a d o p t e d i n o r d i n a n c e s . T o h o v e one set o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r d e s i g n o f h o m e s a n d streets t h a t a p p l i e s t o 311 oreoti (011 s o i l s ) o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y ( o r c o u n t y ) i s r i d i c u l o u s , owl e s p e c i a l l y w h e r e d e t a i l e d s o i l nurvrys ore ovnilnblc. - 28 -

D e v e l o p i n g rotinga o f s o i l p o t e n t i a l r e q u i r e s t h a t s o i l s b c placed into on urrny based on SPI, a n d t h a t class l i m i t s b c w.t l o c a l l y . T h e y a r c intended t o c o v e r o n l y t h e l o c a l univrrsc of aoila. Local detu on munsure[l and t h e i r coet# a n d o n t h e severity o f c o n t i n u i n g Ijmitntiontl arc uacd. T o make t h i e w o r k the w a y i t ehould, the ooil That Bcienti.Ls m u s t r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e y have a big limitn.tion. linlication is Lhe g r a n d delueion that they are the once w h o k n o w about s o i l s . Thot~ s i m p l y isn’t t r u e . The people who know by fur tin: mwt about Noiltl arc t h o s e w h o uw t h e m - - f o r m e r , t h o cwginrtsr, the crlllLr*ctor, “tc. Llur j o b i s t o orgwizc whaL t h e y knuw 80 tlwl iL wny bc p~‘opcrly n p p l i c d t o n e w prublcms a n d utw ureas.

‘1‘1~: purpow of thcae projects wn~~ t o test the proccdurf outlined i n W C lx! I icw NSll Scclion 4 0 4 , und t o p r o v i d e t r a i n i n g i n this procedure. Lhot :Iddit.ionnl p i l o t e x e r c i s e s s h o u l d bc c o n d u c t - c d L O oswuro Lhot SL;ILIJ stllfltl nro p r o p e r l y tyeincd i n the proccdur~*s, w* sugllcst tlloL tllh* ‘XC ur;sisL w i t h uno p r o j e c t i n eucll Stutl’. WhcLhcr or noL t o publish s o i l potcntinls iu soi,l RUL‘V~‘~H ~IIH bcrn lcit up LO the stntcs. lf t h e Stilte fwls that publicntiun w o u l d help ochicve f u l l ueu o f the eoil s u r v e y , Lhrn W C w i l l pub1 iall them. ‘Uwrc ilrc no plans to require c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e rating8 ut a n y ‘To d o HO w o u l d negate one o f LIK mnjor lcvcl 3bOVL’ the survey *r(?a. writ* uf t h e syatcm.


.- 29 -

NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK PLANNING CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY January 29 - February 2, 1979 NORTHEAST REGIONAL WORK PLANNING CONFERENCE REPORT Edward J. Ciolkosz The Pennsylvania State University The 1978 Northeast Cooperative Soil Survey Work Planning Conference was a meeting of Firsts. The First of these was that for the first time we operated under a written set of by-laws which spelled out the purpose, the policies and the procedures of the Northeast meetings. These by-laws were unaninmusly accepted at our 1976 conference. The second First was that we held our meeting in the sunmer (July 17-22, 1978) on the calllpus of the University of Connecticut at Storrs. All previous meetings were held in January in New York City. The summer meeting enabled us to have a half-day field trip in which we viewed soils and tbbacco production in the Connecticut river valley. The summer meeting time was well received by the members of the conference and it will be continued for our next conference which is to be held June 23-27.1980 on the ca~t~pus of the Pennsylvania State University in State College, Pennsylvania. The third First was that the format of the conference followed that which was used in a .few past national conferences. This was that all cotlwllittee work was done by mail and a draft of all conmittee reports was distributed at the beginning of the conference. The reports were discussed in four discussion groups by the chairman of the committee. After this discussion the reports were revised and presented to the conference as a whole, and appropriate action was taken to accept the report and continue or discontinue the conrllittee. This procedure was also well received by the conference and it will be followed at the 1980 conference. The last First was that the conference authorized a regional project. The committees on the pt-oject are to prepare and publish a soils map for the Northeast with an accotilpanying bulletin. The map and bulletin conmlittees for this project are being set up and it is hoped that a draft of the map and bulletin will It is presently proposed that be ready for our 1980 Northeast conference. the II~J be at a scale of about 1:2,500,000 with associations of (It-cat groups as map units and the bulletin to be similar to the report "Soils of the Southern States and Puerto Rico" put out by the Southern region in 1973. There were 12 committees in the Northeast Confrrence. In retrospect this was too large a number of committees and may bc part of the reason I do not intend to SUIIIonly 3 of the 12 made significant contributions. marize the results of all of these committees, but I just want to mention a few things about some of the cotllmittee work. The Legal Aspects of the Use and Interpretations of Soil Survey COIIImittee up-dated their 1974 report of environmental legislation in the Northeast and reported that some legislation has been passed that uses soil survey or soils data. The Use of Soils for Waste Management Conwrittee developed a 54 page report with many guides and evaluations of previously proposed guides. Three topics, soil mapping unit composition, soil moisture and soil potentials, came up in mot-e than one committee.

- 30 -

The need for a standard method and its immediate use to determine soil mapping unit conlposition was very apparent. A coordinated effort in obtaining soil water data particularly in relation to length of duration and soil morphology relations was also stressed. The Soil Potential Ratings for Selected Uses Committee generated a 30 page report and pointed out some problems where there is more than one possible corrective measure. The following are some brief conlments on the experilnent station and special reports: 1.

Septic tank longevity and the movement of nitrate and phosphate around septic tanks is being studied in Connecticut. These studies indicate that pollutants move in finger patterns in sandy soils overlain by finer textured lllaterial. Studies in Pennsylvania on soil alorphological changes due to waste water irrigation indicate that also in finer textured soils there is a significant channeling of water through the soil.


Soil temperatures are being Imeasured by many states in the Northeast both by the experiment stations and the SCS. This interest is related to the classification of soils into the mesic and frigid fanlilies as well as the possible relationships of spodosols to the frigid temperature regime.


Soil characterization work continues, at many of the experiiiiental station labs, and a new characterization lab has been established at Cornell University.


Soil potentials are being studied in various experiment stations. In particular soil potentials on mined land is being investigated by Jerry Neilsen while on sabbatical leave at Penn State.


Everyone seenls to he doing sludge application work. I hope someone is going to pull all this infornlation together sollleday.


John Rourke reported on the Status and Future of the Soil Survey in the Northeast. John informed us that about 65% of the NE has been mapped, and that the Caribbean Area, Delaware, Maryland and Rhode Island are completed and that Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are 90-952 complctr.


Ron Yeck reported on the national soil survey lab. He reported that although the staff is smaller than the combined staffs of the pre-existing labs it provides more data by using a null+ ber of labor saving devices as well as more sophisticated data handling techniques. He also indicated that data from large projects are generated within 12 months and front small projects within 3 months.


Dick Arnold gave a very interesting presentation on quantifying the accuracy and precision of our soil Illapping as well as its variability. If you are interested, the paper is given in the proceedings of the NE Conference. - 31 -


January 29 - February 2, 1919 Southcro

S o i l Research Committcr

R e p o r t o f Ll\c L a n d Crnnt Collc~e Kcpwscnt:titjvc o f the

Fcnt~on Gray, Chnirpersun



H . II. B a i l e y , Prcrfessor of Soil, 011 tllc.


colltr.tbuLions tile 12 solll:llorn

f r o m the u. of Ken~uc-kjf,



arc rll:lking f o r Sol1 Survey:;.

- 34 -

NATIONAL TEClINICAL WORK PLANNING CONFERENCE OF Tllli NATIONAL COC)PERATIVl< SOlI. SURVEY Jununry 19 - February 2 , 1 9 7 9 Wee~ern ueSionn1 Soil Survey Work Planning Conference ~eporL

bY L. A. Daugherty New Mexico Stute Univernity ‘The Western HcSIonal Work I’lnnnioS Conferonco met the week of February M o r e then 70 soil sclentlnt wore in 13-17, 1 9 7 8 in Sao DlcRo, Celifornio. :ItL-w~dunco roprcsrlititq: the Soil Consurvntion Service, Yorctlt S e r v i c e . Iiurrnu o f Lend MunaScmont, Rureuu oZ Indian A f f a i r s , Burouu o f Reclometion. II. S. ~~coloSlcn1 S u r v e y , ARriculturel, Rwearch S e r v i c e , Kxperjment S t a t i o n s . r i n d LhO Soil surwy of L’nneda. T h e inltl~ul ~csslon includ,*d telke o n t h e f o l l o w i n g topics: “Organization wll survcYH to ma-L Loday’n needn”; “ H o l e o f t h e Universitlrs in the loll wrvcy proymm”; “Kol~c of ‘I’cchntcnl Srrvlrr C a n t o r . S C S , I n the eoll ourvey proyrnm”. OLhcr dlscusulone throughout the course of the conference included: n punr~l ou rewnrch ncttvities Ln t h e woatern atetea: * pnnel on remote rr~nslllg; D pswJ o n dcelRn o f ~011 surveys t o m e e t objectlvca; agency rqorte; and ii field t r l p Lo l o o k ot n Lrfintlect oC the soils o f S a n Diego C o u n t y . Mwt o f tlw confercnco W~H on prewntation e n d rcportsl. M o s t o f thr committee w o r k welt done prior wrtfcipetit In the collSerence had the o p p o r t u n l t y t o wch r e p o r t . ‘Chc followinS s u c t i o n d c e 3 . e with the

discussion o f six coumittw to the confrrcncc. 1(ach enter Into diecweion o n eix commltLnc reports.

Commlttcc 1 coneidered no11 e u r v e y ope.rotiona. They explored uoys to rrvluu and modcrnlrr trchnlcel guides end suggaetcd that the TSC develop u form tci ditapley sInglo mapping unit intcrprctotione from the date bnnk. They ewlueLed Ltw effoctfvcnctw of vnrious training m e t h o d s u s e d w i t h now s o i l acicnt.~ata. The committee coneidcred end evaluetod odventogen Rained by wbiltty progrsms b e t w e e n etotes in contrast to mobility wlthin R state In prepnring e ~011 wicntlet f o r udditlonel rceponeibflltlr~.



c:rxumltLw 2 dual t WI t h *oil survey publ~lruLlo~~s. ‘Thry cxpl or~4 wllct I,<*‘1 wll~llll’c illtcrpr~!L~~tIons should hc mad<- at a t(lxil level o r 1,~: trl’:\Lcd jn LIw, ‘Chc committer recomwndcd t II:IL &wrrLpLlve mstrrlnl of a gcnerrtl tioil~ mop. walls-wildlife intcrprctations should b e devclopcd f o r broad lnndscupc unltn. The Netionnl C o m m i t t e e g a v e a charge to this regional committee to develop a s o i l Formetlon s e c t i o n f o r e selected MLRA. Th. ragionol committee doen not c o n s i d e r e coil formution s e c t i o n b y MLRA t o b e s u i t a b l e for wwtero etntcn. The devrlopmenL of R no I,1 formntlon nnctlon b y s o i l - l a n d n c u p r wlntlonahip:a nhould be an option. Cunnrd no.11 Forwit Ion actions art. not nppropr late. ‘The commlttw cva lull1 c d curt-wt mep compllutlon proccdurrt; and euSgon~ed t huL map f i n i s h i n g should be done at the cartogruphic u n i t . C o m m i t t e e 3 considared improvement of soil eurvey techniquoe. The committee recommended that persons with a good working knowledge of foil, v e g e t a t i o n a n d g e o m o r p h i c rrlationehipe aid in the design of mepping u n i t s . eapeciolly for order 3, 4 a n d 5 s o i l surveye. Each f i e l d s o i l eciwtiat Rcmotc imogcry should be given training in soil and lendscape relationshlpn. ( i n c l u d i n g eerie1 p h o t o g r a p h s ) a n d ite we should be givrn rquel statue with e u r v e y s t a f f i n g . The c o m m i t t e e a l s o recommended that the range of chnroctcrlstirs of n Hales description should be in a tabular format. l’hr taxollomlr jwtificotion s h o u l d n o t b c i n the renge of choracteristJcs u n l e s s needed t o refine the series placement. D u r i n g the fjcld review process, more timmr should b e epont o n field chccklng the mapping u n i t s .

Comsittee 4 cvalunted sol~l survey interpretations. A new interprctution form should be prepared and udapted for use by all agencies making eoil surveys. A more dctalled “How the survey warn made” s e c t i o n nhould bc prepared with more diticussion of sampling rates and statistical reliability of ~011 mope und interprctotions. Tntcrprctetions for maes wasting should be butlcd on obwcrvetio 0 of pust slope failure and related to named kinds of so.tle. The commlttoc recommended that each etatc prcpnre sol1 potential rntingr within the next two years. Committoe 5 VON charged with assemblin& guideline8 for the lnterpretatiou A tublc w&ill of ROJ~H and sol1 matcrlnl d.lHturhod hy m i n i n g operetionfi. compiled which p.lvrr, guidclJ,nus f o r rating foil f o r UHU DH cover-en11 i n s t r i p mi,ne recl;lmation. ‘I’hc committee recommended the definitions of Vluventcl uud 1Iuventl.c tlubgroups bc chongcd to exclude spoils by ndding the phrase “Jn strata parnll.el t o the gurfnce” Jn ~hr statements on organic carbon. C o m m i t t e e 6 contildcred tachulqueo for mcasurln~ tiourcc and yield of scd I munt . l’lw USlJi Rhould bc uecd in the wcstcrn rugJon b u t w i t h cut-c, cuutton XXI flood judgoment. l’he cetnblishmcnt of odditlonul cror;irnr s t u d i e s tllrou.c,hout Lhc! rcglon Is cncouregod with omphatrlw on benchmark soll~. ‘I’hc uewly formed Western Hrglonnl Coodinoting Commlttco o n Sol1 Survc:y (WIKC-30) met :Jn c o n j u n c t i o n with the work confercncc. l’ha &c!nerciJ~ purpose of the committee Ir; to allow b’xperimcnt StnLlons, t h r o u g h thclr rc*prctientat ivecl, to pnrticipotc i n the programti o f the Natfonal Cooperutivc Soil Survey. ‘l’hl~ group 1~ conslderlng scvcral~ projects lncl~ud Lug the: rcvlslon o f the wetitero rcglonal eo.11~ m a p and dovelopmcnt of II bioll moltilurct m4p f o r t:ho rcglon. ‘I’hc n e x t conl’ercncc 1.n schodulcd for the wcuk of February 1 0 - 1 5 , 1980 lo Sun 1)Ju~o. State S o i l ScJrntJsts f o r the nurcnu of I.ond Management nnd A r e a Sol1 Scientist of the Hurcnu of Indian Affnirn with nctivo ~011~ biurvey Yuturc confercncen wJl1 b e rentrictcd projiramli will be now votJng mcmbere. to 0 committc<~s WI th ,I ccl1 In); oC 3 chnrKoH for csnch commlttec.

- 36 -


NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK PLANNING CONFERENCE of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY January 29-Febutary 2, 1979 Committee Number 1: Long-range objectives of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. (What should the standards and qualities be for the completed soil survey?) Cbnr

‘08 :

1. 2. 3. 4.

Cartographic quality and format of soils maprc. Standards of interpretations of taxonomic or cartographic units. Standards of correlation of taxonomic units. Soils survey s t a f f i n g .

Introduction: Ttw preliminary work for the committee was done by correspondence. A .wt of questions was circulated with request for comment8 on those questions and on concepts not covered by the questions. The preliminary r.eport was prepared by the committee chairman. Two seesions were held 211 the conference in San Antonio. The preliminary report wt18 adjusted t0 incorporate the later suggeslions. Cllfll- yc 1.

Cartographic quality and format of soils maps.

Rrcommendnt ions :


Spatial accuracy should be balanced to expected need. In aomc areus~hiqh altitude photographs provide an adequate base. In High tine areas other area8 orthophoto bases are neceslsary. would benefit from a highly controlled coordinnte system to ussls~ ~II computrr storage and mergfng wllh ot1lc.r milp d;ll:i. Tills requires n n orthophotoRrophic bnw.


We recommend that soil survey maps in hlRh uw areas be sturcad in a computer system.

Other Important Comments: .-



Soil survrys should meet the accuracy stilndord c~f the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The detail shonld Iw matched to the expected use and management for the area. We expect that onsite investigations and more detailed maps for more intensive u8e will be needed for most, if not all, survey area*.

- 37 -

National Technical Work Planning C o n f e r e n c e of the National Cooperative Soil Survey W e muat continue to strive for highly accutatC drlineatlon lines between unita, We also need to better inform utwrs about the coils w i t h i n t h e d e l i n e a t i o n s .

CII~C. -r


C o n s e n s u s wa8 that maps should be avalJr!blr to all URPTR. Sevrral member0 mentioned t h e n e e d f o r aoils maps In v a r i o u s levels of libreriee and for a better dcllvery *ystem f o r s a i l s m a p s i n progreaslve ~1~13 Hurvc’y O~LVIH.


Al 1 contributors commenting on the suh_lwt of computer ntoragca o f s o i l m a p lnformution w e r e jn f a v o r o f rlt Iwut eons sull m:\p c o m p u t e r d a t a ; othcrt, thoufiht all ~011 nwp wmputer duto should b e digitized a n d madr uvullublc t o “Bet-B. However, w i t h c o m p u t e r i z a t i o n cornea the responslhlllty of spntlal a c c u r a c y a n d acccswbllity, :lnd Chc program m u s t b e designed f o r u p d a t e so thzlt a static dr11;1 h:lnk does not hinder Improvement. Stnndurds o f interpretations o f taxonomlr o r cartr)&rrlphl~~ u~LLR.

Hrwmmcnd;l Lions: 1.



- 38 -

National Technical Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey


we r e c o m m e n d t h a t u p d a t e o f p u b l i s h e d soil eurveya s h o u l d be done when new k n o w l e d g e regardin& the response of 8011s in the survey area makes the survey but-of-date or [email protected] in land we or in kind of intensity of management makes the update of the information necessary for proper interpretation. T h e s o i l s mapping and correletion should b e e v a l u a t e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e u p d a t e o f t h e Boil interpretstlons.

Other Important Comments: a.

A p o i n t m e n t i o n e d i n m a k i n g s o i l interprctatlons EIL highrr c a t e g o r i e s was t h e i m p r o v e m e n t t o o u r ~011 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system through examination of uniformity in soil inter-pretatione w i t h i n h i g h e r c a t e g o r i e s . T h e p o i n t was st~restxd AIW t he1 that u.ser~ must read the mapping unit deecriptJon. point was t h a t w e s h o u l d e m p h a s i z e that foils m o p s arc f o r planning and not for site design.


The question asked the coannittee member8 wtl. “Are our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a c c u r a t e e n o u g h ? ” Host members t h o u g h t t h e y w e r e acceptable, but most also etreesed the need for cant inued improvement lo gathering data. 0r.e o f t h e m a i n fioints addreosed was t h e timelinetis o f t h e s o i l s u r v e y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ; b e c a u s e o f rapid improvements in techniqueo a n d t h e d a t a b a s e , I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s become outdated quickly.


I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a t t h e phase of the scrlrs l e v e l a r e t h e k i n d s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s m o s t commor:ly~ u s e d . Ollc member expressed concern about possi~blc confus$on by nonsoil scienl 1st~ i n tryins: t o undcrsr3n~l intcrprct~z~-. tions o r soils at CFltrgories a b o v e tllc. SL~1~lCS lwcl. A n o t h e r p o i n t was that the level of intc~-i>rt~totions s h o u l d r e f l e c t t h e i n t e n s i t y pf the sol1 wrvey; t h e I d e a b e i n g t h a t we s h o u l d n o t a t t e m p t to make the same p r e c i s e k i n d s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r a n O r d e r 5 survey a6 for an Order 1 s u r v e y . O t h e r membrrs nwntionrd the wed f o r mnre opecilic kjnds o f infor-,,~atlr>n a n d there was also the c o n c e r n t h a t s o i l s c i e n t i s t , , : contiuur t o get help from other disciplines in mnklnl: a n d i m p r o v i n g soil s u r v e y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .

- 39 -

National Technical Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey d.

A question from the chairman to the committee membera asked if soil interpretation8 should be made from relatively simple guides, ouch as those used today, a o that nonsoil scientirts can interpret them to users or should they be more specific and, therefore, more complicated.

Most members responded with the idea of us$ng the current simple guides that are understandable to e wide variety of ufier’8. Several members indicated the need for more specific information, but thought the published ~11 curvoY report was probably not the place for this kind of information. Such information would be worked out locally a”d furniehed people willing to take the tfme to underetund the concept.8 presented. We do need to tell the user of the published soil Rurvey where to get more specific informstion. There were several suggestions that we puhlfsh the

guides for making ponagricultural interpretation6 in the published soil survey or at least make them available. e.

Host members commented that computer storage of soil information, such ae on the present SCS-SOILS-5 form, is desirable. A few also thought all soils information should be stored on the computer; even the more complicated soil interpretations, The majority believed, however, that the more complicated information should be used l o c a l l y . Some thought that soil potentials should be published in the soil survey while other were against thle idea because they are not coordinated.


This point addressed the problem of what port of the i”rc’rDrol~lt~on materiel ovnilahlr s h o u l d go I n t o the sol] s”rvc’Y mnnrrscript and how much into the Soil Conservcltion Srrvice field “ffice technical guldc. N o member s” ed putt 1 W all of the Information available into the soil survey man”script. Most suggested that specific interpretations, ouch ee ~011 potentiale, fertilizer recommendations, and interPretotione undergoing rather rapid change be a part of thr

technic01 guide and not the soil survey manuscript. The ides was expressed by several members that the 6oll survey manuscript cannot answer all questions and cann*t be updated a8 rapidly aa local information. IO the future,

more users may receive a map and special interpretive information Instead of a soil survey puhlicotlon.

- 40 -


National Technical Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey Charge 3.

Standards of correlation.

Recommendations: .


We recommend that the completed soil survey of each state have an updated correlation. The updated correlation is necessary for a uniform application of soils data, especially at state and national levels. Soil mape should be checked for accuracy when the correlation is updated.


We recommend that soil surveys be recorrelated when needed to update the soil survey. The efficient time to update the correlation would be when an adjacent county is being completed and correlated. The field party and the correlator would be available and familiar with the soils of the area.

Charge 4.

Soil survey staffing.

Recommendation: We recommend that soil scientists be retained after the Survey of the United States has been completed to:



R e m a p some soil survey areas at a higher intensity because of land use changes.


Maintain the soil data base. T h i s i n c l u d e s s u p p l e mentary mapping, onsite investigation. making soil survey interpretations and developing new kinds of interpretations.


T r a i n i n g - More of the soil scientists’ time will be spent training other disciplines about soils.


Soil Research - We anticipate that more soil scientists will be Involved in work to understand more about soils such as soil moisture regimes, the relationship o f organic matter to pesticides, etc.


Other Important Comments: -_


The state soils staff will likely need about one less member than at the present time. Soil survey staffing at area levels should be determined b y a s t a f f a n a l y s i s . Some high use counties might r e q u i r e a s o i l s c i e n t i s t , while low use areas would have a soil scientist for several counties.

- 41 -

National Technical Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey The soil science job of the future will be very demanding. The eoil ecientirt will need a wide base of technical training. There will be very little routine work.


~iacussion and Comments


Comit tee 1

Larry Wilding - Use classes and not hard numbers on the SCS-SOILS-5 form. Klaus Flach - We can put a statement on the SCS-SOILS-5 that these data are estimates and are subject to change (Talbert Gerald - This secton on the SOILS-5 is headed “Estimated Soil Properties.“) John Rourke - Staffing should be determined by amount of work to d o . Washington Office and TSC staffs should also be determined in this way. Larry Wilding - Old surveys - check composition of mapping units and the landscape relationships to mapping units. Don McCormack - Need a systematic may of determining where we need more data. Ed Ciolkosz - We should put all data in computer and see what we have. Klaus Flach - Need to make recommendations from committee. Recorder:

Talbert Gerald

Commit tee Members 0. P. B a i l e y

Dr. B. J, Miller Glen E. Murray *Joe D. Nichols - Chairman Dr. C. N i e l s o n Sidney A. L. Pilgrim Jack W. RoRers Donald R. Robertson *Gerald J. Post Dr. R. H. Rust ‘H. Raymond Sinclair

Hubert J. Byrd Dr. V. W. Carlisle *Jack Chugg *J. R. Culver Albert W. Hamelstror Dr. I). E. Hill G. R. Lsndtieer *Kermit Larson *Donald E. McCormack *Attendance at conference

- 42 -






Committee 1 Report

The following changes in Part I of the National Soil8 Handbook are required to implement the recommendations of Committee 1 of the National Technical Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil survey. January Zl-February 2, 1979. Charge 1, Recommendation 1 No change in policy is neceeaary for this recommendation. Charge I, Reconmwndntion 2 The policy for this subject ha8 not yet been published in the National Solla Handbook. Issued.

It should be a part of the policy w h e n t h a t pert IL)

This would require the operation of the automated mnppinR

system (AM). Charge 2, Recommendation 1 Intcrpretotlons at higher categories of the soil clnasification system

0 -

are allowed in the Nntionnl Soils Handbook.

We need botter guidelines

on intcrpretntion of such categories in Part II of the NSH. mendutlon that


The recom-

c o o r d i n a t e a n y euch interpretationfi requires a chnnge

in Port 1, Section 605.1.

I n t h e lset sentence, remnve the ntotancnt.

“soils named from categories in the taxonomy higher than the serleu.” Chil~2, Recommendation 2 -v The cant inuntlon of lnlrrpretntions

f r o m thr relntiwly eimpl~~ ~‘rI,l~.s

such as those wc uw today in the soil manuscript requires no chunge. The recommendation that we tell thca uwr that ouch guides end other more fipwlfic or detuilccl intrrpretntions arc a v a i l a b l e

should hc placed In thr soil survey manuscript,

I n locnl SCS off Ircn

The* informilt jon would

seem to bel~ong in the “How to Uee the Survey” in the beginning of the published soil surveys.

- 43 -

Attachment to Committee 1 Report Charge 2, Recommendation 3 The re&mmendetian that soil survey interpretations be made at the county, state, a n d national level requires that we have information on the kinds of soils for each applicable level. One of the first items


needing completion is the mapping unit use file for older published soil This would allow information about kinds of soils for all


correlated soil surveys.

This should probably be accomplished with a

bulletin, since it would be a one-time operation and should probably allow a two year completion date.

Information on uncompleted counties

will have to come from soil sampling and should be a port of the LIM There is nothing in the Soils Handbook on Part I, 700, Land


Inventory and Monitoring and it may not be the policy to place such material


In a n y e v e n t , i n v e n t o r y a n d m o n i t o r i n g g u i d e l i n e s c o u l d

point out that county reliable inventories of counties without completed soil surveys would allow predictions of the kinds of soil in those areas. When added to the mapping unit use file, we vould then have sn i n v e n t o r y
We would not know whcthctr or

not t h o s e solIs were’ c u l t i v a t e d o r w h a t u s e w a s b e i n g mndr whrrc the information came f r o m t h e m a p p i n g u n i t u s e f i l e .

Perhaps a longtime


should be to store the published soils maps in a national system such ss A M S a s In rccommendntion

2 of charge 1. Hopefully, lnnd use f r o m


s n t e l l i t c dota c o u l d o v e r l a y t h o s e a r e a s a n d p r e d i c t i o n s o f k i n d s o f s o i l w i t h l a n d u s e c o u l d b e r e t r i e v e d f r o m s u c h a s y s t e m . A s LIH s a m p l i n g proceeds, information on the quality of the soil and changes would be available.

There would need to be a plan allowing use of the information

- 44 -


Attactient to Conrmittee 1 Report


county, state, and national levels at appropriate offices.


information is available in many instances now. State information for some atates should be the next goal. with national information available in certain categories at this time.

More detailed information for state

and national levels should be a part of a master plan. Charge 2, Recommendation 4 The recommendation was that published soil surveys should be updated when new knowledge regarding the response of soils in the survey area makes the survey out-of-date.

Part I, Section 201 of the National Soils

Handbook has not been issued yet, but needs to include a section on our policy to update published soil surveys when it is issued. Section 301.4 on soil correlations does issue policy that soil correlations will be maintained in an updated manner for published soil surveys.

Part I,

Section 605 of the National Soils Handbook on supplemental reports mentions the kind of supplemental reports recommended.

The last sentence

of this section states that if all or most of the mapping is revised the soil survey area should be handled as a new soil survey.

I recommend

adding a statement that up to 10 (or 20) percent of n soil survey mny be remapped without handling the soil survey as a new soil survey area. If examination of the soil survey requires the recorrelation of several .-


soil series and appreciable update in kinds of soil interpretation, consideration should be made to a republication of the soil survey and the maps.

In c,aws where very little, if any, remapping are needed,

supplementary soil reports provide the most economical system of furnishing soils information.

- 45 -

Attachment to Colnnittee 1 Report Charge 3, Recommendation 1 Ie a recommendation thet the completed roil rurvey of each date have an updated correlation.

Thin in the policy now etated in Part I, Section

301.4 of thr National Soils Handbook. 1 recoimnend adding to the National soil Survey Handbook, item 103, part l(a), The completed s o i l nurvey o f


the United States will include an updated correlation and updated interpretetions for each soil survey area.

When Part II, Section 301.6 on

naming mapping units and Section 301.4 on eoil correlation are ireued, they should contain ecctions on updating end correlating of older publiehed a”r”eya. Charge 4, Soil Survey Staffing TIM National Soil Survey Handbook, Part I, Section 206 needs to include a statement on evaluation and uee of older published soils surveye when that section of the National Soil Survey Handbook la ieeued.

The following changes in Part II of the National Solla Handbook are required to implement the recommendatione of Coanaittee 1 of the Nstionnl ‘I’<~chnlcal Work Plnnning Conference. SCCLIO~ 203, tivalurrtlon and Use o f O l d e r Publlshrd Sol1 Surv<~ ‘This section needs to be developed.

Charge 2, recommendation 4, charge

3. recommendations 1 and 2, and charge 4 recommendationa are related to -.

LhlS RUbJCTL. Section 205


This eection needs amending to rhow proceduree for evaluating older published soil surveye and older soil mopping that wae never c o r r e l a t e d . The present section la an explanation of how to do a survey for the first time. - 46 -

Attachment to Committee 1 Report


Section 206.3(a)(3), Priority of Areas for Soil Surveys Add an item 3 to the third sentence (3), “Areas where older mapping requires evaluation as to adequacy.”

. :

Delete the word “both” before the (1).

Add after the third sentence:

Survey areas should not be removed from the list of modern soil surveys until re-evaluation IS complete and a cooperative agreement is written to do the necessary work,” Section 406, Coordinating and Testing Soil Survey Information When this section is written it ahould allow for coordination of interpretations for higher categories in the taxonomy.

Note that instructions

are complete for storing the interpretations at higher categories on the SOILS-5.

In addition, there is no instruction in the NSH that we not

put such Interpretations in coil survey m a n u s c r i p t s .


We do not place

interpretations at higher categories in tables in manuscripts because of a letter or phone call several years ago.

We need to think about this.

I think the trouble that caused us to stop putting this information in tables was that some people were interpreting the units like phases of soil series instead of properly as phases of higher categories. 407.1(a)(2)(iI)


allows for the entry on a SOILS-5 of Suborder, Great

Croup, Subgroup, Family or Family Phase.

- 47 -


-Committee - - 2:Use of soil family class in design of mapping units. Charge: Evaluate the adequacy of using the soil family class as the principal components of mapping units for soil surveys in areas used primarily for range or forestry. mttee Action: An outline was prepared by the chairman, posing questionsrwhich the members of the conmittee could respond. This outline was distributed on October 2, 1976. About 3/4 of the connlittee responded, some briefly and some extensively. A summary of the responses was prepared by the chairman and this was sent to the members of the conmnittee for review and comment on January 2, 1979. Some conllents were received prior to the work-planning conference. The cormlittee met as scheduled, discussed the charge and the responses and prepared a report for the conference. Summarized Report: The committee found it necessary to clarify and narrow the charge. As we responded to the charge as it was given to us, we found ourselves talking about different things at the same time -- and we were poles apart. The charge says "soil family class." Some, then, were thinking of the entire class and others were thinking of phases of families. Further, the charge says "soil surveys in areas used primarily for range or forestry." But not all forest lands in this country arc alike. The same can be said for range lands. Some committee members immediately thoughtof the 2nd order soil surveys being made in some of the heavily forested areas of the ilorthwest and elsewhere; others thought of 3rd order soil surveys in various parts of the country; others were at the same time thinking in terms of the 4th order surveys that have been made in Nevada and elsewhere. Naturally, the responses became somewhat tangled. Therefore, we decided to narrow the scope of our deliberations and to state our assumptions. In comparing the use of soil families with the use of soil series as the principal components of mapping units it is assumed that:


(1) the soil survey objective as stated in the work plan is the same in each case (2) the same order of soil survey in being made (3rd order) (3) the same scale of field sheets is being used (4) r&>ses of soil families are being compared with phases of soilseries A. An analysis of possible advantages of use of the family class



Contrary to what some have believed, cartographic detail is not significantly decreased by shifting from phases of soil series to phases of soil families. Rarely are adjacent mapping units composed of members of the same family. More conmonly they are composed of members of different subgroups or great groups. Thus. the lines on the field sheets would likely be in the same places whether we used phases of soil families or phases of soil series. Cartographtc detail is influenced more by other factors such as mapping unit design, scale of field sheets and complexity of landscapes.


Total time required to complete a soil survey may be shortened by use of phases of families. The main factor is the time saved by not needing to identify, describe, define, classify and establish soil series. In areas where the series are well known in adjacent or similar areas, the difference in rate is less significant.


The same basic principles of soil correlation as defined in the National Soils Handbook apply whether soil series or soil families are the components of mapping units. Quality control is very important regardless of the kind of names used for the mdpPing units. Some soil correlation time is saved by not Processing soil series. The connlittee emphasized the need to provide adequate documentation of both taxonomic units and mapping units.

Problems identified in the use of the family class 1.

The soil family as a category in Soil Taxonomy is too broad for use in most 3rd order soil surveys. The desired interpretations require refinement to phases of families.

2. Systematic procedures for transfer of information from one soil survey to another have not been developed for soil surveys using the soil family class as the reference term in the mapping unit name. 3.

Soil family class names are bulky, awkward and cumbersome to Use of the use as components in the names of mapping units. - 49 -


CornnOn names for families shortens the namas but is considered to be misleading by some users. Soma families that cover very large geographical areas should have 2 or more series names selected for the cornnon names of the family. Identification of conlon namas is incomplete. 4. Present procedures using the SCS-Soils-5 form and tables generated by the computer are not geared to use of the soil family. 5. Lag in notification of additions of new soil families can result in duplication of effort in proposing new families and series to go with them. C. Potential solutions to problems involved in use of the soil family 1. The phases of families provide sufficient information on which to base interpretations in many 3rd order soil surveys. In some mapping units it may be desirable to use reference terms named for categories above the phase of family level but this should be done only if such mappin units then satisfy the needs set forth at the beginning o 9 the soil survey. 2. No solution was discussed. 3. No fully acceptable solution to the naming problem is identified at present. The option should be given to use either the cormK)n name of the family or the family class name. Steps are being taken to ensure that all families, except mono-series families, have 1 or more series names selected for use in comnon names for the families. 4. The committee agreed that the SC&Soils-5 form needs to be (a) modified to meet the needs of soil surveys using phases of families as components of mapping units or (b) replaced by a separate form. SCS-Soils-6 forms would be nodificd to conform to the changes in the SCS-Soils-5 forms. 5.


Printouts of placements of series in Soil Taxonoll(y should be mailed directly to cooperating agencies rather than to state offices of SCS for distribution to coonerating agencies. The interval between printouts should be as short as possible. Frequent printouts of changes in placements would be helpful.

D. Advantages of the use of the soil series


The soil series provides more detailed information on soil characteristics important to range and forestry operations such as surface soil characteristics, soil temperature. soil moisture, rock fragment composition. depth to bedrock, depth to sand or gravel, nature of parent materials, presence of root restricting layers, characteristics of water table and drainage and soil reaction. - 50 -

2. Nomenclature of mapping units is simple and established. 3. Procedures are available for transfer of data. 4. Computer-generated interpretation tables are readily available. 5. The series is currently well known and accepted by users. E. Problems with use of the soil series The main problem Identified by the committee is the time, nloncy and personnel required to identify, describe, define and process soil series. However. the comllittee did not favor attempts to make the concept of the soil series more flexible. r.

Possible solutions to problems dealing with the use of soil series. The preparation and processing of soil series descriptions could The comnittee did not exhaust the possibilities be strealnlined. for doing this but suggested the following as a start. 1.

Explore the feasibility of adapting computer assisted writiny techniques or related techniques to the preparation of series descriptions.

2. Continue to test tabular writing techniques. 3.

Train party leaders in proper nlethods of prepariny series descriptions. Properly prepared initial review drafts facilitate review at all levels.

4. Correct the misconception that the requirement for a miniIlIum of 10 pedon descriptions for each new soil series means that all slust be _cg~pj,g_~~ descriptions to be acceptable. Discussion .._.~....,ind Conclusions: ~..._. . Most of tht! conG ttec ~lqreed that there llre ilmy athalil~~q~!s to using phases of series in 3rd order soil surveys and cncourdgc lhci r use when time and budget constraints allow. However, the use of phases of soil families is acceptable as long as these meet the stated objectives of that particular soil survey. It appeared from the work of the conlmittec that the phases of soil falllilies currently being mapped in several areas differ little from phases of soil series mapped in other survey ilrcas. Heconwlendations: .._-_. .-__._-._A multi-agency task force be assigned by the Assistant Adlfilnistrator for Soil Survey to work out procedures so that phases of soil families can be used effectively in the soil survey. The assigned tasks to include: - 51 -


1. Modify SCS-Soils-5 or develop a similar form. 2. Modify SCS-Soils-6, if necessary. 3. Develop a system to allow transfer of data. 4. Evaluate phase naming conventions for soil families. Recommend additIona phase names and criteria, if needed.

- 52 -

Charles Goudey, FS, San Francisco, California Edmund Naphan, SCS, Reno, Nevada Laurence 0. Glese, DNR, Olympia. Washington PhIllIp S. Oerr, SCS. Casper, Wyomjng William L. Braker, SCS, Bozeman, Montana Douglas S. Pease, SCS, PHoenix. Arizona Shelby H. Brownfield. SCS, Boise, Idaho William U. Reybold, SCS. Washington, D.C. LeRoy de Moulin, BLM, Denver, Colorado Henry B. Waugh. BIA. New Mexico B. F. Hajek, Auburn Univ., Alabama Glenn E. Kelley. SCS. Kentucky Ilarlon R. Kinney, SCS, Minnesota E. C. Westin. S. D. State University Arthur 0. Kuhl. SCS, Pennsylvania Richard L. Guthrie. SCS. Fort Worth, Texas Robert I. Turner, SCS, Lincoln, Nebraska Louis L. Buller. SCS. Lincoln, Nebraska L. M. Richlen. FS, Missoula. Montana J. Ellsworth Brown, SCS, Portland, Oregon - Chairman

- 5’1 -



QuestIons andDj>cusslon: Jim Talbot - What do you envlsion would be eliminated from or added to the SCS-Soils-5 form? Keith Young - When soil families are used, some soil properties are not as well defined. Therefore, we may not be able to be quite as precise in our interpretations. Larry Wilding - Some of our families are very broad. But a phase of a family seems to be about the same as a soil series. J. E. Brown - In some of our current surveys there is little difference between the phase of a soil family and the phase of a series. Klaus Flach - This may end up to be two different ways to arrive at the same product. Jim Dement - Would a representative pedon be written? Yes.

Don McCormack - What kind of case studies have been made to analyze the relative costs of the two kinds of soil surveys? J. E. Brown - A detailed study was made In Nevada by the Soil Conservation Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This study was intended to help ULM decide whether to use soil series or soil families in soil surveys on ELM land. They chose soil series. (See "Comparisons of Soil Families vs. So'il Series, Order 3 Soil Inventories, Nevada BLM-SCS" prepared by Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, with assistance from BLM. Elko District and Soil Conservation Service, Nevada State Office Jnd SCS Elko Field Office, February 1978.)

- 54 -

National Technical Work-Planning Conferences of the Cooperative Soil Survey January 29 - February 2, 1979 San Antonio, Texas Report of Comittce Nmher 3 - Surface Horizon Characteristics Under Different Conditions

0 .

CllARGE -_,__..-_ The characteristics of surface horizons arc related to the ease of seedbed

preparation (cultivated soils), plant emergence. soil erosion, infiltration of soil moisture, and others. The%? .charnc$ristics ?ny cham~e during the year. lhcre is a ncod to observe and record information about surface horizons at different times of the year SO that changes in these characteristics can be recorded. Terminology and definitions nced to be developed to evaluate properties of surface horizons that affect land USC both when cultivated and uncultivated. I'ropcrtics include: crusting, SOi1 telcl~maturc. &ire of wetting, cracking, Lit-anulation, stability of clods, structure, evidence of biologic activity, periods when wet, moist, dry, etc. MT.MRI:HSI1IP . . . . _ . __ R. R. Allmras. SEA-AR; Pcndlcton, OR

P. E. Avers, FS, Atlanta, GA 0. W. Bidwell, Kansas State University, Mmhattan, KS S. 0~01, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. NC R. D. Cambell. SEA-AR. Florence. SC H. M. Cru&?. N&th Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 01. w. Dorm, SEA-AR, Lincoln, NE R. W. Fcnwick, SCS, Davis, CA IO. w. Goss, SEA-AR. I.incoln, NE c. s. Ilolzhcy, SCS. NSSI., Lincoln, NE G. I. IIuIICirl!lton, Iltlivwsi ty of California, D,lvis, CA w. 1.. I ,,,*wn. SI A-All, $1. I'~n11 , MN II. I . I+:Kitll, A~wy Co,j6 of I'wjiwcrs, ll~1IIovitr, NH


W. I). Nettleton, SIX. IX, NSSI., Lincoln, NE Fred Pe,ttcrson, University of Nevada, Rcno, NV

1.. F. Ratliff, SCS, Auburn, Al 0. W. Rice, SCS. nroomill, PA

Jill] Hiclmrdson, North Dakota Stale Ilnivwsity, f,jqo, NO 14. Scillcy, SCS, St. Paul, MN E. I.. Skitlwre, SLA4K, Manhattan, KS 0. M. Van Down, flhio Agricultural Rcscarch and Dcvclopwnt Center, Wooster, OH R. A. Young, St&AR, Morris. MN



INTRODUCllON ___~____.._..._ WC prepared a "first draft" state-of-the-art report concerning surface emphasis was given to both obwrvations md horizon characterization.

- 55 -


measlurrments that can be made by soil classification personnel in the field, as well as measurements in the laboratory. The state-of-the-art report was divided into sections and Cotlnlittee mcmbcrs prepared statements. A summary of the state-of-the-art report along with specific reconulcndations follow: SOIL MATER 1.

Mntric potential-water content relationships. The report sulllnarizcs current methods of measurallcnt very well. Matric potential-water content relationships at low 10tentials in cultivated soils are highly dependent upon bulk density. Occause the physical conditions in cultivated surface horizons are so dynamic. a measurement of matric potential-water content in the l&or,atory may have limited applicability. Tar IMny purpust?s the water content at a specific matric pntential can be cstim;lLcd satisfactorily by Lhc equation, 0p = a sand + b silt t c clay + d 014 t e RD. The coefficients a. b, c, d, ;lnd c need to be dcvclop~d fur coach potential. Further, they will prohably nwd to be dc?vclopr!d by DaLa ijuy he ,lv~~il,~hlc taxonomic classification, such as Suborder. in the l.incoln laboratory. I~c?collsllr!ndation:


USC Gupta and Larson's (107:1) rcgrcssion tl:chniquc for estimating soil waler rr!I.r!nCion curves for soils whet-c measured values arc not available. Cstablish regression coefficients by Order or Suhordcr.

Infillr~~tion. P,~ra1111~tcrs closely rrl‘~L~d to infiltr,l Lion itI Lho Ciold c~~'(? \oil roucJlmc?ss (iaicrorclicf). plant rcsiduc Lover, Ik~siccaLion r:rdcks, and m~ropores.



The English Soil Survey Field Handbook classifies roughness as (a) rut.rnwc?il, (b) mountlcd, or (c) fla Llcncd. Rftc;t!arch w 1.hnds for ~~s;l~r in!) roughi~css inclutlc ln(‘~l!,Ilrc!lll(!rlt of I.~I! ~rf~~zc! soil ~1 rv~~tim rh,! clcv4 lions ilIT on a 5-(.III y-id over a lOO- x IIIO-cm circa. corrccLcd for land slope and cul liva tion Imrks and a random roughness index calculated which is the standard (:rror of the differonce in clcvations (A11il147r).ds, et al., 1966). Cover of the soil with plant rosiducs influmu:cs soil wntcr, tclqm-ature, arid other soil properties. ror both soil waler and soil t.empcrature the percent soil surface ,:,)vcr is n&cd. h!tY.t!nt surf,lcr, cover can be mr:,isurcrl directly or ~~4timaL4 from wl!ight measurements (Slonckcr and Moldcnhauer, 19//).

- 56 -

Grossman (1979) suggests that gross surface cracks be defined as having a surface width exceeding 2 mn and into which a 2-JJan diamotcr wire can be inserted 15 cm by a force less than the force it would take to insert the rod 1 cm into the weakest fabric through the 15-cm zone. For the purpose of this definition, the soil slrrface Is taken as 5 cm below the actual surface if there is a surface cultivation mulch. Definition is needed as to how to cxTlrt!ss the frequency of cracking. A fourth important parameter is the occurrence of micropores by earthworms and other soil organisms. This is discussed under ,the section on Biodynamics of Soil Structure.


Rccomlirndations: a. b. C. d. 3.

Estimate soil rou9hness with pinhoard trchnique (details of of mcasurcment and expression of data need to tr worked oJJt if methods of Allmaras et al., 1966, are too tiitr-collslJtlling). Mcasurc gross surface connected cracks (see Grossman). McasJJrc slrrface plant residue cover by line transect acthod (details are being developed). Estimate macropores by methods in new soil SlJrVCy nanual.

Saturated and unsaturated conductivity. Cl,~pp and Ilornbergcr (1978) Rrescnted SOIIK? emTJirica1 regression ty!!c equations based on moisture retention curves fur cstimnting soil hydraulic properties. Us,ing this tcchniqJJe they divided soils into 11 textural groJJps and cotmlutcd the hydraulic parameters. In the ,ihscnce of mrasurcd moisture retention curves. cstimatc~d moisture rt!tcnt~ion curves of ClJpta and t.arson (1 979) may bo JJsc?d. Estimation might be improved by considering only a given l.axonnmic unit such as the suborder. Rcr:o~~~~~cr~rl,\I.ion:


Explore Clapn and Ilornber9er's Jlrthnd for nstitnn tin9 h,ytlr,lrJl ic conductivity.

Soil w,Jtur i~~~pc~tlct~cy. The roljort sumnarizcs the c(Jrrent litcraturc and JJr!thods of mnilsurcWater repellency, or lack of it, can be nicnt of water rcpcllcncy. The suggested field test for used as a significant diOlgnostic. w$llcr rcpcllency is as follows. A single rlt~p of water is pl


Estilllate wdter repellency for all soil mappin units usin the method descrihod above.

.o - 57 -

SOIL -_ TI:14PfRA'fUIIE .___. _.~ . . ..~._ The detailed report sumarizes the literature on factors influencing soil temperature and mans of estimation. Soil tcllipcrature of surface horizons can be measured directly or estimated by regression type techniques tiich consider such parailWcrs as air tc!lqm-aturc, wind sp!ed, solar radiation, soil water content, soil therlnal conductivity, and plant or residue cover characteristics. Unless imlledinte surface tcllpcrature (~1 tm) are noc?dcd, we feel that soil tclqpet-aturcs can be c0111puted satisfactorily for Itlost purposes using regression techniques. Regression ~nodcls for cstilmtion of coil tqjcrrlture arc available frown SW-AR, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Al bode is a property of the soil Lhat influcnccs the telapcrdture of the

soil 5igni ficantly, and is a required plr-;lllic!Lcr in sun! csLinkll.ion c!rju" Lions. Soil color is closely rclaLcd Lo alhc~do. fhcrefore, it is sug~cstc~l that WL't and dry soil color be rlmsurcd in the field on all surf,~cc soils. If the soil surface is covc!rctl with an orgnic mlch lavcr (crow r(>sidues). the wet and drv color of lhc Ilnllch sliould also surface should also be the type of rcsiduc noled. RI!~OIIIIII!III~~~~O~:


Record H!.!t Ed dry soil and rl!sirllrc Munscll colors. For rc~si~lue color. note tiillc of yl!ar.

Soil f~~ctor for soil loss f3plLion. me soil factor (K) for iisc in the Univcrsal Soil Loss Equation fhc K-factor h,+s b(>on Itll:asurcd on a few (IISILI:) is widely used. sclc~ctc~tl soils ,md ,facLors for oihcr soils tlctemincd by colnniLLc?e

K-fS1~:I,ors ,,re ,~ssi~~nod for rliffcrent Ilori/olls in Lhc! soil sc?ricts. No rc,ct)llilll,ntlation at Lhis Lilllc. 7.

IIilIII ot7)llillil i ty illtlr>x. fh(! witid cro~dibil~i ty imlr?x (I) for u~2 in LIIC witid ci.osion cqu~ltion has Imn rletcrmined for only a few soils. At prcscnt, 1 val~rcs For oLllcr soils are cstimtcd hascd on Lr:xlu~ and calcium mrlmatc crmtciit of the surfxlce soil. The I-value is derived frON Lhc weight It can 105s than 0.84 Inn in dimetcr. by dry sieving, ,~l Lhough IIDW accuracy But the conditions in the 12lmratory. - 58 -

pcrf:cnt.dgc of soil ~I~,1~I*('!1;~LOs be det.c!rmined in the field is ol~la inr!d under \L~lndard I-value is Lrmsicnt, imi

it may be that it can be estimated by other means more accurately than a single field measurement. Recollnlerrdation:


It 4s suggested that researchers, soil classificatfonists, and agronomists explore the possibility of assigning I values to taxonomic units; perhaps the family. Means of assignment would have to be worked out.


Bulk density.


Bulk density of the surface soil in cultivated fields Is a dynamic It is the result of many mm-made and natural forms. property. Bulk density cstimtions of surface horizons cnn be 11nd0 by a variety of nlethotls. At prrscnt the Saran-clod (or silllilar) technique is widely used. A simple excavalion procedure dcvcloped by R. B. Grossman for imsuring bulk density in very loose cultivated horimns appears promising. Regression type equations which consider pnrttcle sire distribulion, organic Illattcr, and cn1ci11111 cat%ouate contents have been dcvc!l~pc?d_~ and cm be used to estimate hulk density to within 0.1 to 0.2 g cm . The cstimtion can be improved if the regression alid estimation is limited to a taxonomic unit or horizon. Two rlovclopments appear worth further explorlltion. 'These are lw!ing followctl up by Dr. R. R. (;rossm,ln of the I.incoln laboratory, SCS. One deals with a laboratory mcjnsured soil compression model. 'This Iprocrldure developed by SEA-AR in St. Paul (I.arson et al., 1979) is HOW king tested in the soil mlBch,lnics laboratory in I.incoln. 'lhe proc:~:dure tjivc:s an estimation of the bulk density as influcnccd by ~pplicd stress and is a quluilitative mcasuro of the soils' susccptibility to compaction. A packing 11arle1 has also been dcvclopr?d by SEA-AR in St. Paul (Gupta and l.arson, 1979) which IIEIY he useful in rlcscrihing the p&c>ntial for soils !,ackinrJ to high hulk Input to tlw m[,~lcl arc p'lrliclc \i/c! ,u~l IlcnsiLins. rhl? u~~l‘uln15s of LIli5 11r~d1!1 is ,11~2 orll,lllic ~~,il.lcr c:ontc!lit. bein!, ~!xplorcd by Or. Gt.ossman. rhc model p~~di(:l.s II mitiimum. maximum. dnd "normal " bulk tlcusi ty for a qivcn horizon.

Rccolimc!nda tl on: a.

b. 4.

Make soil cnmpt-c>ssion mt$.1surl!mcnts in Ihe l~~l~o~~,~I.~~~~y on ~:lc~tc~l \oilr ai~l clltrzk 1,1l)uraLory vrl111oc. ~~'~~iin\l Tillld mcnsur(hmc!nts . If the ro~ults arc in ;1gIw-w!tlt. IllIke soil compression a standard laboratory measure. Cxplore use of Gupta and I.arson's (1979) packing model for estimating bulk density range.



Uscfulncss of consistency and soil strength in soil ini.c!rpretntion.

We rccotluncnd no changes to the consistence mc!asurcmcnts as outlined In USDA NO. 436 and in the 11sua1 Atterbcrg tests. WI? rr?:nmmr%d use of a pcnl~tromctcr for field classification I~ccnusc o,f its

0 - 5Y -

simplicity and usefulness of the, data. need development.

However, standard procedures

No recorrmendations at this time. 5.

Aggregate stability. Most techniques devised to estimate aggregate stability apply an umleasured force, or a measured force applied without knowledge of exact transfer involved, to single or groups of aggregates. These techniques, if applied fin 'a uniform manner, provide reasonable estimation of relative stability of then samples tested, but the results cannot be used quantitatively to simulate the real world in the fields. Shear and compression tests are probably the most quantitatively transferable to the field. Aggregate stability is . transient for a given soil , although there are probably ranges of differences for widely different soils.


At: present we do not recommend any aggregate Recommendation stability measurement other than the "visual" or "feel" system now used. 6.

Soil crusting. Soil crusting in the field is an important phenomena that influences runoff, erosion, seedling emergence, and other soil behavior. However, crusts in surface horizons are transient. Probably what is wanted is a measure of the soils' susceptibility to crusting or sealing. Various means of measuring crust strength are available in the laboratory. Recommendation:


A quantitative field measurement of soil crusting or the susceptibility to crusting is not recommended at this time. We do recomnend use of the English Soil Survey Field Handbook system, which classifies soils into (a) unslaked, (b) partly slaked, and (c) slaked. Definitions for surface cracking have been prepared by R. G. Grossman.

Biodynamics of soil structure. The complete renort sununarizes well the importance of microbiological and macrobiolog\cal activities on the soils' physical properties. It ipoints out that organism activity is highly dependent upon food In the laboratory, organism counts, and supply and enviromnent. biochcclical and enzyme assays can be made and related to various soil parameters. Farthwotm counts, casts, or tunnels can be made in the field. Notes on other macroorganisms can also be made.

- 60 -

Biological activity in the soil (particularly earthworms and plant roots) creates macropores. These macropores are important channels for water flow. ,o Recommendation: Estimate macropores by methods in new soil survey manual. REFERENCES 1.

Allmaras, R. R., R. E. Burwell, W. E. Larson, and R. F. Holt. 1966. Total porosity and random roughness of the interrow zone as influenced by tillage. USDA-ARS Cons. Res. Rept. No. 7, May 1966.


Clapp, R. B., and 6. M. Hornberger. 1978. Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties. Water Resources Res., Vol. 14, NO. 4. August 1978.


Grossman, R. B. 1979.


Gupta, S. C., and W. E. Larson. 1979. A model for predicting packing density of soil using particle size distribution. Soil Sci. Sot. Am. J. (In press),


Gupta, S. C., and W. E. Larson. 1979. Estimating soil water retention characteristics from particle size distribution, organic matter percent, and bulk density. Submitted to Soil Sci. Sot. Am. J.


Larson, W. E., S. C. Gupta. and R. Useche. 1979. Corlpression of agricultural soils from eight soil orders. Submitted to Soil Sci. Sot. Am. J.



Personal communication. Lincoln, Nebraska.

Sloneker, L. L., and W. C. Moldenhauer. of crop residue remaining after tillage. 231-236.


1977. IMeasuring the amollnts J. Soil and Water Cons. 32(5):



- 61 -

NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK-PLANNING CONFERENCE OF TfCE COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY January 29-February 2, 1979 San Antonio, Texas Report of Commitee 4 - Water Supplying Capacity Of Soils for Different Plants

Charge The alnouut of water available to plants depends on climatic factors, physiographic position, and watcrholdillg capacity of soil including the effective depth of storage. What data are available and whal are nccd?d to better evaluate water storage and supply capacity of soils. HEMBERSHIP Olin li. Hnckes, SCS, Washington, DC K. K. Hrucc. SEA; Watkinsvillc, G A John tl. Carey, SCS, Albuquerque, NM Trrry Il. Cook, SCS, Davis, CA IL. A. Daugherty, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces, NM 1’. H. Nutctrings, SCS, Salt Lake City, UT Paul h. Johnson, SCS, Lincoln, NE t’aut 0. Kresge, Montana State Univ., Bozeman, UT Ronald Kuhlman, USDI, Bureau of Land Hgt., Washington, DC Douglas Il. Malo, South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SC Robert 1’. Meurisse, Forest Service, Portland, OR Nilt~oo W. tleyer, JR., SCS, Washington, D. C. Lloyd N. Mielke, SEA, Lincoln, NE F r a n k l i n Newhall, S C S , La’nham, M) Ronald F. I’aetzold, SCS, Lincoln, NE R. V. Kourkr, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME Keith E. Saxton, SEA, Pullman, W A Robert tl. Shaw, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA Willard M. Snyder, SEA, Athens, GA H o w a r d PI. T a y l o r , S E A , Ames, IA Wallace W. Wilhelm, SEA, Lincoln. NE Kobcrt U. Grossman, Committee Chairman USDA, Soil Conservation Service National Soil Survey Laboratory Federal Bldg.-U.S. Courthouse, Roam 393 Lincoln. N E 6 8 5 0 8 Comm. No.: (402) 4 7 1 - 5 3 6 3 F1’S No, : 541-5363 INTRODUCTION ____-



The report which are background the topics

consists of a body and a set of Documents. The body contains a set of recommendations amplified upon individually in the Discussion section. The Documents provide the for the body of the report. Committee members were asked to select and respond among listed below: sutl~ect

Documents Pertaining

Field soil water data . , Relation of short- and long-term weather records, Field water state evaluation in range 0.01-15 bar Simple procedures. . . . Sophisticated monitoring stations. . Interrelationship with remote-sensing efforts.

- 62 -

.lO, 11



7, 12 7, 10 . 7, 11

Hydrologic modeling. ......................... Root distribution and water extraction by roots. ........... 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 Definition of available water and interpretive tables. ........ 1, 6, 11 Taxonomic description of the moisture regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 11 Much of the work was on root evaluation, sources of field soil water data, and on presentation of 0 Water information in the interpretations program. Little work was done on the interrelationships with hydrologic modelling and in the assembly of procedures for the field [email protected] of water in the available range. This committee relates closely to Committee 6, in the area of description of the pattern of soil water states through the year. The connection is because a description of the pattern of water states would contain information on available water present during the growing season. RECOtUfENDATIONS Roots The Problem: Most states do not document quantitatively the rooting depths of the phases used to define mapping uniLs (Document 2). R o o t abundance classes o f t h e c u r r e n t d r a f t o f t h e revised S o i l Survey M a n u a l a r e a t v a r i a n c e w i t h r e s e a r c h ( D o c u m e n t s 4, 5). Editorial policies for publication of root information reduces its usefulness.

Elakr Itart of standard soil survey documentation generalized observations on the deepest extension of both common roots and few roots for at least two index crops per Major Land Rrsource Area. Adopts the recommendations implicit in Document 5 for the root abundance classes in the new Manual. I n c l u d e I n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h e Hanual o n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n a p p l i c a t i o n for mOnocOtS vctsus dicots.

Use th? Dutch specification, namely, that the base of effective rooting is the depth above wbicb SO percent of the total root length occurs.

pedon descriptions if Define terms such as “effective rooting depth,” “Eoot


I n c l u d e (be date of observation and the crop (plants) in published

root depth information is given. zone,” etc. Inlplencntation:

Establish a small group of workers on roots to advise the NCSS. on Lrw rooting.

The group should include workers

Current Avai~lable Estimation ----~.-~~ ..__,..__~ Water _ _..____ The problem: Available Water Capacity (AWC) currently is based on a laboratory Water R e t e n t i o n Difference (WRD) modified by ideas about how morphology DE composition reduces (for example, through root restriction) or augments (for example, through textural change) the WRD. 'i-hpse g u i d e l i n e s a r e n o t c o d i f i e d n a t i o n a l l y . WC have come too far to drop AWC and switch to WRD, and

quite probably we should not, because the plant‘inference involved in Lhr adjustment from WRIT to




AK is healthy.

in our interpretative publications based oD a nationally applied set of adjustments from the assumed Waler Retention Difference (WKD).

E. Report an Available Water Capacity (AWC)

Implementation: include a set of guidelines for conversion of WRD to AWC in the National Soils Handbook. Provide an explanation of the conversion assumptions for the report in the Glossary of the soil survey report. Document 1 is illustrative of the kind of national guidelines required but is not complete (salL concentration for example is no.t treated). 0

- 63 -

- 64 -


Jf the information has not been obLained already (Reconraendation G), begin Lo CoJJecL a,,d Re6Irl t o assemble date on the f i e l d d e t e r m i n e d maKimum rankc in w a t e r contenLs. inc”rPoraLe a plant available water nun,ber into the interpretation pr”kram that “se* laboratory wter r e t e n t i o n a t low tanafon or an evtimate t h e r e o f f o r the manimun, “ate content and the minimum field “atar content for the lower limit if above lS-bar and the soil is drier than us”alJy moist and lacks a water Lahle within 2 n,.

Implementation: *saJsLance is needed on guidelines on limitationa of the technique hecau~e upward wLer moYen”‘nL ib: iwportant. Jnclude measurements at O-5, S-15 co, (or thereabout,s) wberr fasliihle to provide information for e v a l u a t i o n o f r e m o t e l y sensed Water, cultivatio,, zone variability, s”rfirt~J horizo,l LCmyecaLures, and mulch rffectivenasa.


l’axonomic The I’robJem: Thr preuent definition of the moititure coorrol ser~lon Ls cumhrrsome Lo aPPJY a n d erl’J”~los the UpperOoSL p a r t o f L,he soJJ in which f o r soila with a l a r g e CO~~OIWIIL o f Lk LoLal J,r~‘CiPJLetton from s m a l l s t o r m s d u r i n g t h e growinK sea#on much of the totaJ rOoLR a r e wnwnlratrd. ?‘hc PresenL rriterion for the moist-dry separetion is largely nOl%-OP~~~L~o~)~~ for other ttl.-tn aridic --I(_t,orric) . . . . ~._ r o i l s because Lhe lpinimurr, w a t e r ConienL approachem b u t dot’s “ot do klov 1s her.


DeLirw the thicknrss of the te*onomJr mo
lmplen,entalion: w,’ r’V”sL Lh;,L Dr. McClrl l a n d ’ s Lnxono,ny conn,i ,,r,. c_o,,,~idrr the. prolweiil. *“;,“.,I .~. -. SrtJuww -. .._ watrr.~. __st;,t?a ‘The Problem: lhr current, draft of the rcvjaed ha,,“aJ does not require suhdivisiou of Lhe “,,,oiaL’* CJUS during the wowing 8ea~on within the zone of major r o o t i n g . The records, lhc~rrfore, would he of JimJLed value for the application of Lhe charges of thin committee. Keconmwndation: K.

Hfvlu i rr i u LIw proposed a,,uuP t .<)t t -w;,t,sr SPIt~~~“~~. t-or ttlr- rcw i srd Hi,,,w I tlwl hri w t h’ Krowing .~?3tio11 thrre ia a rnrord for carla motllh co ;, drplll of I melcr 01 Lo i, root 1 ialli Li”R ZCW’ if above 1~ of Lhc proportion of the Lime the zone isq_u er moisL, __-- (or some (iuch tern,), d e f i n e d a8 a s t a r e when the water content c~recds the awn o the 15-bar estimate and the foJJowing proyorlions of an assumed WRD, where the family particle fize rlfiasefi Pertain to t h e f i n e e a r t h a n d coarse f r a g m e n t s a r e excluded: sandy, A/5; co~r~t~-Jo~w~Y, 214; (il)rloamy, coarse- a n d f i n e - s i l t y , J/2; c l a y e y , J/4. Consider ~“b.qLJlutio,, of z-bar rcLe,,Lion for these Kuidelinen aa soon aa estimates are generally available.

Future Activities Doi1 water undoubtedly will be a Lopic of thr next meeti~~g. The topic il; t e c h n i c a l , W3llY lil(-PtPgl and central to our interpretationa p r o g r a m , which iu t h e f”L”re prohobly will rewlw proportionately more aLtent ion in these deliheralions. There is (I need now Lo enJiSt Lt,V ht’ll regional ConbnitLees and to focus tine and energy on a few topics thaL will he fWJorell i,L t next meeting. JL ix recommended t h a t :

- 65 -


. .

l’be WaHhingto” Office shortly establish working groups that would become a commitLee for lhe next NWPC. The working group would enlist the help of the upcoming regional workplanning conferences to pursue:



I m p r o v e m e n t s in the definition of root abundances classes, frame guidt>lineg 011 description of crops which differ in root abundance, work 0” field procedures, ““d assemble rooting depth information.


Apply existing water regime data to complete an annual water stale ~eque”res for tl major soil phase for each HLRA, if the data are available. This recommendsLion would fi(snd apart from whether annual water ~~ate sequences are ill the rf*vir;~d Hunual, sj”cr i” one form or another we need a standard fornlat for Lhe assembly n”d dlsplny ol w~tr, regime informalion.


txpl.ore t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f utlsaturated h y d r a u l i c condurtivily m~~~~~.urem~~nLs f o r standard pedotogicel documrutation, for interprctetio”~, and as a p p l i e d L o hydrologir models. Recommend procedures.


With both the enhanced activity in remote sensing of waler, which is rrfitrirtrd “ow Lo Lhc upprr few centimeters, and the greater i”Lereet in the applicatio” of pcdoloSy for agronomic purposes, it seems appropriate to work on the uppermost part of Lhr soil. The working group would explore various aspects of the yearly patlern oft wutcr staLrti of the uppet-most 5 to 20 cm of Lhe aoil as this relates to remote sr”sing, c r a c k i n g , locat variation i” row-cropped fields, soil mulch effectivrnrsn, and intcrrc*JaLiont; t.o ru”of1 n”d erosi.o”. DISCUSSION

The section perst lels and amplifies upon the recommendations of the previous 8ecLion ot~d provides a Jirlk Lo the Documents. ument 2 reviews Lhc d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f r o o t s in recenl s t a n d a r d soil survey reports. Thr armat,iorl ge”rralty is scanty and commonly is wanting in quantitative exactness. It would OI m a low apple to improve the situaLion greatly. There would seem to be “a teal trrhrlical imnedinlrnts. Guidelines (to be auaeested) s h o u l d b e e s t a b l i s h e d shorLlv and a~nlircl i” the ongoing soil survey qualiiy controi-pro&m. There is, though, a further matter. Thr soil survey is largely complrtr4 in many !kijor Land ~esourre A r e a s . For these HLRA’s, w(s w o u l d COJlVVL ro0L infotx~.#l ioll by phone u”d correspo”d~~~~~~ f?os caxpcri cllcrd soi I sl‘icnl i st s indrpt*“‘lerlt 01 Ltbo qu”I i L y ro”Lro1 pragr~m of o”goi”y s o i l survrys. A ” i”it inI pro~c~i!~rl* Lo KC.L some illformat ioll r;lpiclty, laight he l~or Lhe S o i l s S t a f f s , TSC’s, L o asri~u MI.UA’s L o stxtrs, awl 10 rcqwst llw staLcs to Rive b e s t estinlates f o r t h e domi,nent p h a s e ol t h e s o i l series tlaulcd i” the mapping ““its of the general soil maps of thr compJ,eted soil surveys of thaL MLHA. We need, in a”y event Lo get the joh done soon to capture the experience of people who have mapped in these HLRA’s. Possible Ruideli”ee for data collection o” a survey basis are a6 follows:



IFor Lwo i”drx c r o p plants (trers i n c l u d e d ) i” the M a j o r L a n d Hesourcr Arr,~ whcl-c> the tiurvfy is located, provide estimates for each soil phase of Lhe depths (to the “eareat, IO cm) to the basr of common or many roots and to where root8 essentially stop. Provide depth limita for both irrigated and nonirrigated soils if considerably different. Select index crops o” Lhr hssis of entensiveneas, ubiquity, and economic importance. If valid field water depletion informaLion ifi at variance with the maximum depth of rooting, t h e n s u b s t i t u t e a depLh hased on the water depletion information. Provide in the soil survey report in tahulrlt form the dcsrriplors indicative of strong root restriction and explain. I n d i c a t e i n the Reneralized” (tabular, hopefully) of the mapping unit that no coots would b? expected because of thrxc root’ restricting features. Document 3 shows as an example that for imporLunL soils of Major R e s o u r c e A r e a 103 presence of sand and gravel and mnssi,vcness insLead of w#,nh sLruc_lurr~ arc highly correlated with where roots stop. Hake root ohhervations an imporLanL ronsidrrat ion in . . _ ~. _.~ 1,o n o t “lake roo1 pcoons tor qualrt,y c o n t r o l documentation ot soil ph”sca. a parLicularly i,mporLant criteria” f o r inclusio” oE a pedau i” the publish4 soi t Concentrate 011 rool depth gcnernlizeLiona in published Documents.

- 66 -

Taylor’s: rerwmendation on C~~OIC~ of root rbunduoce (Document 5): This would require chnngrs in the current draEt of the revised Soil Survey Manual (Document 4). Hake an t’vei~;~ti~n of within-hor,izon root reatri,ction from the aoil surface for horizon6 with few rooLa_ A Possible uppronrh is lo have three claaaea: No reotriction, BOP~C rratriction, and nearly COniplOtlS restriction. For the last claaa, caaentially all roots would he between EtrurtUral (~1116 or in permanent voids or porea. For the “some” and “complete” restriction classes, Provi 11 number related to the size of soil vol~~~,ea that are nearly frte’of rootu. Thia number miRht bde tukrn a6 Lhe minimum dlamrtrr of volumes from which roota arc reatrirtcd. It would hc [email protected] bY u trRll6erl normal to ~hr planea of maximum root concentration (verlical If hctween [email protected], horizwtnl i f IICLW~OII prisme). Tht* mrdian distance would be rstabliahed for the? di+mclrr Of !jd+t Howard

VoIunles f r o m which r o u t s RT,! excluded. I i1131 mt=diun valur~.

T h e tot*1 traneect

l e n g t h fihoold br al Icast. 10 t imen th1’

English physical pedologiata use 0.05 bar for a laboratory ealimate of the ULV’r water rontenl for avoililble water rapacity measurements. F i e l d neusurements (l)ocunsnt l), particularly for aurficial horiz:na, indicllte th:il lhe upper water limit considerably exceeds that retained against 1/3 bar. Mcaauremrnts hy the chairman augseat that the minimum lenaion 81 15 cm hv~ facmr cultivate iu below l/3 bar.

Water-Related information in Inttrprttalipn Docume& -_-. .-. ~--_._-.__ _ __.._ _.__.~._ The table (Dorumrnt 6) would iuclode Ringle value estimatea by grOL#ped horiswns of lJerm~‘ebiLitY~ Ibt’opOrtion of that mtrix and s t r u c t u r a l surfilce w,itb 7 2 chrome ( o p t ional IVY Hl,UAl, I/:)- and I’,~I:IV wet.rl- retenlicrn und JVB~ Iable water by horixou groups; b u l k dc.usily IIIIII YOIUIIN Of C~(rsf’ fr;lgments if not in another table; depths t o t h e bosea o f common rools and of f6.w roole; 1’ measure of the relative moiatneaa or dryness over the depth of common rools using vrhw the soil taxonomy estimator program; runon and runoff class placements; thr acnsooal high Position Last three w o u l d be RS and kind of Water t a b l e ; hydrolo8ic grO”p; and floodin I n c i d e n c e . entries for the phase. The chroma would be useful in certain soils for predlcting’ the reasonal occurrence of rrc’~ waler. Retention values would provide nurPbrra, not adjusted for plant u6e, that may find application in such thinga aa computation of air-filled pore apace and determinalion of the amoM of w~+l~r energetically available to plants at a given field soil water conleut for irriRatiol1 srhcarluLin8. Computation of the nwnbcr of dry days in the month of highest rvapotrrrnspirat ion over the rlrPth to the base of the common roots combines available water, rvapotrallspirstioll, and PrrciPitnti The example employs the procedure developed by Franklin Newhall, Cl imstologitit, SCS (C:ll(.Llet of Soil tloisturr Re8imes f r o m t h e C l i m a t i c R e c o r d . Mimeo. 1976). SPJ~YO~II h i g h waler lnblr

- 67 -

-* :

now part of the standard documentation. Hunoff and runon classeii have to be deilned. ‘The Idea wo,,ld hr LO list those #oil p h a s e s w h e r e t h e r e i s suffiHent runoff or rune,, thaw there 1~ a n important impact on the i,,teroaI aoil moisture. For such aoil Bhaseu, caI,.ulatio,, of water &tatc from prcacipitstion and evapolranspiration (dry days, for example) would uo1 be reported.

0The a d v a n t a g e o f s u c h a tabI,* is that WC would have in one place much of the ‘iniora,ut,ion t h a t pertainn to the water regime. B y t h i s assembly w e w o u l d reiuiorr~ i,,t*rrelationshil~v aud provide more of a iorur on plaut ~rowlh ronsidrralions. hs~mbbab _~f~.Fi,r!iJJe_!rr. H,~as,,remr,,ts __._. -, .._-.


I,, 1 9 6 4 t h e rhi,irmar, (then also chatrma,,:) rcqueated informalion i r o n , t h e Rt,ut,* soil hrirntista (Document IO). Recently, the rhsirman made Inqulriee by phone, mainly to SEA-AU pcr~onn~l, MHI also reyucstrd the committee members Lo supply informalion. T h e re,‘c”, survey (I)or,,nn*r,t 10) is incomplete. A ro,,gh rst imate is that 2 0 0 tnxa-vegetation r e c o r d s wcr,’ u,,rovrrc~I i n 11,~ receut %;urvcy that should be explored for po”siblr Incorporation iu the I,:,, io,,al data ban,?. Thrsr figures do ,,ot i n c l u d e w o r k begun in 1 9 7 9 , the ESCS program, various remote-r;,,“l;ing etudie6, t h e dryland w h e a t s t a t i o n s , a n d C a l I iornia wo:~k (survryed hy a c o m m i t t e e mc~~~hrr). N,*ilt,cr d o e s i t inrludr datn f o u n d i n 111,’ 1 9 6 4 survey *,hich W,,R n o , u,,rovrrr,l i n t,hc rc~,~“t SUWP~. W e may OFGSU~ thal a complele survry would double t h e s e f i g u r e s , b u t tt,aL tl,iH inrrenn,~ w o u l d br oifsc*t by h a l f of the turn p l u s v e g e t a t i o n rombiuation. bein ,u,e,,lLnhlr for one reason or another. For p~allllillg purposea, then, a figure of 200 tara-vcgetatio,, combi,,atio,,s m a y b e ausum(.~l A” estimate of 10 weeks truvel is assumed to visit the mnjor ins1111 lulions. The w o r k itarlt would take at least t year of concentrated effort after which it could be t,,cned ov,*r t,t,e t~he Hegional S o i l s Stllffs t o ,onti”ue. T h e assembly shoold be so arranmrd tt,t,t per80,,,,,~1 oi the orIginaCing organizat,io,, are auLho,-s ou the port ion of the publicaLion th,, coutains Lhcir d a t a . T h e fitHt efforts should go into hard copy publication. One reason is LhaL the detc, would b,* accessible Lo the most people the quickest. A,,ott,er rruso” in t h a t i, fornuil c o u l d ht. adoyted, u s i n g aepacetr s e c t i o n s b y o r i g i n a t i n g oiiire, w h i c h w o u l d g i v e e x p l i c i t autt,orst,ip to the people and organizations from which the data originntrd. A t h i r d reason is thal thcs vurious limitations and complexities of the data set can be explored and explaiued. It would 8eem lha~ the Hydrologic Bata Oiiicc~, SEA-AU, Brltsville, would h,, a good plecr for a person to work on tt,e 0 projecl s i n c e there i s a l r e a d y t h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a,,,1 publiratin,, of h y d r o l o g i c i n f o r m a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e encumbent could anaociate wilh Lhe peoyI,* uesrby in the National Soil Correlation a,,,l Classiiicat,io” Offices. W a t e r s t a t e d a t a .assembly is only par1 of a more ~eueral need to as~,~,,,hl,~ hard-Lo-Ret, exprntiive wa,,*,- IlilLU. Such data inclucl,~ iree waler height and ro~t~mt; hydraull ir ,o,,d,,,‘l ivity. s~,,,,ralr,l t,n~l ,,ns*t,,r;,trtl; and i,,I~iI,rr,,io,,. l,‘it’l ~I-II~~L~‘~-,~,~I,~~~I B.,xim,mI W.,,,*r _,~o,llr,,, _Bil,,B,x Bocumrnt 7 coutains m e t h o d s proposed try Ritchie, et al., a n d ulso by Lhe rhai ram,, . Uocumeut:~t ion o f Lhc* p r e c i p i t a t i o n f o r the p e r i o d o f mcasur,mc,,t is imporlant a8 is comparison of the et,ortt e r m a,,d long-term precipitation records in order t,o estahlinh the relative wetuesa or dryness over th,, time of measurement (Bor,un,nt R)



‘Ill,* r,~ i s J queslio,, ;,I,,,,,, th,* vslidily o f the 1owt.r w;,,~er l i m i t i,, soi IY wl,,*r,s lh,*rc* i s apprrriahlc upw;,rd movrmenl oi w a t e r . Ili~cumenl 7 couln ins a paper o,, a sludy iu w h i c h ,,pw~,r,l A small difierruce between the upper uud lower limit at the base movemrut of water is ~mranured. of the zone of water depletion may be the result of upward w a t e r m o v e m e n t a n d uot be a cousequrnce of a small removal of water by roots. As a rule of thumb, ,,pward movement may be assumrd to be small for soils that are drier than usually moist if free waler irz below 2 meleru. Perhaps the method may be applied to most soils in the area of usually moisl .aoils if they lack I , water table above some depth. The subject needs more consideration. Special attention needs to be given to the collecti~” of field water contcuts for the upper 5 lo 2 0 c e n t i m e t e r s o f the soil. T h i s z o n e c o m m o n l y is quite diiiereut from th,, tioi I hr,u~rrtI, i,, I n r o w - t y p e c u l t i v a t e d f i e l d s the orgnnizat~io,, is atron(lly composition and organization. W a t e r rontculh: in parts 01 thca dependent on the degree and the kinds of mechanical dieturbancr. auriicial zone that are not compacted are highly seneilivc to trnsiou i,, the range below 100 ml,. 0 Th,, u p p e r w a t e r limit a8 d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e f i e l d ( D o c u m e n t 6, Fra~~zmrier, et ~1.) may Iw ronsiderahly h i g h e r t h a n l/3-har r e t e n t i o n f o r suriicial horizons. I.nborato,-y water rel~nl ion

- 68 -

mrssureaents at low tension on such surficial material are scarce hsceuar of the diffiallty of CO11N'ti"8 temples. t!inimum wat~er contents may be useful in the predictton of the 10~s of waler R e m o t e Stnling of water ir limited lo the upper 5 to 20 by surface evepolrenspirrtion. centimrtefs. We should obtain ground truth for the ainimum water content of the uppermoet few centimrters l i n k e d t o H probsbiliatic IteLement r e l a t i n g t h e preripitsrion d u r i n g the 0 measurement period lo long-term preclpilation (Document 8). Taxonomic Matters -_.-.-._. __ .-~Dornment 9 contains comment6 about the moisture contrbl rection with regards to th,, thirk,,rRs and Irounde.riea. Baaed in part on the discussion in Document 9, lhrer changes ere proposed: Thr first is to place the upper boundary of the control nection at the soil RII~I’BCF. The r,*a~~oo originally for not plarin~ thr upper boundary et thr surface was to remove lh,* effect of sn~l I precipitation events that would not have much inflnrnrr on plant growth and would r,~d,,ct~ the reliability of calculations of the soil moisture stale from weather claln. Field lil,*atauren,*nts n o w ore more ronvoon. and there is less nerd to calculate the moisture regime from went.hrr dot,,. t’lIrthc!r#n”re) remote sensing techniques to ineubure the upper few crntimetrrs 2,~ al hand, nnd WC s h o u l d r a k e edvantagc of them for taxonomic plaremrnt. Perhaps the most important rt~son to c h a n g e i s t h a t t h e pn!‘t of the lroil e x c l u d e d ia of ,‘rilical importancr for il wid,. ,‘i,ngc> of nail bc*havior i,,frrences. The second recommendal~ion is lo have two auhhectio,,s, from 0 to IO cm to a depth snfficirnt to hold u specified am”u,,t of water. The O-10 cn ~nbsection would be employed in the definition “1 the moisture regime of soils d,‘ier than t~liuslly [email protected]!A, that lend lo hnvr shallow’rooting. Such soi Is ro,n~~only have an tlppreriable component of sunm,er prerlpitalion. The third rrcommendution is Lo definr thickness of the lower subsection on centimelerr of waler held between l/3 (0.1, 0.05) bnr end 80 yerrrnt of 15-bar for soils where the question is whether aridir (torric) or not, and lS-bar for the other soils. Such n drfinition would h,a m,,rh casirr lo apply than the current one (difference between depth of prnetration of 1 inch and 3 inchrs of wat,.r.) If the upper 10 cm were excluded, the control section shoul,d have u capacity of 8 cm of walrr. If the control section were placed at the snrfnce, the rapacity should be 10 cn~. ‘The RO pcrrcnt of 15-bar approximates loo-bar retenlion. The fourth recommendation i,,v”lves the use of 15-bar 88 the criterion for the scyaraliou betwren moist and dry states. This is unsatisfactory for the separation of soiln that are only somewhel d;ie? tha,, uauqlly m o i s t b e c a u s e thenr soils unless they crack ~trO"gly, exrepl in the exlremt! --?-upper parta, have minimum waler contents very near 15 bar. The reason is ‘hat adapted plsnts I<~IIIOVL. w;,,,%r o n l y t o ,,,‘i~r IS b a r . F o r tach sojIm, it ia imposnihlr b y firld trchniquek t o t,stnl,l isll wl~c~lhrr tl,?y AW dry o r ,~~ois~. l’hc wit kt‘ needs study. I’~rh;~pr a wuplr OK I imils arc. ~~vtvlrd wi ,h water content i,,crensing 81 the taxonomir boundary in q,,,‘st ion [email protected]*s ~WW moi sl .


l‘he rurrerbl drirfl lor the drscripti”,~ o f Lhe yearly ~quence o f soil wott’r ~Latcs (which is II subject of conunittre 6) makes it optional whether Lhe ,Flightly -. Foist and ~?y ?,nis snbrlarse~ of moist .- ~_ are used. The ~&i~_~I class encompasses more than the range of water normally conRidered r,voiiable (0.01-15 bar vs. l/3 or l/10 or 15 bar). Hence to say the soil is moist, Rives little “--~: i,~i”rmaLior, on .smounLs of available waler. To implement the charge of this co,nslLter it w o u l d seem o b l i g a t o r y to p r o v i d e m o r e p r e c i s i o n t h a n i s p o s s i b l e ,,[email protected], the* class t! r,lon,!. The rcqui rpmc*nt to ,ISV s~l~clnssrs of uboii& c o u l d be rcsst rict~ed L o Lhr upp,‘r o,etcsr and ,cr the pr”wi,,~( season i n o r d e r t<, rrtlucc the w o r k and slill I,“vP a d a t a hnse highly rl*l~*vant Lo pla,,ts.


: Document II raises the concern that, more attention should be give,, to Lhe water state below the moisture control section. It is the chairman’s though1 that we should give the moitzture regime description proposed for the new tlanusl (the charge of Comnittee 6) several yearn Lo beromc applied before considering the issues. This report overall puts emphasis on field observelione and mrasuremenls (roots, n~(1sure,,11!,11li “I maximum and minimum waler content, d o c u m e n t a l i o n o f water slate8 ovrr time*, 1.1r.j. T h i s reflects the chairman’s hiss, corunittee membership, and Lhr direrlion of lhr soil survey, whit is a v e r y emperical a c t i v i t y . There ie another viewpoint, which l;~vors cmpha~in on drclur~l iou o m t h e w a t e r r e g i m e f r o m w e a t h e r d a t a s n d mt%a,rements of soil pr”prrLics. Keith Saxtoo, SKI\-AH, Pullman, Washington, very ably presents this position:

- 69 -

“For the SFAW model (Saxton, et al, 1974.

Trrnn. ASAE 17:673), I nded to know the water This conaints of tenlion-water a n d u n s a t u r a t e d c o n d u c t i v i t y - w a t e r relrtionlhipr plus valuel for .aaturrtion, field capacity, and wilting point. For J recent study involving u#e of the model over broad area@ o f Uirsouri, Kanran, Iowa, and S o u t h Dakota, I uled s o i l t e x t u r e de!criptionl to aelect from a eerie8 of generalized water characteristic relrtionlhipr which we developed from literature data. This method, with all of its aimplificrtion~ and assumptions, proved to be quite useful for computing #oil water regimes and relating thrae to crop water stress end crop yields.”

holding cbaracteriltics of the roil by each major horixon.

II . . . I aec little u8c of measuring existing 8011 w a t e r . W e f i r s t n e e d t h e basic s o i l properitiea then we can integrate the climatic and vegetation cffectp. If aoil water monitoring ia done, extensive variable measurement is needed to document the climate, 8011, and ve&ation effects if any explanation or extrapolation is to be accomplished.

“Hydrologic q odelling will use data inputs of 811 of these factors and allow them to interact with time. Soil,chrrrcteriatica are one of the most important but they vary less with time 80 they add Itability and predicstable performance through time for a given location. “ R o o t distribution with time end depth ia very important since this is the prlmery connecting method between soil water in storage and climatic evaporative demand. The romplexitiem of root penetration, densities , aging, and effectiveness certainly need much more definition and relationships to the aoil profile. “Dercriptione of plant rvrllable water should come from the roil water characteristic curves. 1 believe if we had ‘ a d e q u a t e ’ deacriptians of the soil water relationships, particularly tension-water [email protected], we could then relate these to plant availability for the chrracterintics each plant polserses to abstract aoil water. This again rays to focus our attention on the #oil and not the vegetation interactions. “In ounaary, my comente are biased toward J phyaicrl soil water approach. But to advance, 1 strongly believe we need to focus primarily on phyricrl soil deacription~ as we now find them existing, then integrate the cli.mrtc and vegetation effects for explaining the soil which haa developed over time and for predicting the water regimen and,vegetation growth.” To a degree, @a&on is saying that the roil rurvey should do more hydrologic mOdelling. We currently are applying two hydrolo& modclr in the NCSS genetally. One is the model for t h e calculation of water rcagines for taxonomic placement developed by Franklin Newhall; the other is arve number approach for runoff which includes placement of soils in hydroloxic groups. The clforl ill hydroloRir q odelling in Lhr NCSS would sec”~ too small. There is no way to test Ssx~ori’e posiL ion on the relet Ive emphasis oo enperical measurement or deduction but Lo apply one or more hydrologic models widely. The current taxonomic model ia simple compared to several oLher hydrologic models in use. Do we have the necessary input data to teat t,hc use of more hydrologic complex modelm for :sxonomy? Apparently the SCS drought monitoring stations (Document 10) would gather the necessary d a t a . Should we apply more complex models to the interpretive documentation for soil surveys (see Document 617 Could the effecl of nlope and aspect on radiant energy received be added to models such as Saxton’s SPAW? Ueuriser has a model l,hnt includes Lhrse dtlla (Document 11). Pcrhsps N C S S should list whaL ouLput is desirrd from a m o d e l and rrqueet SEA-AR to recommend which of the available models to apply by HLRA. Apart from which hydrologic model ia applied,~ until we have the staff and experience to rpply models widely, we are not going to have an evaluation of the very important question that Saxton raises. Perhaps indeed we should not expand our efforts at field water collection, but concentrate on roots, water desorption and unsaturated hydrrulic conductivity.



co!GfENTs ;’ x: One intention in formin this corrmittee WIB to consider the integration of rainfall, crops, and crop needs. Nave different soils and different plant needs. A given circumstance may affect the same crop differently on different aoils and affect different crops on the same aoil quite differently. Furthermore, we seldom have an average year. 0 Grorrman: We would like to test the Newhall model and also more complex modrbls for our interpretations program.

- 70 -

- 7, -


COMMITTEE MEIBTRSHIP: * Dr. F. P. Miller, Co-Chairman * Dr. L. P. Wilding, Co-Chairman


Dr. R. W. Arnold Dr. R. L. Handy *Dr. * Dr. Ray Dideriksen * Dr. 8.~ L. Harris *Mr. * Mr. William J. Edmunds * Mr. Victor G. Li.nk Dr. Mr. Frederick E. Gilbert * Mrs. Hcleaine Markowick *Mr. II.


E. H. Rutlrdgc Charles Thompson Gore Ueharo Earl E. Voss


To develop procedures for defining the confidence limits of soil properties commonly observed nnd Inferred in the construction of soil surveys of * given area. Kcllability of this information should be considered in terms of the mapping unit definitions, scale of mapping, probable user clientele and soil behavior.


To develop formal and informal vehicles to better communicate the applicability and limitations of soil surveys for prospective user clientele.


To identify research, educational, and service needs chat should be continued or initiated to better achieve the above objectives within short-term and long-term prospectfves.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Soil surveys are being used i~ncreasingly by a more sophisticated Many users are familiar with statistical iudiries and now clieutclc. r e q u e s t confldcnce 1,imits and varinbllity pctrnmetcrs be prttscsutcd w i t h data and information provided to them. In transmitting information and interpretations of soil behavior vin maps and tables. the soil scientist is being pressured to provide confidence limits and’measures of homogeneity to document the authenticity of soil surveys. Among many users there is still a sense of rnystiquc a b o u t s o i l s u r v e y s ; h o w :rre they mode awl whst is thcic dcgrcc of predictability under constraints of mapping-unit composition vnriabiLi.ty and in incredibly small samplfng size of the whole landscape? Soil survey reports do not adequately provide the user with on understanding of how the soil scientist extrapolates inferences from obscrvatlons on the landscape to points beyond where these inferences are judged to be valid. The points at which the inferences no longer apply become the boundary of mapping unit delineations. The scientific basis o f s o i l surwys 1s that soil conditi.ons d o h a v e a prcdlctoble patteru of associstion with a given landscape.

* Members prcscnt at Nations1 Workshop in Son Antonio. Texas 1979 -.

- 72 -

Thercforc, lo use the soil survey effectively a n d w i t h i n i t s confidcn,:r limits. the user must be aware of the scient.ifir philosophy. techniques und bnsls for: moklny: sol1 m a p s , the composition of resultinR landscape IIUJ~~.I,I~ 0 u n i t s . thr vnrLobi,lity of both mapping unit components and nssocintod soil properties, and sources of error in constructinfi a soil map. W h e n a llHCr o f s o i l s u r v e y informntion does not possess this understsndtng. it ,IS the responsibility of the interpretation and report writer to transmit these concepts clcnrly to the usor so ht. places no more nor no less _ confldcncc in the product than what is intended. IV.

API’ROACII RATICNN,R: Membership to this standing committee is interdisciplinary in scope; i n d i v i d u a l s hnvc been invited to serve on the busis of their e x p e r t i s e , i n t e r e s t n n d rxpcricnce to contribute to the objectives set forth. Rcsponscs to initial nct.lvltLus have been excellent and individuals hove taken their commitments scrlously. This report neccasarily represents a status report of past activities and future endeavors. Work Rroups were nssiRned to nssrmble preliminary information rcgording confidcnco lim,Lts that could bc expected from soil surveys fur properties i d e n t i f i e d us drtermlnants for soil response bchnvior to applied uses. The following format was followed for commIttee input: 1.

Identify soil properties including depth nnd other attributes (i.e., pnrcnt material, bedrock geology, topography, climntc, e t c . ) t h a t affect use and nlnnagemcnt of s o i l s f o r g i v e n purposes.


Identify sources of error and relative msgnitudcs encountered in construction of soil surveys relative to above properties (i.e., cartography, mapping scale, mapping procedure, definition of mapping units and pcdon sampling errors).

3. 4.

Identify COPIIIIUII Lent ion vchicl~es to r e l a t e knowledgc of conlldencc limits to users.


Draft consolidation report nnd recommendations.

Init.inl rfl‘orts w i l l k’oncfntratc o n ltrms ( 1 ) innl ( 2 ) . After the pcrtlnent sol1 propcrt Its hnvc been ldcntif 14. the w o r k groups wil.1 stole sources of errors that affect estimation of these determinants from soil survey informutlon.

- 73 -




Waste Management: 1.

Problem: Waste management includes the loadfng of the soil medium with and the renovation of liquid effluents from domestic septic systems, septage, animal wastes, a variety of sludges from municipal waste treatment plants, secondary treated liquid effluents from domestic waste treatment, solid wastes and other wastes without environmental and health impacts. Soils vary in their capacity to handle such wastes. Loading and renovation are functions of several soil and land attributes.


Important soil properties and land attributes influencing waste management:



moisture regimes 1) permeability or hydraulic conductivity; saturated vs. unsaturated flow 2) soil behavior with respect to hydrologic cycle; amount of throughflow, lateral flow, storage, ET, and surface runoff.




soil volume 1) amount of suitable medium 2) depth to slowly permeable horizon or water table.


environmental factors 1) plant growth related 2) adsorption capacity, chemistry (CEC, pH)

Sources of error: a.

map scale vs. system size; i.e. septic system small enough to flt into inclusion whereas lar.qe scale effluent spray systems covers many acres.


depth constraint on information; knowledge b:lse and dcgrcc of predictebil.ity for soils decrease with depth. even though degree of heterogeneity of substrata varies from landscape to landscape.


hydraulic conductivity is inherently a highly variable property, especially unsaturated K.


soil behavior is, system-dependent; loading and renovation are a f u n c t i o n of type of system, i.e., shallow septic system vs. deep dry well system vs. surface irrigation system V S. overland runoff system, etc.

Recommendation: An expanded discussion of the most comnonly used systems and their behavior and causes of failure could enhance the user’s confidrnco i n s o i l survey interpretations.

- 74 -

B. Soil Corrosivlty: 1.

Probl~em: Metallic and nonmetallic materials are used to transmit a varlrty of resources, electric currents. and mossages. Many of these materials are buried in the soil medium. These mntcrials are also used to anchor and support structural loads within the s o i l . The longevity and etrcngth of these materials are often a function of their susceptibility to electrochemical and chemical attack. Soils vary in their potential to corrode these materials. C o r r o s i o n i s a multlbillion dollar a year loss to the Ammericnn taxpayer and consumer.


Important soil properties and land attributes influencing mcttalic corroslvity:




nvailnbility of moisture to form electrolyte.


prrmcability of soil to moisture and oxygen (redox potential; anaerobic/aerobic environment).


variability of electrolyte and oxygen with time, spatial distributi~on and depth.


type of metal and degree of solubility


amount of exchangeable and soluble ions, especially S04, Cl, and exchangeable acidity (resistivity-conductivity).


presence of sulfur oxidizing and reducing bacteria.

of corrosion salts.

Sources of errors: Since corrosion is a function of chnnges in soil. environments (temporal, spatial, depth) and frequency of hhanges in soil unit size and contrast; error sources include: a.

inndequrtc chnrncterizntion a n d description of propertics causlnp. corrosion .


inadequate indexing of contrast between soil “nits (causing electrochemical cells due to different electrolytes and degrees of oxidation) and between soil horizons as influrnced by both depth and time (e.g. fluctuation of sonc s a t u r a t i o n ) .

R~TXonunc!lld~ll In,,: Wbcre intrtprrtntions irrr mndc f o r rorrosivlcy, there s h o u l d bc an expanded n a r r a t i v e scctlon rxplatnin): tbc other attributes and conditions tlrat can produce concentration cell rlrctrocln~mical potentials beyond just soil properties. SUCb a discussion con provide the users with enough information to make their own interpretations based on map unit contrast, etc.

C. Crop Production: 1.

Problem: Bcc:~usr of the need for more prccisr mnna):rmcnt dccislons ncccssitntcd b y the coat/prtcc squccxc focrd b y todtry’s farmers and the incrcasinb: value of cropland, berauac of the potmtial i m p a c t of production rrsourcos on water quality, and hccause of the increasing dumnnd f o r defining, dclinentin~. a n d dcsi~:natlng prime _ jj -


farmland, production indices and ylcld data eru needed. 2.

Important soil properties and land attributes influencing crop production: a.

solar radiation, day length, temperature, s~~~~nnl character


water supplying capscity (rooting volume) and availability (climatic vs. ground or surface storage)

c. nutrient supplying capacity




permcobility to both water nnd oxygen (drainage)




erodnbility (slope, K f a c t o r )


susceptobility to salinization

Sources of error: 8.

mrlnegcment vnrisbility




crop variety


tillaRc systems (lower yields with lower production costs provide higher prof It)


crop systems (fallow. etc.)


varl;tb,llity o f r o o t i n g v o l u m e (e.g., impart 0C erosion on p r o d u c t i o n - do not do adequate job of prcsc.nt Ing topsol I in map descriptions)

Recomnmndetions: a.


systcmntic yield dots ncquistion s h o u l d h c considered: Extension ngrnt, SCS district conscrvilt lonlst, :~nd rspcrlmcnt st:lt Ion personnel s h o u l d b e g:nthcr Lu): y i e l d d;ltn bcforr ;IWI during pr0grcssive soil survey. cotlsidcr p r o d u c t i o n index rather. than spcciCic yields for map units in soil *urvey.

c. provide more information on soil rooting, and production ChnrRctcristics of mapping unit. D . Mlncrnl Rcsourccs:

rcsourccs. however. t h e i r depth beneath the solI p r e c l u d e s the U&C of the soil a-9 an indicator of their presence. 2.

lmportont soil propertics and land attributes influencing mlncral resource identICicl\tlon: a.

mineral resources are often speciCic to geomorphic units ( e . g . gravel tcrraccs. eskera. rtc.) associated w i t h speclflc s o i l o r s o i l wquence.


other mineral resources prcdictnble only on narrow physiogrnphlc basis.

c. depth and homogeneity of soil parent material can provldo high c o n f i d e n c e lcvcl of predlctnbillty. 3.

Sources of error: a.

depth and homogenity of soil parent material often not know b e l o w 5 - 6 feet. ( e . g . , 7-foot loess cap over gravels).


confidence levels can and muat be limited to specific gcomorphic units and narrow physiographic basis for many rc8ourccf-4.


sands, gravels predictable bnscd on geologic deposition (cncrgy gradient) sequence; therefore. soil science is often not the approprlata di~scipl.ine to provide a predictive basis for mineral rc8ourcoa.

d. climate - macro and micro e. landscape unit attributes etc.)


nvnllublc water s u p p l y i n g c a p a c i t y - intcSrntion of items c thru C.

3. Sources



a . C a r t o g r a p h y - very little. map scales approprintc, mnp quality generally good .


Soil survey procedures - smnll error

c. Definition and composition of map units - major error; comccpts change over tlmc; r a p i d turnowr of soil scientists in arcba: map units inadequntcl~y defined; inconsistent lntcrpretation of definitions by different scientists. d.

Inndcquatc means to relay knowledse of confidence limits to Veers.

4. Recommendations: a. Need better documentation of confidence limits of muppinS units. b.

Need more comprehensive definition of mapping units.


Need better means to transfer knowledge of sources of error and confidence limits to users.

- 7H -



Binomial Confidence Limits Approach - Cornell 1.

Background : Graphs of accuracy or confidence limits versus sample size are exponential, clumsy t.n use and hard to read, Dr. R. W. Arnold and associates of Cornell University have developed u graphics1 solution to binomial confidence limits. The utility of this approach Is bused on observations that are mutually exclusive. A series of linear curves for different members of observations. probsbility levels and classification accuracies have been developed as a simple, rapid means to statistically summnrizc transect and other mapping unit composition data into confidence statements defining component soils and properties. This procedure particularily lends itself to recognition or establishment of boundary limits for class concepts. It is less useful in recognition of central tendencies of observed cluss phenomena. The graphical approach illustrated by Arnold is linear and sufficiently simple that it could be applied by most field soil scientists (see Figues 1 - 2 as examples). Merits of the approach include: a. binomial decisions are the basis for most soil survey activities. b.

graphical solutions allow emphasis on interpretation of data for confidence limits rather than laborious statistical calculations.


graphical solutions allow from data collection.

field men inrmediate feedback

The graphs produced use the number of ground truth observations on the Y axis nnd the number OL “other thnn” class mcmbcrs o n the x axis. The “other than” cl.aas members rcprcsent those observations that do not fit within the limits of the class concept. The levels of accurac.y (maximum = upper confidence limit and minimum = lower confidence limit) are shown as straight lines and interpolations can be m:idc between them. The estlmltes obtained by this gr;lphic;ll solution arc m o r e than adcquatc for our purposes in soil survey. 2.

of confidence ltmits: When classes that are mutually exclusive are considered the decisions about any one class membership constitute a binomial experiment. An observation either belongs to the class of interest, or it belongs to some other c l a s s . It is included or excluded; it is a yes or no decision.


In making probability statements. trade-otfs are involved. For any set of observations, one can vary the cl~~nccs of being wrong (probability level) or one cnn vary the 1imiLs of accuracy (degree of correctness). It is always a compromise. If you want

- i9 -


to ho rcnlly confident of your statement (say only 1 chance in 100 of bC1ng Wrong), the limits will be very vldc. On the other hnnd, if you like to gamble (1 chance in 5 of being wrong), then the stated limits ~111 be very narrow. If a somplc is truly reprcscntcltivc o f n lnrgcr populntlon, then h y incressing the numhcr ol snmplcs the limits will become narrower, For cx~~mple, if we mcrlsured all pedons in n msp unit we would huve R perfect f i t ntd the snswer w o u l d b e nbsolulely c o r r e c t . Crnph~ can bc prepared f o r nny l e v e l o f probohility. Likcwlstb each graph cnn be prcprlrcd for a number of snmplc sizes. The two c!xnmples that foll~ow nrc for the upper and lower confidence limit using the 9 0 % p r o b a b i l i t y level mid for snmple sizes up LO 50. A _~_ lower ____~_.__ confidence limit lets you make an at -_ lc:ast _-- stotcmcnt. When you make 40 observations and 10 belong to other clsssrs, the mcasurcd pcrccnt is 75% and graphically you note that ” _least _ _ _ 62% Is estimnted to be the some ~1~s .(l in 10 chance of error). An gp~ confidence __-_--_ limit -lets you make an s_ ss~ statement. With rho previous example you note that -at most - - 83x Is estimated to bc the same clnss.

All too often we report only our guesst~mnte of the p r o p o r t i o n found in a sample or suspcctcd of being found. It is more reelistlc LO give ranges based on the sample doto at our dlsposnl.. I&cry decision we make is bnsed o n o u r preception of the correctness of the information and on our preceptlon of the risk or expected consequence of making this decision versus an alternative dcclslon. 3.



Now many samples to take? The minimum number ‘of observations to make varies with the chnnccs of being wrong (probability level) nod the 1~~~1 of accuracy (degree of correctness) desired. The grnpli:; ior t~he lower conflcl~ncr. limit cnn bta used t o cstIm;~tc how “lally s:ulq’I

The purpose of stntistical prob;rbllity is to let you cxtrnpolatr from obrervarions dr;n?n from n s;uxplc t o the popul;ltion ns il whole. Par rxamplc, you or ten wish t11 extrapolntc from mcasurcmcnts made in II few dclinrations to map unit as a whole. Estimating composition:

Assume you made 4 transects having 13, 9, 7 and 11 observations f o r 0 total of 40. Out of that [email protected], only 30 helonged to the SDITII? class. The predicted mnximum accuracy would be nhout 83% and the minimum accuracy would be ahout 62:!. Y O U , thcrcfore, w o u l d e s t i m a t e that t h e mnp u n i t comprises hctwcrn 62 and 8 3 % o f t h e major component based on your set of observations and assuming a 1 in 10 chance of being wrong. Lstimates of each component can be obtained from the graph, or if ncccssary, by extending the graph if you nurintoin the same intervals on both the X and Y axis. This same procedure applies to consociations, cpmplexcs, and It also oppll~ed to other features such as associations. stoniness, rock outcrop, and in as many ways au you hnvc binomial decisions to make. B.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Approach - VP1 1.

Introduction: There is a move afoot nationally to introduce the statistical method into the characterizotlon of mapping and taxonomic units in soil survey. The statistical method provides procedures for assessing the magnitude and distribution of the existi! variability in a mapping unit to different levels of sampling. A random sampling approach to this pursuit is advanced by W. J. Edmunds of VPI. It is argued that selection of pedons for characterization and fgilure to randomly replicate observations limit statistical analysis of the data to simple descriptive statistics, such as mean, stnudnrd dcvi~atlon, vnrinnce, stnndard error, a n d c o ‘l’hcsc stutistics drscrib,~ t h e d i s t r i e f f i c i e n t o f varinbility. b u t i o n o f a populnt ton about :nr avcragr for n given p:lromctrr. It is further argued that statistical statements based ou these variables are limited to only the pedons observed and may not be applied to the entire mapping unit since pedon selection produced a fixed effect. The lnck of repl.ication of observations and of an experimental design prevents an ;un:rlysis of the variability of a mnpping u n i t . ‘The USC of rocfriclcnt OC v a r i a b i l i t y as an estimate of vnriabili.ty in il mapping unit can lead to mislending conclusions if covarinnre occurs betwctn sample mean sire and standard deviation (S.D.). Table 1 illustrates such a situation for base saturation. Table 1.

Base Ssturdtion by Strata for Napping Unit 105Cl Montgomery County, Virginia


__ Y

Stratum 1



Stratum 2



MIN MAX S.D --____---L-____-~~~_--_--21.4 13.1 79.2 4.6


at -




If soil science is to comprehensively assess the variability within mapping units, it foll.ows that the use of statistical analysis of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) is a powerful tool. ANOVA provides a proccdurc lor determining whether pcdons or delineations arc similar or different at a given probability level. The use of ANOVA for determining the variability wlthi,n a given mapping unit can be accomplkhed by using a nested sampling design since a pedon can occur in only one delinestion. However, mapping units can be compared by using a factorial design within nesting.


The application of ANOVA necessitates that current sampling procedures be changed from selection of sites for characterization to a complete randomization of samples from: (1) Strata within a soil association. (2) Delineations within strata. (3) Pedons within delineations. (4) Replications within pedons (within 7m). The use of a mixed effect, nested ANOVA design to characterize a mapping unit in Montgomery County, Virginia has been tested. This soil association in Montgomery County, Virginia, “as stratified and sampled randomly according to a nested ANOVA design. The terrain in each stratum was aruluaed by computer for the parameters of olevdtion and relief and for the.percentage distribution of slope classes and topographic shapes. The variance “as partit,ioned and calculating formulas and assumptions have been provided in the statistical design. 2.

Summary : The use of ANOVA and the partitioning of the total variance into error (variability within 7 meters), pedons (within delineations). dellorations (within strata), and strata (within soil nssocintlons) locates the source of variability in a mapping unit. If the major portion of the variability is within and among pedons within delineations, a complex of two or more taxonomic units may be used to describe the mapping unit. When the variability is among delineations within strata or among strata, an undifferentiated group of two or more taxonomlc unit.s may be used to describe the mapping unit. llowever, if the major portion of the variance is among strata, two mapping units may be used. Results from this case study in Virginia indicated that the major sources of variability for base saturation, pH and clay content were among strata, pedons within delineations and among duplicate pedons Extreme variability within mapping units should not be used as the sole basis to evaluote the validity , quality or accuracy of the soil survey product because variability is a criterion for defining the mapping unit in terms of: Consociotioos. Complexes, undifferentiated groups and soil associations.

A statjslicul procedure that enoblcs a hcttrt ,JArtitiO!,ilJ~ of tclntive soutccs it’ vrwli~bl.lity with n n d umonp, mapping wits n t e pettlncn~ to cscnhlishing a mapping unit Icgend. dclinlug map untt compwit~lon :lnd dcsi~ning cxperlments f o r acccsslng s o i l bchovlot. Thr, major xlvant;,gc of the ANOVA :Ipptonch i~ that it p r o v i d e s unbinscd cstimotcs o f b o t h ccnttnl, telldewy and confidcncr .lImi~~. D1 s:xlwn t;lg:os ate that it tcquires n mote comprehensive undcrstondlng of st~\Llstics, tcsults may br confnundcd by interactions that make 1~ntctptrt:~~lons difL-IculL und the method d o e s n o t toedlly lend ilself (II tupid i~nolysls a n d data tedwt Ion by iicld s o i l s c i e n t i s t s . Another 1 lmlttrt ion Is lhnt it requiter il I:lt~:e number of obsetvatlons to obtain II uniform dLsLtLbutLou of “hsctv;~tloos owt the atoa o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n . C . Coofflcient of Vntiubility A p p r o a c h (CV) - l’exas A&N Onc approach 1.. P. Wildl.n& and others have found uscrul to portray v a r i a b i l i t y amow different so11 properties and snmplinx encttics iS the rocific& of vnriability’ (CV). cv it? n stntistirol mcasllre “I s a m p l e vnrlntion and 1s defined as sample deviation (S.D.) exptcswd 08 a petcent:ige of the sample m e a n (E), i.e.:

1t i s npptoptiutc for c”mp:wJng d i s p e r s_ i o n o f differcut soil propertics ftre from scale LocLot but iC nssumcs normal Ltequency dlsttibutlon, no covi~tlauce bctwoco the sumplc mean and S.D. a n d d a t a whctc the mean does nof npptonch 0. I L hw been convcnicnt to us” CV ln comparing data from different t*xpucimcut;ll sources when cump;~tisons wr>te not possible by other mcchods because somplc designs wctc dlrictcnt. Flgurcs 3. 4 and 5 ore examples of thins opptonch to illustt:ltc teln~lve magnitudes of soil property vatjntion with inctensing survey arca). scal~e factor (pcdon __+ series -----_) mappinR unit + ‘TllC~SC es;rln~~lc.s roprcsenl n :nmpllation t;lkcn f r o m the 1 itrratutc nnd thr n~ltllots’ work but ilrc hcwlly welghtrd t o gLacl;ltcd scc~tots of the w o r l d .

W h i l e it is not p o s s i b l e t o grnctalize soil vatiobflity for all cor~ditions, crttain soil properties consistently tend to be more variable than others;. Ilxamples hw’c been categorized as follows: 1.

l e a s t vnrjnblc _-.--- ptopettfrs - CV’s conmonly < 1 5 % - sol1 color (hue and value) - s o i l p1l - thlckncss of A h o r i z o n


- U’s commonly b~~twccn 15 nnd 35% vntl;~~~_pywcttica modct:ltcly - totu1 sand, t o t a l s i l t and t o t a l clay scp”t”tL*s - CEC - base sntutntion - G, _

- grade and class of soil structure - liquid limit - calcium carbonate equivalent 3.


most variable properties - CV’s commonly > 35X and sometimes 100% or more for some chemical properties (see Figure 3) - solum thickness - B2 horizon thickness - s o i l c o l o r (chroma) - depth to mottling - depth to carbonates - exchangeable cations - fine clay content - organic matter content - plasticity index - hydraulic conductivity

In all of the above approaches considerable committee deliberation was spent on discussing sample schemes (completely random, randomly-oriented point-transects and prealigned or randomly placed grid designs). There was no general consenses of the best sampling method, but the committee retognized that different bio-physical conditions, specific objectives to be achieved and time or labor restrictions would impact on this deciBiOn. Several sampling schemes should be developed to satisfy alternative needs.





Cnrtogrophy nnd Sol1 Survey Procrdurca 1.

t’cdology is b a s e d o n working models that nttcmpt t o oxplain t h e relntionshlps bctwecn sets nf soil propcrt let; end rclntivc lrrndscnpc p o s i t i o n s . O n e cxprcssion of thL>sn mdels l~I1trud”clioII:

is u 8011 survey m n p .

’ Inhcrcnt in the s o u r c e s o f e r r o r idcutlfird inter arc two fundamcntel. concepts. 1.

Recognition of central tendrncies of observed phcnomcnn (ccntrol concept of n clnss).


Recognition or cstnblishmcnt of ncceptablc limits (boundaries o f n clnss).

What constitutes D CluStWinR and w h e r e is the bounclarv o f s u c h clustcrtny? Some propertics d o n o t c l u s t e r i n n sprltlol s~*nsc, yet we &et linllts (for exomplc, Soil Taxonomy). Other featurcxs nuay hnvc consistently rccognlznble boundnries ( s o m e slope breAks) w i t h mlnimnl clustering of other properties on cithcr side of the boundary. The qucstlon resolves to “how well do we know whcrc and under what cunditions t h e v a r i o u s combinations o c c u r i n idcnt ~LClnble landscnpcs?”


Sources of Error: the model Scvcn ureas Lh;lt may bc sources of error Invludc: o f soil based o n geogrnphicnl~ dlstribul ton oi sull-formIn): factors; relsttonships o f s o i l propcrtlcs to Inndncaprs; applications of Soil Taxonomy; t y p e and scnle of f Jeld sheets; philosophy of whet to emphasize; mapping procedures; and prcparation of published maps.


Magnitude of Errors: It is not easy to assess the magnitude of errors brcnusc wh;~t h a p p e n s o n t h r map may rrsul t from dtffcrent drfl~lcnc~~s. yet It Is t h e n e t o r e n d result is consider4 to bc inrorrct~t. one t h i n g t o pass judgmrnt o n tllc scientlilc intry,rlLy ot II

sol1 survey n,sp, and another to assess the interprctntion sti~tc!lIonLs or implications because the stilndnrds m:ly differ for different uses by diffcrcnt users. An error can be considered to be incorrect. T h i s implies th;lt something else is correct and we consequently have st least two classes--one correct, and all others that arc not correct, but nuy differ in their degress of departure from correctness. Most cvaluntion of correctness for class placement 1s dlrectcd to the limits or boundaries of classes rather than in the central concept of the class.


ln Table 2 an attempt has been made to scale the sources IL is of error clnd co give an overall rating by an “X”. antjcipated thut low sources of error would foster high map accuracies and vice versa. 4.

Conclusions: Mapping proccdurcg is considered to be the biggest source of errors that contribute to lowered accuracy of soil maps. Devclopi~~ motheses -~ ol landscape-soil relationships is thought to hove a moderate degree of error and, in part, is reflected by the problems associated with mapping. The remaining five areas are believed to h:lve low degrees of error and, therefore! assist in providing nups of high qulity. These areas ore: -model -of soil,- &lcnti~u of- soil taxonomy_, philosop!y_ of cmphusis, field sheets, - of- - and preparation published maps.

B. Definition and Composition of Map Units 1.

Introduction: Five arcas that may be sources of error in the d e f i n i t i o n nnd cornposltion of map u n i t s hnvc been defined. Sonic rrCcr t o our conccptul perccptlons oC s o i l s nnd others refer tu operation;)1 proccdurcs ot obtolninr: ilnd intcrprctin,: Inf~lrnKlL~Loa. The five areus of concern are: - concepts of taxonomic units and mpping units - working models of soil property-landscape relationships - population chnrnctcristlcs of map units - Conl,,Onl’nt compc’sit ion of m:,p uni LS - intcrprctaLion9 0i map u n i t s


Problems may occur both in the scientific approach as well as in user understanding of the information prcscntcd to them.



Sauces of Error: a.

Unit _-concepts - too often the difference between taxonomic and cnrtographic units Is misunderstood by soil scicntlsts and WCS of soil survey i n f o r m a t i o n . ‘I’hc prlmnry purpose of toxonomic u n i t s is t o p r o v i d e i~dc*utlty :~nd a mrntal

~:stimltecl Ik3;rwI_ of --~ I~:rror Lcw R?ClllPn - - - _ Ill& -



of:-:----:;oil Divlsron ot soil-fonntng factors Climte Biota Parent nWeria1 %?lra*hy






Developing Ilylnthesos Ibfinerwnt of land&xqzc features Nature of soil profrrties Limits of soil properties Urxlcrstanding factor interactions Accept,able correlations of soils and landscapes

Map Scale and Type of Field Sheet Scale Ground reference pints Philos+~~ of Fhphasis ___ User d&r&s Tradition in an area Using prior series concepts AnticipatA land use Extaq~~lcr,~t in<, hirlh contrast areas Mlintaitl scjc!ltific integrity IQ&ll'KX\KlW-C!~~ ____(~ Undcrstan~rng predictability of soil pattern Mq>ping skills , Air-photo intcqxctation 1'ravursc lk!:;iqII Fcaturc? rccqn.ition Gcneralizinq ohscrvations Adhcrcncc to quality standards Ccntinuinq wtivation Mequate cxwination of pcdons mlity control by Party Lcadcr Soil correlation--guality and nature

J 5 J ------G


J J ---


J J V x J



J J J -- --_ _-. .~_~ _ X












- 87 -



Correlation chanqcs Hap cuq~ilation




3. &&cation of Soil Taxoncmy in U.S. Cbicctivcs of schcne R&isis on soil process related features Misrutch of features needed for use and nqt* Constraints of fixed class limits 4.





construct of the mutually exclusive taxonomic classes. Mnp unils consist 01 the collection of delineated sol1 areas on a mnp nnd usually Include nkore variability than pcrmittcd b y t a x o n o m i c c l a s s e s . CorreL1tion is the p r o cess of bringing together the taxonomic nsmi~p, oi classes and the realities of soils which exist or arc presumed to exist in delineated arens. Guidelines and procedures for the correlation process Ire numerous, somcttlaes difficult to intcrprct and often not understood by either laymen or professionals. b.

Working Models (Hypotheses) of Soil Property - Landscape. IJrlation~ Legend doslgn is not an easy task because it attempts to comblnc i,nprecise correlations of soil properties associated with delineated landscnpc se!:ments w!th imprecise cnrrelnt ions of behavior expected by users of interpretive information, Most of our efforts have been geared toward understanding the relationships of properties observed in the field to areas that are delineated on maps. How does one design a legend? Another question concerns testing of relationships, Emplu~ricnl correl.ations of observed soil properties with external Inndscape features is the usual wny to develop sull-Landscape hypothesis. What about nearly level featureless nrcns whcrc* subsoil nnd substrum propcrtlcs rely primarily on sedimcntnry s t r u c t u r e s (1.e. floodplains, terraces, lokc bottoms)? A knowledge of geomorphic procosscs and landforms will likely influcncc how we test the relationshps and evelop a data base.




Charnrteristfcs of M~J_ Unit P-ulations --__-_~._-Very 1 I ttle work has been done on tbc geography of rn:kp unl ts A population of tlL$l illr;1t~~d nnd “lc;,r:ures to d e s c r i b e CIlCm. lllllllhl~r units nnmcd the same constltutc a mnp unit. It IlilR 3 __~_._. of dcllncntions varying in -.-_ size and nhnpr with d i f f e r i n g nature of contrast -of -boundaries _ - - - with adjacent units and has both an ovcrnll pattern as well ns a _-locslpettrrn _---_ of occurrrnrc nnd an --,___-. assumed int~~rnnl composf tion of Included .___ __ -- ..conlp”n


Composition of Map Units

Over the past ten years data has been accumulating which indicates the complex nature of tnxonomic components of map units. Such information eventually is used to “djust or modify guidelines for naming and describing map units.


In most studies of mapping unit composition, the shortrange variability from observation to obsrrvatfon within a delineation contributes much more varinnce than among delineation differences. This suggests that the greatest effort per expended input could be gained by incrcnsing the number of observations within a single delineation rather than increasing the number of delineations observed for the mapping uit. Short-range variability is often the greatest source of error.


Information to be recorded on map unit composition should include : taxonomic classes of pcdons observed, individual soil properties or features, lnndscape micro-features, vegetation, tonal patterns on airphoto, and so on. Of ten phase components are of equal importance such as slope, stoniness, rockness, erosion, deposition. etc. e. *J Unit Interpretive Statements p a s t , most attention has been focused on taxonomic composition of mapping units and this aspect is becoming better appreciated. Less emphasis has been placed on interpretive aspects of unit. Most soil information hns been obtained from pedon samples, and interpretations based on these pedons are extrapolated to the map unit named for these classes (Form 5 data and their modifers). This approach has been widely used and accepted, but seldom have there been attempts to quolIfy our statcments with back-up data. This indicates the high r’clioncc we place on the observntional skills of field men.




Increased attention has been given to various statistical procedures for expressing the properties observed. These include random schemes for estimating both central tendcncics and the amount of variability or ranges about the mean. Less attention has been given to oxpressing the information as probability statements. Consequently, the lack of guidzlines for characterizing the mapping units may permit divergent opinions and results that can be interpreted as errors by some people. Here is a major area that needs Should confidence statl?to be addressed by the committee. ments about mapping “nits be in a narrative form or in tables? How can such statements on tables be drafted so they are readily understood by the layman? 3.

Magnitude of Errors T h e estlswted degrees OF e r r o r r e s u l t f r o m :r lack of itv;ltl- 0 able information and how to express the results in n moilni~n~:I !I I - 89 -



W C nppcor to be at a threshold of ~rnnp~ing the problem nnd dcvrloping appronhccs to obtain quantifiable Information. Often it dots not have to be rigorous or tndious, rather it can bc bxzd on taking advantage of the keen observational skIlla of people who work in ttw fie1.d. HowL%v!r * those obscrvationa must be recorded and where obvious discrepton&us occur, then testing should be undertaken. Imy.


Concept of uoits Working models Population chnractcristics Component cornposit ion Unit interpretstions

- 90 -

Estimated dcgroc of vrrnr LOW Medtum Hi& x x x x x



Long-Range 1.

A subcommittee bc established to develop alternative proCedlltfSS (detailed format and statistical dtsslgns) to RSSCRS: a*

the taxonomic composition ot soil mnp u n i t s


the variability of pertinent soil propcartics comprising map unit components;


the confidence limits relative to above attributes; and


soil performance interpretations.

The assessment should be commensurate with the scale of mapping and objectives of the survey (i.e. the major response unit and major land uses of the survey).



To encourage Regional Committees and cooperators of the NCSS program continued development and testing of alternative approaches that permit greater quantification of soil survey information and procedures ( i.e.. design of mapping units. developing soil-landscape models, predicting soil patterns, enhancing mapping skills, developing texonomic concepts, etc.).


To program for a redirection of NCSS cmphnsls and efforts towards greater quantification of mapping unit composition as interlinked with soil performance interpretations.


Short-Range 1.

Devclop model drafts of confidence statements that could bc u t i l i z e d t o t r a n s f e r informntlon gained in items l(a) thru l(d) t o map unit dcfiuitions i n the solI, survey rc’port.


Develop additional narrative aaterial that could be incorparatrd into the Introduction Section of the soil survey report to set forth more clearly: a.

o b j e c t i v e s o f the soil survey


the manner in which the soil survey is made so the user mny better appreciate its applicability and limitations (i.e. number of observations, location of observations relative development o: to the landscape, laboratory verification soil-landscape models, etc.)


provide the user with a generalized understanding of the relative magnitudes of soil property variability that could be expected in a lnndscnpe unit (i.e. Lncrensing varlnhiliL with scale factor from a prdon to the Iwndscape as whole, chcmicnl properties, solum thickness, hydraulic generally more variable than physical propcrtlrs such as p a r t i c l e - s i z e , s u r f a c e h o r i z o n thickness, soil ptl, cojor, etc.).

-. :


Dovelap more not - - -less comprehensive descriptions of m a p p i n g

amounts nnd_ qmtlul distribution of units including kinds, -.- - - _.--------. component soils. yzorporate specific probability stat.emenr!~ of confidence limits of soil composition when data is avail.ahlc. I l l u s t r a t e schematicslly spatial relationships of soils Include or specific properties pertinent to soil performance. more definitive information on surface horizon thickness.


Drvclop a section in the manuscript regarding gcneralizcd aspects of soil water movement in n vertical and lntcral vector. Consider infiltration. permcnbi1Jty. topography. restrictive layers, etc. Develop for the Jayman, model concepts of water movement from upslope tt) downslope landscape components. Relate water changes to possible impact on soil behavior (i.e. water supplying cap;1cLty. seasonel w a t e r t a b l e s , t r a f f i c a b i l i t y . soil strength and stahtlity, corroaivity, e t c . )


Develop more detailed narrative with appropriate schematics (block di,agrams), the soil-geology-hydrology relationships. Relate such data to water movement. stability, construction liabilities. pollution potential, etc. This provides a means to interface soil-geology inferences.


Coordinate cooperative planning efforts to obtain crop yteld and climatic data by major soils two or three years before survey is to he initiated so five to six years of information would be available at time survey is ready for publication. Greater efforts should be made to bring in stntc and county extension efforts and personnel from Economic Statistics and Cooperative Service


- 92 -


UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT FOR 90% PROBABILITY (I in 10 chance of being wrong)






5 Figure 1














UWER CONFIDENCE LIMIT FOR 90% PROBABILITY (I in IO chance of being wrong)


5 ‘ii%.: >- re 2










- 95 -

- 96 -

- 97 -




1. A = f 10% o f p o p u l o t i o n meon 2. A


0 b



f 20% of population mean

70 60 40 50 60 20 30 Number of observations 1.95 confidence Interval)



Figure 6 - I.. P. Wilding. 1972. Developing concepts nnd dinRnostic C r i t e r i a f o r s o i l clnssiflcation. Proc. of 8 symposiuw on Classification of Soils and Sedimentary Rocks. Cuelph. Ootnrio.





Conuni t lets 6 S o i l - W a t e r Helut~ions



t4auri.w S t o u t , J r . , C h a i r m a n John E. McClelland, Advisor

- 99 -

SOIL-WATER RELATIONS Most soil-water relations are dynamic phenomena. Because of the forces of gravity, matric tension, evaporation, and transpiration, the soil water conditions are constantly changing. They may change in a few hours or days or over a season or a year or longer. They may be changing at such a slow rate that they appear to be permanent. When describing a soil, the soil-water state and the date are recorded jo order to relate to the soil properties at that time. I d e a l l y , t h e s o i l - w a t e r stat~r would be observed for each soil at least once a month during the year. Howevtrr, the soil scientist can generally make observations only during tht~* time the landscape is Lraversed; hence, patterns of soil-water states will have to be estimated by using available climatic data and the position of t~he individual soils in the landscape.

[This introductory material may be omitted depending upon the manner in which the mat~erial on soil water aud related topics are placed in the text. C o n f l i c t i n g rec:ommeu&tioos were offered and it may be besl to omit. 1

- 100 -

Soi I-WaLer S t a t e s Sojl-water state is the t e r m u s e d f o r a d e f i n e d moisLurc c o n d i t i o n . m o i s t a n d wet.--cno he est.imated i n t h e fjeld. Three s o i l - w a t e r states--$ry, __.._, The soil-wlc%r s t a t e s h o u l d b e r e c o r d e d w h e n a pedoo or oLher srmq~lc~ u n i t js described. D i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e s o i l - w a t e r statue c a u s e v a r i a t i o n i n c o l o r , I n addit i o n , arrumuleted c o n s i s t e n c e , and grades o f struct.ure o f s o i l s . o b s e r v a t i o n s o v e r a l e n g t h o f t i m e c a n est.ablish t h e p a t t e r n o f s o i l - w a t e r slalc~s. By comparing f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n s w i t h d a t a o n p r e c i p i t a t i o n awl w3pot ranspi t-al ion, a c o m p l e t e sequrnc’r call he drtrrmined. Color also is indiraLJw or drgrres o f moist~ure conlenl wilh g r a y i s h c o l o r s ani1 mot1 Ies io zoucs 01 longest ~orwrnt r a t i o n a n d b r i g h t colors in zonw 01 IK> o r s h o r t cowent t-at ion. Horc holes a r e m o r e p r e c i s e indirnlors o f t h e prrs,islcww of the wet HLII1C. A s o i l o r Boil h o r i z o n i s c o n s i d e r e d l o be d!:y whrn the water i s h e l d at a t~wsion of 1 , 5 0 0 kPa ( 1 5 b a r s ) o r m o r e . ‘ T h e s o i l - w a t e r conlenl in the dry s t a t e his less Lhan t h a t r e q u i r e d t o kerp m o s t mesophytir p l a n t s alive. The Lerm a i r - d r y m e a n s that lhe soil is in e q u i l i b r i u m w i t h t h e a i r . Thr amount o f wntrr i n t h e s o i l w i l l v a r y w i t h Ihr h u m i d i t y , hut a n a i l - - d r y state can hr attainrd in the field o r o f f i c e h y letting the s o i l d r y iu t h e air. When a soi I i s a i r - d r y , the w a t e r i s held aL t e n s i o n m u c h grralrr thao 1 , 5 0 0 kl’a (IS bars:). A soil or soi I h o r i z o n i s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e ._~.. moiaL - whrn t h e w a t e r i s hr’lcl ~81 L+~wion bc~tween 1 kl’a ( I O cm I I 0 o r 0 . 0 1 b a r ) a n d 1 , 5 0 0 kt’a ( 1 5 b a r s ) . ‘I’hi s rcpresrnts thl* range f r o m jut? a b o v e t h e waLrr ronlrnt~ a t w h i c h most IwsophyLi c plants wi 1 t beyond recovery in a humid ntmosl,lww (vi 1 tlng point) t o HII orbilrnry poiul. Thr amount o f waler i n t h e s o i l and t h e s o i l pt-opt*rtirs c h a n g e a p p r e c i a b l y w i t h i n t h e m o i s t xtaLe. C o n s e q u e n t l y , f o r solnct purpows it nwy Irr usriu’l t o seporaLl* t h e d r i e r h a l f oi thr m o i s t c l a s s fi-om the h a l f a s s~l~ightly m o i s t a n d very moi,sL, respwtiwly, and sepal-atecl a t l/3 bat- ( o r .l). Soil is considered to be w e t w h e n i t c o n t a i n s f r e e w a t e r . F r e e weL.c.1. ins _.-_



‘INcknrss and c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e z o n e s o f free water v a r y g r e a t l y . The irrc w a t e r m a y b e resLricted t o a s i n g l e t h i n z o n e n e a r t h e s o i l s u r f a c e . I n s o i l s h a v i n g a fragipan, free w a t e r o f t e n o c c u r s ahovc thr fragipan b u t n o t tw I ow Two o r mo~-c layers o f free water m a y h e r;~~pawt.ed h y less satutaled ‘This of’tcw happ~~ns i n s o i l s t h a t Corwd ill strnlifi~?l ;I~I Iuvium sui I nh3tcrial. I II muuy so i Is, 1 n-c t h a t ir; mostly ~l:lyry but cootains l o a m y sod s a n d y b a n d s . watt-r i s c o n t i n u o u s f r o m i t s h i g h e s t l e v e l t o L h r d e p t h n o r m a l l y o b s e r v e d during a soil survey. S e v e r a l k i n d s o f fi~eld c l u e s c a n b e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e s o i l - w a t e r sta1.e. I n wet s o i l , w a t e r iilms o n t h e s u r f a c e s o f s a n d g r a i n s a n d p e d s a r e visible w i t h o u t magni iication. ExcavaLion t h r o u g h a w e t h o r i z o n will c a u s e w a t e r t o ___.~.__~ ._..__.. _~_.~_. 1J W a t e r m a y hc u n d e r p r e s s u r e a n d rise in the boreholc* a b o v e t h e level of f r e e wot,er ( a r t e s i a n p r e s s u r e ) . I n t h e s e c a s e s , d e p t h t o waLrr i n t h r horehole i s l e s s t h a n t h e d e p t h t o f r e t ! w a t e r .

- 101 -

flow down the exposed face, though flow may he very slow and confined to lnrge pores and cracks. Many clayey and loamy horizons of high hulk density contain v e r y few pores that drain under 1 kPa (0.01 bar) auction. Most soils become perceptibly darker on moistening within the range of s l i g h t l y m o i s t . The change of color wi.thin the range of very mojst is nearly always leas and is negligible for some soils. A h a l l o f m o i s t s o i l maLerials can be formed in the hand by firm pressure at moisture statca of vsy moist or wet for soil t,exLures finer Lhan fjne s a n d o r l o a m y f i n e s a n d . A hall may be fat-med nt p r o g r e s s i v e l y l o w e r m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t a s s i l t incrrases relative to S;UNI 8nd a s c l a y increases. Hany c l a y e y s o i l m a t e r i a l s , especta’l ly those high in 2:) I:lLLice clays, may be formed into halla when they are s+i,&_ttjy m o i s t . IV, a f t e r t h o r o u g h l y desLrOying t,he soil structure, a “t~hread” 3 mm it1 d i a m e t e r cnn he formed by rolling the soil. between t.he palms of the two hands and Lhca t.hrrad does not crumhl~c w h e n h a n d l e d , thr? material is moist or wet.. Soils are considered flooded - .,.. -__-_ when they are inundated hy moving watet originating from stream overflow, runoff, or tides. They are c o n s i d e r e d p+dd when Lhry arc covered by water from adjacent slopes. @HIII~. so1 1s are gen~r:rlly in c l o s e d drpressions. The amount nnd rate of water moving over, inLo, and through the soil ilre conLrotled b y s u p p l y , hy intcrnnl a n d e x t e r n a l , s o i l propc%rties, and by t9lvironmeutnl frtrtors. Soi 1 properties influencing water movement include s IO,“, , surl;~cc~ roughness, water repellency, c r a c k i n g , c o a r s e fraRmcnts, Sl rur:turc., t o t a l porosiry, p o r e - s i z e distt-ibutiou. a n d w(tLcr contrnt. I~:~~vircrr~nicr~t;rl filclurs i n c l u d e f o r m o f precip,iLation, vc*grL;llive c o v e r snd sp2c i ng, and 1 c?npr ra t~u re . A n y f a c t o r i.ncrcasing thl. rrsistnuce t o f l o w drc~-t~as(~s the rate nod amount of w a t e r nloving over, into, or through the solI. For c~xumplr) surfact* roughnrss i n c r e a s e s rcsie.tance to flow of water over t h e suil, w h i Ic irlrrcrasinp, slope decreases resisLancr. Water repellency increases Lht. rl*sislancc l o f l o w i n t o s o i l . Since water moves much more easily through I:~rg’ p o r e s t\Nn sn,:3I I ones, Lbe p o r e - s i z e disLribution of a soil largely d~~tt~nnines its internal rrsisLonce L o w a t e r f l o w . Cracking, structure, coarse f r;3xmtrnt 6, crud porosity determine the cross-sectional area available for water fmovcmcrlt through soi’l . D e c r e a s i n g Lhe cross-sectional area available for flow ,Iv~I~~:I.‘:~s the’ rate 01~1 timonnt o f w:itcr movemcnl t h r o u g h thl* soi 1 Dccrcasing : ;I<- soi I-w.lLrr cont<*ut decrc~i~sc~s Lhr cross-sect ioni4 ilrea avai Iahle f o r water , I I_\,,’ , sin(., w
Runoff ----Runoff is the term referring to the portion of precipitation lost by flow o i l surface and to the periods when excess writer stands on the soil ;;:I;,;;eze Surface water includea water falling as rain or water flowing onto the soil from other surfaces. Six classes of rate of runoff may be recognixed. The relative rate and loss from the soil surface is determined by t h e internal and eaternal characteristics of the soil and by the climate and vegetative cover. Runoff can also vary significantly on soils under natural cover, under cultivation, and under different kinds of management. Many soils that have slow or medium runoff under natural conditions may have rapid or very rapid runoff when cult.ivated. These conditions must be taken into consideration

when evaluating runoff. Classes for rate and amount of runoff are applied to mapping units. The interrelationship of and phases is recognized. Phases such as stony and eroded soils are evalualed for runoff. Ponded .__~..._._ Littl~e of the water added to the soil as precipitation or by flow from surrounding higher land escapes as runoff. The total amount of water that must be removed from ponded areas by movement through the soil or by evaporation is usually greater than the total rainfall. Ponding normally occurs on level to nearly level depressions1 soils, and the depth of water may flurtuate seasonally. y_eg_.~...S 1.--_ ow Surface water flows away so slowly that free water stands on the surface for l,ong periods. Soils are commonly level or nearly level. Most of the water either passes through the soil or evaporates, but some soils absorb precipitation so rapidly that little or no water can run off. Slow

Surface water flows away slowly enough that free water stands on the surface for intermediate periods. The soils are either nearly level or very gently sloping. Most of the water passes through the soil or evaporates, but somt\ soils absor-b Pl.ecipitation rapidly e n o u g h ,that only a little water can

r-1,,, of I. Surface water flows away fasL enough that free water stands on the surface for only short periods. Soils with a medium rate of runoff are either nearly level to gently sloping with moderate absorption of precipitation or have steeper slopes and high rates of ahsorption. A part of the precipitation i s ahsorbrd by the s o i l a n d u s e d f o r plants growth. i s l o s t b y rvaporntion, o r moves dowuwi\rd into underground channel a. - . . . .._.. -_-.-.

?/Runoff i s d e f i n e d a s “that part of precipitati.on appearing in the surface streams” (Gary, et al., 1972). Besides surface runoff there is subsurface flow or interflow that results when infiltrated water enters a zone 1------F -. with a htgher p e r v i o u s n e s s t h a n t h e s o i l b e l o w . Water accumulates in this zone and moves laterally. There is also base flow which comes from material - - --: storage such as swamps, aquifers, and from water tn temporary storage in adjacent alluvium. - 103 -


Surface water flows away fast enough that the period of concentration is brief and free water does not stand on the surface. Soils with rapid runoff are mainly moderately steep to steep with moderate to low rates of absorption. The soil absorbs only a small part of the water. Surface water flows sway SO fast that the period of concentration is very brief and free water does not stand on the surface. Soils with very rapid runoff are mainly steep or very steep wit.h a wide range of rates of absorpLion of precipitati.on. The soil absorbs only a very small part of the water. -Permeability _..--_._ Permeability is the capacity of soil to transmit fluids (water). Permeability classes are defined in terms of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Field estimates of permeability are based on correlations that have been made between field moryhology and laboratory determinations of saturated hydraulic ronrlurtivity on a few soil cores. Permeability of either the soil as a whole or of a particular horizon can be given. The horizon with the lowest value determines the class of the whole soil. If an appreriabl~e thickness of soil below the least~ permeable horizon is signi ficent~ly more permeable, then both permeablities may be given. Permeabj,lity does not describe the capacity of soils in their natural scttjng to dis+ose of water internally. A soil may have high permrabil~ity throughout ye1 contain free water at shallow depths because there are im~~crmrable or more slowly permeable underlying l~ayers that restrict movement or because the soil is in a depression where water from surrounding areas accumulates at a faster rate than it can pass through the soil. The water may arlu:tlly move very slowly despite the high permeability. Further, prr-moability does not describe Che capacity for water movement under unsat.urated condilions. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is more sigrlificant. for most s o i l u s e s , particularly those related to plant growth, than is permeability. A sufficient base of data and experience does not exisl for construction of classes. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity at very low Lrjlsions (up to .01 bar) is closely related to permeability for many kinds of 11or i xons kkrauxc of Lhis close relationship, permeability is useful for ,lI~g,



wetting. Structural plates or blocks arc commonly overlapping. Slickenaides and continuous stress surfaces are indicative. Soil of medium permeability has enough capacity to transmit water vertically that the horizon or the soil remains wet for no more than a few days after thorough wetting. The soil material holds large amounts of water against the force of gravity. Horizons may be massive, granular, blocky, prismatic, or weakly platy if they contain common continuous pores. If the soil cracks when dry, the cracks may not close on wetting. The class includes many soils considered physically favorable for rooting and for supplying water for plants. Soil of hi@ permeability has enough capacity to transmit water vertically that the horizon or soil remains wet for no more than s few hour6 after thorough wetting. Horizons and soils have many continuous conducting pores (usually medium to coarse). If the soil cracks when dry, the cracks may not close on welting. Some medium- and fine-textured horizons have strong granular structure and large connecting pores. Others have many large voids, pores, or root channels that transmit water rapidly. Some artificially drained marine clays have large cracks through which water moves rapidly. Horizons that are largely volcanic cinders commonly have high permeability. The size and continuity of pores and voids are the critical factors. tlany pores and voids are large enough to be distinguished easily; their continuity and persistence when soils are wet must be determined as well. The high permeability class may be subdivided into rapid and vx rapid. Very_ rapid Ermeability distinguishes those soil bodies dominated by coarse fragments of rock without enough fines to fill the voids between them, soils with large permanent cracks, some soils with many worm holes, and some that are coarse sand, very coarse sand, or gravelly sand. Permeability High

very rapid rapid

Hedium moderately rapid moderate moderately slow


slow very slow extremely slow

Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity




>1200 400-1200

-4 >1.39 x 10 4.63 x 10-5-1.39 x 1o-4

a19.7 6.56 - 19.7

100-400 40-100 10-40

1 . 1 6 x lo-‘-4.63 x lo-’ 4 . 6 3 x 10-6-1.16 x lO-5 1 . 1 6 x lo+-4.63 x lO+j

1.64 - 6.56 0.656 - 1.64 0.164 - 0.656

4-10 0.4-4

4 . 6 3 x lo:;-1.16 x 10:; 4.63 x 10 -54.63 x 10 C4.63 x 10

6.56 x 10-2-0.164 6.56 x 10-3-6 56 x 1O-2 C6.56 x 1O-3 .


m/s = cm/day x 1.157 x 1O-7_2 in/hr = cm/day x 1.640 x 10 --

?/The upper limit of the lov class exceeds by lo- to loo-fold the maximum permeability permitted for many kinds of reservoirs. Furthermore, some soil materials below the zone of soil development, where vertical planes of weakness have not developed, have permeabilities lo-fold or more below the upper 0

limit of the low class. the low class.

It is, therefore, desirable to make subdivisions of - 105 -

Soil Wetness Classification __-...__,__-._._ .~:.-‘_-_ Soil wetness 1s characterized bv the deuth to. duration and thickness of. and the time of the year during which the wetness state occurs. Soil wetness. is constantly changing but can be used to record conditions in the soil at the moment of observation or to characterize the moisture regime of the soil. See table 4-3, Annual Soil-Water Regime. For example, an observation may have a notation, “dry to 1 meter,” or “free water at 1 meter, moist above.” A soil moisture regime may be characterized as “wet one-fourth to one-half of the time between 25 cm and 50 cm; wetness occurs during March through June and in October; zone of wetness extends to fragipan at 36 inches.” Soil wetness classes express soil wetness more precisely than soil drainage classes which are overall appraisals of the wetness states of a soil in respect to runoff, permeability, slope, climate, and other variables considered. Soil wetness classes relate to but are not directly convertible to soil drainage classes. Soil drainage classes are often inferred from the morphological record in the soil caused by noil~ moisture or lack of soil moisture. Soil wetness is best used when data are available throughout the year to show the seasonal fluctuations of zones of wetness. Data obtained over longer periods better characterize the soil moisture and provide for a stable base on which to develop statements concerning the use of the soil. The soil wetness may be determined at the time of a single observation, hut generally these evaluations are made only to note presence or absence of free water. Morphological records are not used in this classification because of the variability of the soil-water states. The successful use of soil wetness classes depends on adequate data taken over a sufficiently long period. Therefore, some system of gathering data needs to be established. Therefore, it is essential that free water be present or some system of gathering data on soil wetness be used. Certainly, reliable soil wetness information is more desirable and useful than classes of soil drainage. It enables one to better understand the soil-water relations and, because of this, make better recommendations c o n c e r n i n g t~he soi! ‘s use. rlyl.h to the wet state



Nrvrr et above a depth of 1.5 m for longer than a few days at a 1 ime.:-57


Wet, in some part above a depth of 1.5 m but. not. above a drplh of 1 m for longer than a few consecutive days at a Lisle.


Wet in some part above a depth of 1 m but not above a depth of 50 cm for longer than a few consecutive days at a time.


Wet in some part above a depth of 50 cm but not above a dept~h of 25 cm for longer than a few consecutive days at a time.


Wet ahove a depth of 25 cm for longer than a few consecutive days a t a time.

?/Based on soils that are not irrigated and not frozen in any part. 11 A few days may be required for water to drain out of a soil a f t e r a period of high precipitation or temporary flooding. The period may vary f ram a few hours to usually less than 3 days. - 106 -



Duration of the~.. wet state 6’ __~_.__ _- A. Wet leas than l/12 of the time. B. Wet l/12 to l/4 of the time. C. Wet l/4 to l/2 of the time. Il. Wet lj2 or m&e of the t i m e . Periods of -.-._ ._ pc~_siateace The period of time during the year wetness occurs is of importance. Agriculturally, soils which are wet during periods outside of the growing aeaaon have a potential that is more favorable than one wet during planting or growing season. A soil that is wet leas than one-twelfth of the time may not hsve much value for rulti,vated crop if the wetness is during the critical planting or harvealing period. Duration periods of wetness and depth Lo wetness are shown graphically in table 4-3, Annual Soil-Water Sequence. The months a soil is wet are shown. Some soils have more than one wrl period during the calendar year. The wetness stste is normally defined in describing o soil by sLaLing the drpLh Lo, duraLion of, and period of weLness. The wetness state can also be symbolized hy using t.he cl,assea listed. Example: A soil t,hat is wet above a depth of 100 cm for 110 to 140 days rack year, but never longer than 2 or 3 days above a depth of 50 cm, Is in wrLllf!ss class 3c. If the wet layer continues to s depth of 150 cm (or to bedrock above a depth of 150 cm), no further symbolization is needed. If the wet layer rests on a reaLrirt,ive l.ayrr, such as a fragipan theL is dry or moist, the wet layer is perched. The 1eLLer “p” is added t.o the class symbol, and the average t.hickncss of the WCI. layer ia given: 3cp (15 cm). The moisture state below the pan .is also given. The periods of the year wetness occurs are expressed using 1 for January and sequentially through 12 for December. Wetness from January through March would be 3 rp l-3; Scptemher through December 3 cp 9-12; or twica a year 3 cp l-3/9-12. Annual Water-State &&I Theannllal writer-- state regime i,s a continuoun record of the water state. The water rtet:e of the soil all&e bedrock is evaluated for drsignntrtl layers, specifically Che slayers usrd in defining wetness classes. A moisture regime for a hypothctiral soil ins shown in table 4-3.

61 - Periods of wc~zsa of a few days are disregarded. in wetness classes 2, 3, 4, and 5 only.

- 107 -

Subrlnsscs are used

Table 4-3 Annual Soil-Water Regime ---- -_-----.----.--_-~.--Depth :


.,iF.,i,i, :.Ji.JiAiSiOiN


: D

o- 25

: f : f :m:m:m:m:d:d:d:m:m:f

25- SO



: w : w : w : w : ni : m : m :





: w : w : w : w : w : m : m : m :







d : d : d : nt

f - l~rozen more than half of the month w - wet more tbao half of t~he month m - moist more than half of the month d - dry more than half of the month A more drt~ai1t.d approach rn” he used. The moist sLatc ran be div.idt=d illto. slightly moisL and very moist. The presence of free in the wet stste ~3” b e iudi~cated. Free water may not be evident. where there are “o noncapi llary po,-es. Avnilshle Watt-r Capacity The amount of water a soil ca” hold in a state that plants ca” use and at a place in the soil where plant roots have access to it is appraised by (1) estimating the amount of water each horizon can hold, (2) estimati,ng what horizons or parts of horizons are sufficiently accessible to plant roots to he significant source!; of water, and (3) snmming up the available water capacities 01. thr 5. ‘rious horizons to the depth plant roots can be reached. ‘I%? suu is crltled Ihe avil~ilahle w a t e r capacity o f t h e s o i l . I L does not I-cl’t ect the amourlt of ;a&;-;-‘a-soii ~.‘;il in .supply f o r p l a n t s ; th;,t dcpe”ds ou r-oiilf;lll, rlllloff, r u n - o ” , i r r i g a t i o n , w a t e r rcquiremc~“ls of ptanLs, 3114 lhl* I ihc. Available water capacity is the difference between field capacity and Lhc pcrm3nent willing percentage. The concept of available water capacity ran apply Lo a horizon or the whole soil. Many kinds of materials affect available water values, including bedrock, crmrrlted layers, and saturated zones. Generally, in a horizon haviq a bulk deusity of 1.8 or mot-c whc*n mo~ist a n d d i s t a n c e s ~realc’r t h a n IO cm brlween yla”ar voids larger than 0. 1 mm whet1 moist, moisture is not accessible to mosl rootv. Horizons of higher bulk density generally lower available waLer ValUeS. Fragmental soils or horizons have reduced values for available watrr capacity. Estimates of available water capacity can be made on the basis of field measurements and observations, supplemented by any available laboratory data. Relationships can be established, such 73 that between field estimated clay Such relationships apply only content and moisture at 15 bar tension.---._.-.---~~-~-.. z/Percent clay x 15 H20 x ED = available water capacity. - 10R -

within a lImited range of soils. Nevertheless, standards can be established within regions and applied as useful estimates. When evaluating -_ water -jyillg r*:j_tl o f s o i l s , consideration must be given mainly to the volume of rock fragments, osmotic pressure from salts in the soil water, bulk density, kind and amount of clay, structure of the soil, and stratification by horizons of contrasting texture in addition to climatic factors, slope, runoff, and contrasting horizons or soils having abrupt boundaries. Soil Drainage Soil dreinage refers t.o the removal of waler from the soil. It is the overall evaluation of the removal of water as influenced by climate, slope, and position in the landscape. The precipitation, runoff, amOut of moisture i n f i l t r a t i n g t.he soil, and rate of movement through the soil affect the degree> and duration of wet~ness. Moat soils which have rrpeatad soil wetness in all or part of the profile are mottled and/or have dull colors. Soils that are well drained generally lack the dull colors or the mottled array of bright and dull colors. Soils that are very wet often lack mottles and are uniformly gray throughout. the zone of saturation. Soils having much organic matter may 1~~ without visible mottles because the dark organic colors mask the mottles. Soil drainage c.lasses are used to describe the different degrees of soil wetness. Soil morphology, mostly color, is used lo infer the degrees of wetness, relati,vr duration, and the location of the zone or zones within the profile that are periodically saturated under natural conditions. These relations are further supported by observation of water table depths and fluctuations; data from teat holes; and evaluation of climate in respect to amount, distribut.ion, and intensity of rainfall, runoff, evaporation, and other available information. Not alI wet foils show a record of soil wetness. Some soils are very slow’ly permeable yet are unmarked because they are rarely wet or are rarely wet long enough lo leave a record in the soil. Others arc wet, but the water Sands contains sufficient oxygen to maintain bright, unmottled soil colors. Some soils often have too few fines lo display colors indicating reduction. have prominent mottles but are not considered wet. Colors, in these instances, may be relics from a wetter period, peculiar to a weatheri~ng sc*‘,““nrr) ok inherited from the geologic deposit and its ancient environment. Exressivc*ly Drainc4 _. ., . _ . Watrr is rcmovrd from the soil very rapidly. These soils arc commonly shallow or very porous or steep, or a combination of these conditions. They (Includes soil wetness classes 1 are free of mottling throughout the profile. and 2.) Somewhat Excessively Drained WatcBr- is removpd from the s o i l r a p i d l y . Thcsr soils are vrry porous or steep or shallow or moderat.ely deep, or some combination of these conditions. (Includes soi 1 wetness They are free of mottling throughout the profile. classes 1 and 2.) Well Drained -_---_-Water is removed from the soil rapidly enough for the soil to be mainly (Generally includes free of mottles and dull colors in the upper 1 meter. soil wetness classes 1 and 2.)

- 109 -

Moderately Well D-.-. rained --~ Water is removed from the soil so slowly that the profile is wet between depths of 50 cm and 100 cm long enough to cause mottled and dull colors. These soils generally have a slowly permeable layer or a relatively high water table or additions of water through seepage or runoff, or some combination of these conditions. (Generally includes soil wetness classes Za, 2b, 2c, 2d; and 3a, 3b, 3c if wet between 1 m and 1.5 m less than one-half of the time; and 4a, 4b, 5a if wet between 1 m and 1.5 m for no more than one-fourth of the time.) Somewhat Poorly Drained Water 1s removed from the soil so slowlv that the orofile is wet within a depth of 25 cm to 50 cm long enough to cause mottled and dull soil c o l o r s . These soils may have a slowly permeable layer or a high water table or additions of water through seepage or runoff, or some combination of these conditions. (Generally includes wetness classes 3d; and 3a, 3b, 3c if wet between 1 m and 1.5 m more than one-fourth of the time; and 4a, 4b, 4c if wet between 1 and 1.5 m less than one-half of the time; and 5a, 5b if wet between 50 cm and 1 m for more than one-fourth of the time.) Poorly Drained Water is removed so slowly that the soil is either saturated periodically during the growing season or it remains wet long enough to cause mottles and dull colors within a depth of 25 cm. These soils generally have a high water table or a slowly permeable layer or additions of water through seepage or runoff, or some combination of these conditions. They are mottled or have dull colors throughout the profile below 25 cm. (Generally includes soil wetness classes 4d; and 5d if free water is not at or near surface more than one-ha1 f of the time; and 4a, 4b, 4c if wet between 50 cm and 100 cm more than one-half of the time; and 5a, 5b, 5c if wet between 50 cm and 1 m less than o n e - h a l f o f Lhc time.) Very Poorly Drained Water is removed so slowly that~ free water remains at or on the surface most of thr time. These soils generally have a high water table or a slowly p’l-!B~:*“h~le layer or additions of water through seepage or runoff, or some colutri n;~tion ot 1 hrse rondi t i o n s . Most of them are level or nearly level and tiavc plane, cL>,,ca”e!, or d e p r e s s e d s u r f a c e s t h a t a r e f r e q u e n t l y ponded. Some 0121 are wet from seepage are on sloping upland or are at the foot of a slope. If not dark colored, these soils are mottled or dull colored in and below the surface layer. (Includes soil wetness classes 5d, and free water is at or near the surface more than one-half of the time.)

- 110 -

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY Soil Survey Conference Proceedings Orlando, Florida January 31 - February 4, 1977

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Participants.. ....................................................................................... 3 Agenda.. ............................................................................................. 9 Welcome to Florida ............................................................................. 17 Reorganization of the Soil Conservation Service .....................................


Role of the Technical Service Center in the Soil Survey Program .............. 2 7 Role of the University in the Soil Survey Program ...................................


Soil Survey in Belgium.. ....................................................................... 3 9 Soil Resource Investigations in Canada ..................................................


Statement on Soil Survey by Orstom France ..........................................


Soil Survey in the Netherlands.. ............................................................


The International Agricultural Research Institute and the.. ........................ .54 Use of Soil Survey Research Data 1977 Report from North-Central Region, Land Grant Universities .............. 5 6 Northeast Regional Soil Survey Work Planning Conference Report.. .......... 5 9 Report of the Land Grant College Representative.. .................................. of the Southern Region


Report of the Land Grant College Representative.. .................................. of the Western Region


Soil and Water Problems of Mutual Interest.. ..........................................


Soil Survey Educational Programs Make for Effective Use.. ......................


Report Presented to National Soil Survey Conference by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 Kermit N. Larson, Forest Service USDA Bureau of Land Management Soils Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Reports of Agencies Participating in the National Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 Soil Survey; U.S. Dept. of the Interior Report from U.S. Geological Survey to the Work Planning Conference . . . . . . 95 of the National Cooperative Soil Survey Summary of Research Studies Sponsored by the Federal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Highway Administration for which SCS provided assistance Soils and Settlements: A Focus for Resource Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 4 Cartographic Division Report: Advanced Mapping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 Ecological Sciences and Technology Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Important Farmland Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Soil Classification and Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Soil Survey Interpretations Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 5 Soil Survey Investigations Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Soil Survey Operations Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Committee 1 - Modernizing Soil Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Committee 2 - Improving Soil Survey Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Committee 3 - Waste Treatment on Names Kinds of Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Committee 4 - Water Movement in the Soils Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Committee 5 - Soil Surveys in Woodland, Rangeland, and Wildland . . . . . . . . 222 Committee 6 - Interactions Between Soils and Fertilizer Responses......... 241 Committee 7 - Organic Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 6 Soil Survey for Changing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 4 Report of the Committee on the Classification of Alfisols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 and Ultisols with Low Activity Clays

a Proceedings of -----



ORLANDO, FLORIDA January 31 - February 4, 1977

REPRODUCED BY . Soil Contsnrtion Service United States Dumtment Of Agricrlturc


August .l, 1977

Advisory SOILS - 17 From: Re:

Klaus W. Flach Assistant Administrator for Soil Survey Proceedings of the National Technical Work-Planning Conference January 31 - February 4, 1977

This transmits copies of the Proceedings of the 1977 National Technical Work-Planning Conference held at Orlando, Florida, January 31 - February 4, 1977. These Proceedings are a record of the reports prepared by agencies cooperating in the national soil survey program and by committees appointed to report on selected subjects. This record does not necessarily reflect official views, although many of the ideas and methods that are ,discussed may be adopted officially. Copies are being provided to you for distribution to cooperating agencies.

for Soil Survey Enclosures

so TSC

WO (Without enclosure)


W&A94 11-75 ;



DISTRIBUTION AND CHECK LIST Proceedings of the Natidnal

Technical Work-Planning Conference

_--_-_-~-__-..---.---_.- --__--_-_I -~- .__..-.--__ - - - _-.--~-..--__-_.-_-.--_-_.___-.. --__---

Puerto Rico







Conference Participants .....................................


Agenda ......................................................




Welcome to Florida . . . . . . . .

William E. Austin ........


Reorganization of the Soil Conservation Service.....,.

William M. Johnson .......


Role of Technical Service Centers of scs . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. Vernon Xartin .........


Role of the University in the Soil Survey Program........

Charles F. Eno ...........


Soil Survey - Belgium........

Rene Tavernier ...........


Soil Survey - Canada.........

John A. Shields ..........


Soil Survey - France.........

Pierre Segalen ...........


Soil Survey - Netherlands....


(Will Vesterveld


Soil Survey - International..

Frank ~loormann ...........


Regional Conference Reports North Central..............

Fred C. Westin.....~ ......



Richard M. Smith .........



R. F. (Jack) Perkins .....



Robert D. Heil...., ......


Department of Agriculture Agriculture Research

Service Carl V. Carlson..........



Page Service.........

Harold T. Owens .......



Kermit Larson ........


Bureau of Land Management.

LeRoy delloulin ........


Bureau of Reclamation.....

William D. Peters .....


Geological Survey.........

James Anderson ........


Department of Transportation Federal Highway Admin.....

Don Fohs ..............


Resource Development Division

Ida Cuthbertson .......




Jerome A. Gockowski...


Ecological Sciences and Technology Division.....

William J. Lloyd......


Inventory 6 Monitoring....

Raymond I. Dideriksen.


Soil Classification and Correlation.............

John E. McClelland....


Soil Survey Interpretations

Donald E. McCormack...


Soil Survey Investigations

Raymond B. Daniels....


Soil Survey Operations....

Donald E. McCormack...


Extension Forest



Technical Cormnittee Reports....


1. Modernizing Soil Survey Publications........ 2.

Improving Soil Survey Techniques..........

3. Waste Disposal on Named Kinds of Soils...... 4.

Water Movement in the Soil Landscape.......

W. W. Fuchs...........


V. G. Link............





Steven Holzhey........




5. Soil Survey in Woodland, Rangeland, and Wildland 6.

Richard C.Huff.......

2 2 2

Interactions Between.Soils and Fertilizer Responses Gerald W. Olson ...... . . . .


Soil Survey for Changing Needs......................

He1 Davis............ . . . . .


Recommendations for 1979.....

John E. >lcCleLLand...



Committee on the Classification of Alfisols and Ultisols with Low Activity Clays .... F. R. ~oormann .......




Organic Soils............

D. F. Slusher ........ .


Summary of Comments .........

J. Vernm Nartin

Conference Summary ..........

Klaus Iv-‘. Flach .......


.... . . . .


. . . . . . 265


The National Soil Survey Conferences are designed to provide a forum for discussion of scientific and technical questions on soil classification, description, genesis, morphology, interpretations, and use. Reports of these conferences after trials and tests in the field become the basis for revising our procedures. The conference is made up of representatives from the National, Regional, and State Offices of the Soil Conservation Service; other federal agencies having an interest in the soil survey program; and the Land-Grant Universities. In addition, Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands, and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture had representatives at our conference this year. These proceedings indicate trends in thinking and progress of work. Thus, they do not necessarily represent official views, although many of the recommendations ultimately may be adopted.

- Klaus W. Flach Assistant Administrator for Soil Survey

XATIOXAL SOIL SURVEY CONFEFZNCE January 30 - February 4, 1977 Participants

Cliff J. Acton Soil Research Institute Xanada Dept. of Agriculture K.N. Neatby Bldg. Carling Avenue Ottawa, Ontario KIA OC6 B. L. Allen Prof. of Soils and Geology Dept. of Agronomy Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas 79409 James R. Anderson Chief Geographer USGS - Nail Stop 710 Reston, Virginia 22092 William E. Austin State Conservationist, SCS Federal Building P. 0. Box 1208 Gainesville, Florida 32601 F. H. Beinroth Asst. Prof. Soil Science Dept. of Agronomy 6 Soils University of Puerto Rico ?Layaguez, Puerto Rico 00708 Wesley R. Booker Gureau of Indian Affairs 1951 Constitution Ave., N.W. washington, D. C. 20245 James F. Brasfield Asst. State Soil Scientist SCS, Federal Building Gainesville, Florida 32602 Carl w. Carlson Agri. Research Service Room 330A Administration Bldg. Beltsville, Haryland

Oliver R. Carter

Soil Scientist, SCS Room 239A - FCB-1 Hyattsville, Maryland E. J. Ciolkosz Asst. Prof., Soil Genesis The Pennsylvania State Univ. University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 Ida Cuthbertson Community Planner Resource Development Div., SCS Room 6129 So. Agri. Bldg. Washington, D. C. Raymond B: Daniels Director, Soil Survey Investigations Div. Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D. C. 20013 J. M. Davidson Prof. of Soil Phys. University of Florida 107 Newell Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 R. M. Davis Administrator, SCS P.O. Box 2890 Nashington, D. C. 20013 James A. DeMent Assistant Principal Soil Correlator S-TSC, SCS Fort Worth, Texas 76115 LeRoy de Moulin Bureau of Land Nanagement 18th 6 C Streets, N.W. Division of Watershed (350) Washington, D. C. 20240

Raymond I. Dideriksen Director, Land Inventory h Monitoring Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Wsshington, D. C. 20013

Darrell G. Grice State Soil Scientist, SCS 29 Cottage Street Amherst, 41assschusetts 01002~ Robert B. Grossman Soil Conservation Service 2i >Lumford Hall Department of Agronomy Univeristy of Missouri Columbia, Missouri 65201

Richard H. Dierking Chief, Soil Classification & Napping Branch, SCS Room 239A -FCB-1 Hysttsville, tisrylsnd 20782

Oivs R. Hsrju Civil Engineer Applied Sciences Branch Division of General Research Engineering & Research Center Denver, Colorado 80225

Charles F. Eno Prof., Soil Microbiology & Chem. University of Florida 106 Newell Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 R. S. Fsrnhsm Prof. Soil Survey & Organic Soils University of Xinnesots St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

K. D. Heil Assoc. Prof. Soil Genesis Classification h Scrvey Land Planning Department of Agronomy Colorado State Universitv Fort Collins, Colorado 80523

T. E. Fenton Prof. Soil Classification Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50010

C. Steven Holzhev Head, Soil Surve; Soil Conservation Room 345, Federal U. S. Court House Lincoln, Nebraska

Klaus W. Flsch Assist. Admin. For Soil Survey Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, D. C. 10013


Investigation Unit Service Building 68508

Richard C. Huff State Soil Scientist Soil Conservation Service Room 440, Alexander Young Bldg. Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Donald C. Fohs Chief, Soils & Exploratory Techniques Group Office of Research, FHA U.S. Dept. of Trans. Washington, D. C. 20591

H. Iksws Assoc. Prof., Soil Genesis and Class. Department of Ag&anomy h Soil Science University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

Robert W. Johnson State Soil Scientist, SCS Federal Building P. 0. Box 1208 Gainesville, Florida 32602

Jerome A. Gockowski Director of Cartographic Div. Soil Conservation Service P. 0. Box 2890 Washington, D. C. 20013 4


William >1. Johnson Deputy Administrator for Technical Services Soil Conservation Service P.O. BOX 2890 Washington, D. C. 23013 A. J. Klingelhoets State SoilScientist, SCS 4601 Hamnersley Road P. 0. Box 4240 Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Joe Kubo:a Soil-Plant-Animal Relations Specialist, SCS U. S. Plant, Soil 6 Nutrition Lab. Tower Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Kermit Larson Forest Service Watershed & Zlinerals Area Management USDA, Room 810, RP-E Washington, D. C. 20250 James H. Lee State Soil Scientist, SCS Parkade Plaza Shopping Center P. 0. Box 459 Columbia, Missouri 65201 Victor G. Link Director, Soil Survey Operations Soil Conservation Service P. 0. Box 2890 Washington, D. C. 20013 William .l. Lloyd Chief Forester Ecological Sciences L Technology USDA, SCS P. 0. Box 7.890 Washington, D. C. 20013

L. Xarkley State Soil Scientist, SCS 1370 Hamilton Street 0. 0. Box 219 Somerset, New Jersey 08873


J. Vernon ?lartin Director, S-TSC, SCS P. 0. Box 6567 Fort Worth, Texas 76115 John E. McClelland Director, SS Classif. 6 Correlation Div. Soil Conservation Service P. 0. 30x 2890 Washington, D. C. 20013 Donald E. McCormack Director, SS Interpretations Div. Soil Conservation Service P. 0. 30x 2890 Washington, D. C. 20013 Marvin C. Meier Forest Service Watershed & Minerals Area Management USDA, Room 810 RP-E Washington, D. C. ;0250 Eilif Miller Room 441-W, USGA Cooperative State Research Ctr. Washington, D. C. 20250 Frank ?.loormann International Inst. of Tropical Agri. Oyo Road, P.M.B. 5320 Ibadan, Nigeria Edmund A. Naphan‘ State Soil Scientist, SCS Room 308, U.S. Post Office Building P. 0. Box 4850 Rena, Nevada 89505

W. D.


John D. Rourke Principal Soil Correlator Soil Conservation Service 1974 Sproul Road Broomall, Pennsylvania 19008

West Liaison National Soil Survey Lab. Federal Building U.S. Court House Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

Richard H. Rust Prof. Soil Surv and Physiol Chem Soi 1s Soil Science Department University of Minnesota St.Paul, Minnesota 55101

Joe D. Nichols Principal Soil Correlator Soil Conservation Service P. 0. Box 6567 Fort Worth, Texas 76115

Edward H. Sautter State Soil Scientist, SCS Mansfield Professional Park Route 44A Storrs, Connecticut 06280

Gerald Olson Assoc. Prof., SS Interp Department of Agronomy Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853

Francis M. Scilley State Soil Scientist, SCS 200 Federal Bldg. 6 U.S. Courthouse 316 North Robert Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Harold I. Owens Agronomist & Soil Conservationist Extension Service Room 5925 So. Agri. Bldg. Washington, D. C. 20250 H. F. Perkins Prof., Soil Fertility Room 3111, Miller Plant Science Bldg. Department of Agronomy University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 W. D. Peters Div. of Planning Coordination Engineering 6 Research Center Bureau of Reclamation P.O. Box 25007 Denver, Colorado 80225

Pierre Segalen ORSTOM 70-74 Route d' Aulnay 93140 BONDY FRANCE Morris E. Shaffer State Soil Scientist, SCS Federal Building 355 East Hancock Avenue Athens, Georgia 30601 J. A. Shields Soil Research Institute Canada Dept.of Agriculture K.W. Neatby Bldg. Carling Avenue Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0C6

James c. Powell Chief, SS Publications Branch Soil Conservation Service Rm. 253, FCB-1 Hyattsville, Maryland 20782

David F. Slusher Assistant Director, SS Interp. Div. Soil Conservation Service P. 0. Box 2890 Washington, D. C. 20013

Thomas W. Priest State Soil Scientist, SCS P. 0. Box 17107 Denver, Colorado 80217




R. ?I. Smith Prof. of Agronomy Nest Virginia University Morgantown, West Virginia

Henry 6. Waugh Bureau of Indian Affairs 5301 Central Avenue, N.E. Albuquerque, New >lexico 87108

Maurice Stout, Jr. Principal Soil Cortelator, SCS Federal Building- U.S. Courthouse P.m. 345, 100 Centennial Mall, North Lincoln, Nebeaska 68508

G. J. W. Westervelr! Head, Soil Survey Division Staring Building Wageningen P.O. Box 98 Wageningen, The Netherlands

Rene Tavernier International Training Center Rozier 44 State Unibersity - Ghent 9000 Ghent Belgium

F. C. Westin Prof. Soil Survey Dept. of Plant Science South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57006 E. P. Whiteside Prof. Soil Genesis Classif. & Yapping Dept. of Crop 6 Soil Science Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823

K. R. Tefertiller Vice Pres. for Agr. Affairs 1008 &zCarty Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611

Larry P. Wilding Prof. of Soil Minerals Department of Agronomy The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210

John A. Thompson Soil Scientist, SCS Soil Data Storage & Retrieval Unit Room 233A-FCB ii1 Hyattsville, Maryland

J.Melvin Williams Principal Soil Correlator W-TSC, SCS 511 N. W. Broadway Portland, Oregon 97209

Arville B. Towhee State Soil Scientist, SCS 3737 Government street P. 0. Box 1630 Alexandria, Louisiana 71301

John E. Witty Assistant Principal Soil Carrelator, SCS 1914 Sproul Road Broomall, Pennsylvania 19008

Robert I. Turner Asst. Principal Soil Cortelatot XW-TSC, SCS Federal Building 100 Centennial Mall, North Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 K. R. van Lynden Supervisor for Classification and Interpretations P. 0. Box 98 Wageningen 11, Xarijkeweg The Netherlands


Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey January 30 - February 4, 1977

AGENDA Sunday January 30 3:00-6:00 p.m.


Lobby Miriam H. Plastow, Registrar

Monday January 31 7:45-8~30 a.m.


Grove Room

General Session - Grove Room Klaus W. Flach, Chairman 8:30 a.m.

Conference Opening Welcome to Florida Conservation Southern Style

William E. Austin State Conservationist, SCS Slide Presentation

Reorganization of the Soil Conservation Service

William M. Johnson Deputy Administrator for Technical Services

Role of Technical Service Centers of SCS

J. Vernon Martin, Director South Technical Service Center

Role of the University in the Soil Survey Program

Charles F. Eno, Chairmen Soil Science Department University of Florida

10:00 a.m.


10:20 a.m.

The South Revisited

Slide Presentation

Soil Survey -Belgium

Rene Tavernier, Professor of Soils, Geology Institute

Soil Survey -Canada

John A. Shields, Western Correlator, Soil Research Institute, Canada Agriculture

Monday January 31 (continued) Soil Survey -France

Pierre Segalen, Inspector General of Research ORSTOM

Soil Survey -Netherlands

G.J.W. (Wil) Westerveld Head Soil Survey Division Netherlands Soil Survey Institute

Soil Survey -International

Frank Moormann, Soil Scientist Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria




Soil Surveys for Economic Planning and Development

Kenneth R. Tefertiller Vice President for Agricultural Affairs University of Florida

Regional Conference Reports North Central

Fred C. Westin, South Dakota State University


Richard M. Smith, West Virginia University


H. F. (Jack) Perkins University of Georgia


Robert D. Heil Colorado State University

Dept. of Agriculture Agriculture Research Service

Carl w. Carlson Assistant Administrator

Cooperative State Research Service

Eilif Miller, Principal Soil Scientist

Extension Service

Harold T. Owens, Agronomist

Forest Service

Kermit Larson, Soil Leader, National Forest System

Dept. of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs

Wesley R. Booker Soil Conservationist


Bureau of Land Management

LeRoy de Ploulin Soil Scientist, Watersheds

Bureau of Reclamation

William D. Peters Division of Planning Coordination

Geological Survey

James R. Anderson Chief Geographer

Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Admin.

Don Fobs, Chief Soil and Exploratory Techniques, Office of Research

3:oo -


3120 - 5:15

Reports from SCS Divisions Programs Group Resource Development Div.

Ida Cuthbertson

Tuesday February 1


Preparation of committee reports by committee members and other conference participants. Participants not assigned to cormnittees are encouraged to join in the deliberations of committees of their choice both in the morning and afternoon sessions.

a:15 - 11:30

Committee #3 85 1~6 R7

Waste Treatment on Named Kinds of Soils Palm Room Soil Surveys in Woodlands, Rangelands, and Wildlands

Oak Room

Interactions between Soils and Fertilizer Responses

Cypress Room

Organic Soils

Pine Room




Technical Services Group Field Services Cartographic

Jerome A. Gockowski

Ecol. Sciences & Tech.

William J. Lloyd


Inventory & Nonitoring

Raymond I. Dideriksen

Soil Survey Group Soil Classification & Correlation

John E. McClelland

Soil Survey Interp.

Donald E. McCormack

Soil Survey Investigations

Raymond B. Daniels

Soil Survey Operations

Donald E.


Preparation of committee reports Committee #l #2 #4 *


Modernizing Soil Surveys

Oak Room

Improving Soil Survey Techniques

Cypress Room

Water Movement in the Soil Landscape

Palm Room

Committee on Soil Taxonomy, Classification of Alfisols and Ultisols with Low Activity Clays, and other discussions Pine Room of Soil Taxonomy. Adjourn

Wednesday February 2 8:15 Committee 1'13 9:45

Committee reports and Discussions Waste Treatment on Named Rinds of Soils Recess

1o:oo Committee #5 11:15

Soil Surveys in Woodlands, Rangelands, and Wildlands Lunch

*Not a formal committee of this conference. 12

Grove Room



Field trip to observe potted plant industry, orange producing area, and experimental areas with winter vegetables on organic soils and ornamental plant production.



Thursday February 3 8~15

Committee 84


Committee reports and Discussions

Grove Room

Water Movement in the Soil Landscape Recess

lo:oo Committee #l 11:30

Modernizing Soil Surveys Lunch

12:30 Ccnmnittee 116

Interactions between Soils and Fertilizer Responses

Committee #2

Improving Soil Survey Techniques




Committee #2 continued

Committee it1

Organic Soils



Friday February 4

Grove Room



Soil Survey for Changing Needs

Mel Davis, Administrator, scs

Recommendations for 1979

John E. McClelland, Committee Chairman*

*Committee consists of Kermit Larson, John Rourke, Mike Stout, Gene Whiteside, and Jack McClelland (Chariman). Contact any of these during the conference relative to suggestions for the next conference for format and subject material.

Potentials of Tropical Soils


H. (Ike) Ikawa, University of Hawaii

Report on progress of Inter-, national committee on Classification of Alfisols and Ultisols with Low Activity Clays

Frank Moorman

Prime Farmland

Slide Presentation


.J. Vernon Martin

Conference Summary

Klaus W. Flach




Welcome To Florida William E. Austin* Florida Statistics A.

Population: Total population for Florida is approximately 8.5 million. Most rapidly growing state in the nation. Four centers of population: J a c k s o n v i l l e , Miami Area (Gold coast), Orlando, a n d T a m p a - S t . P e t e .


Agriculture: On-farm income for 1974-75 was 2.2 billion d o l l a r s ; r e t a i l s a l e s o f over 6 b i l l i o n ; a p p r o x i m a t e l y 860,000 acres of citrus; 16.2 rnillion acres commercial forest; 13.2 million acres in other farms and ranches out of a total 36 million are in the state. Cirrus: F l o r i d a p r o d u c e s 5 4 % o f w o r l d ’ s g r a p e f r u i t ; 95% of world’s orange concentrate; 80% of world’s total processed citrus. (We plan to cross the central Florida ridge on the tour to give you an idea of the vast citrus areas of the state.) V e g e t a b l e s , P o t a t o e s , Nelons, and Strawberries: Florida’s total acreage. production, and value of fresh market vegetables was second in the nation. (We produce most of the fresh market vegetables you eat in the winter.) Florida was first in production of fresh market snapbeans, cabbage, Sweet corn, cucumbers, egg(The tour on plant, escIWle, and watermelons. Wednesday will stop at one of the many vegetable processing operations in central Florida.) Dairy:

One hundred percent of milk produced in Florida is sold as fluid milk products in the state, our production is 9,BS9+ milk/cow. T h e - 4 1 7 daries in the state average about 475 cows each.

Beef Cattle: Florida ranks second in nunber of beef cows among States east of Hississippi River and 11th in nation.

*State Conservationist, Gainesville, Florida


Ornamental Horticulture: Florida has one of the fastest growing ornamental horticulture industries in the country. (We hope to show you one of these operations on the tour.) First in production of foliage plants and second in production of flowers We are first in the production of ferns. Forestry:

16.2 million acres of commercial forests. Florida is 8th in the nation in pulp production. (Most of our forest is in the norhtern part of the state; however, they are experimenting with Eucalyptus for pulp in the south.)


Ranks second in value arrong Florida’s field crops (flue-cured and shade types); returns to growers 36.6 million dollars annually.

Sugar Cane: Florida is second in the nation in sugar cane output; valued at over SO million dollars; grown on the organic soils in the Everglades. Purebred Horses: Thoroughbred industry is third in the nation in foals born. Florida has several Kentucky Derby winners. Honey:


Florida is second in the nation in value and production of honey.

We have four district landscapes in Florida: (1) Southern Coastal Plain (upper pan handle); (2) Gulf, Atlantic, and Southern Flatwoods; (3) Central Florida Ridge; and (4) Everglades. Elevations range from sea level to around 270 in pan handle. Resource Areas:

Florida is split between thermic and hyperthermic soil temperature which corresponds to the northern extent of c i t r u s . The line runs approximately east and west through Gainesville. D.

SCS Operations: SCD’S cover entire state except Dade, Collier, and Monroe counties. We service approximately 15,000 - 20,000 land users each year. Twenty approved watershed projects; 7 completed.



NE Gulf River Basin Study, which includes north Florida and southern Georgia and Alabama. Three RC&D Projects - all in pan handle Plant Materials Center at Brooksville where plant materials are developed for use in the southeastern United States. Conservation Operations: In addition to working with farmers and ranchers, we have a big workload in working with units of government, reviewing subdivision plans; I&E’s for spreading effluent on the land; DER; Department of Health evaluating septic tank and landfills s i t e s ; e t c . To give you an idea of the magnitude of this work, one soil scientist in North Florida made 58 on-site evaluations during first one-half of last FY. E.

Soil Survey in Florida In 1973, at our annual state soil survey work planning conference, we were urged to develop a plan to complete the survey in the state within a lo-year period. The plan was to show funds and manpower required to do the job. As a result, a lo-year master plan was developed jointly by SCS, University of Florida, and Florida Association of Conservation Districts. The State Association had adopted the plan as one of its prime objectives. The plan was presented to the State Legislature, and subsequently funded, as a line item in the State Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. To date the state has appropriated 1.5 million dollars for soil surveys. This year the Legislature appropriated $352,000. County governments have also contributed funds to the soil survey program, adding another $100,000 annually to the program. Eighty percent of all acceleration funds are directed to SCS for field operations, and 20 percent to the University for laboratory characterization. While we have not been able to accelerate to the extent outlined in the Plan, we are exceeding our previous mapping goals by more than 50 percent annually. Another benefit of the accelerated program is the publicity that soil surveys have received, especially among the state and local lawmakers, planners, and others.


People are more and more aware of the uses that can be m a d e o f s o i l s u r v e y i n f o r m a t i o n . We are working with many groups and agencies to incorporate soils information into land management decision. For example, t h e s t a t e h a s identified the need for basic soil survey information in the agricultural and land use elements of the State Comprehensive PLans a s w e l l a s t h e n e e d t o r e c o g n i z e a n d c o n s e r v e p r i m e and unique, farmland. The state division of planning is developing interpreting maps from county general soil maps These maps using a new concept of soil interpretations. show t h e “ p r o b a b i l i t y ” o f s l i g h t , m o d e r a t e , o r s e v e r e l i m i t a t i o n s f o r v a r i o u s aand u s e s . W e h a v e w o r k e d w i t h t h e Seminole County Planning Department to come up with “Soil Potentials” for various land uses. The County has published this data and is using it in its day-to--day operations. We are also working toward developing management practices to overcome soil limitations, in order to attain soil potentials. We could cite many more examples of how soil survey I know information is being utilized and manipulated. many of you have similar examples in your state or county; the p o i n t i s t h a t s o i l s u r v e y s a r e n o w r e c o g n i z e d a s a n e s s e n t i a l tool in land use planning and management. I would conclude by saying that I feel we need to be alert to the needs of the users of soils information, and gear We need to ask them how our program to meet these needs. we can improve our maps and interpretations; then do our Our program must be flexible best to meet these needs. and dynamic. One Last Comment-- I am impressed with the spirit of cooperation among the various agency representatives attending this conference. Everyone seems interested in working toward improving the soil survey. T h i s c o o p e r a t i v e s p i r i t a n d t e a m e f f o r t a r e certainly e v i d e n t i n soil survey program in Florida. We feel that whatever we have achieved in Florida has been because of the excellent working relationships we have among the SCS, University of Florida, the USFS, and the various

s t a t e a n d l o c a l a g e n c y p e o p l e i n v o l v e d i n naking a n d s u p p o r t i n g t h e soil survey. At this time I’d like to introduce a short slide presentation we d e v e l o p e d , showing our work with plant materials in an attempt to stabilize the eroding beaches.


Reorganization of the Soil Conservation Service By- William M. Johnson, Deputy Administrator for Technical Services, SCS, Washington, D.C.

Thank you Klaus. I didn't guarantee to explain the changesin the SCS Organization. I said I would describe them. Explaining them is something else, you know. As a matter of fact, I don't know that they really need explanation. Whenever you have a change in administration, whether it be in your own agency or the entire federal establishment, or when a certain period of time has passed, reorganization is inevitable. You can read accounts of Roman field commanders who complained about the fact that every time they seemed to have their organization shaken down, well trained and disciplined, and thoroughly understanding of their tasks, they were reorganized. I am not trying to point out any parallel with our situation, but it is a fact that no bureaucracy maintains itself in the same way indefinitely. I don't want to get into the discussion of the philosophy of the reorganization. I will talk about it a little bit, but I have some other things to say. I tried to count the work-planning conferences, too. One of the foibles of people as they grow older is to look backward more frequently than they look forward, and I've been trying not to do that, but I did try to count the work-planning conferences and this must be about the twenty second one. We met at this same place, in this same room exactly two years ago. Since that time soil scientists have made a lot of progress. Many things have happened that affect soil survey in this country and in other countries. In these two years, Professor Tavernier has completed his new building for his Institute in Ghent and is in the process of moving into that beautiful modern structure at the edge of the campus. Another thing that has happened is that the weather has turned lousy in Florida. I don't know who is to blame for that, but I'm sure that it will improve as the week goes on. Dr. Kellogg still lives in Hyattsville. I know he wishes he were here. In fact, he said not so long ago, "Maybe, by God, maybe I'll just come down," and I said, "I wish you would. The people would like to see you." Charles is in quite good health. He is a bit thin; he had some illness last summer and fall and spent a few days in the hospital. He recovered from that and he's active. We writes; he keeps up his correspondence; he gives a few lectures; he is working on another book; and he hasn't lost his interest in soil survey--not that I need to tell you that. He sent his greetings to all of you and his admonition to do good work, and I know that that isn't necessary either, but that's his message. I know he will be glad to hear from those of you who know him. He almost froze to death the other night. He burns oil in his house and he is on an automatic refueling schedule. With the bad weather there was the necessity to put on additional truck drivers. The

driver that “as supposed to deliver at his house “as about three days late. The Kelloggs were nearly out of oil and when the driver did come, it was 2:30 in the morning. But Charles and Lucille got up and made coffee for the truck driver and helped him as much as they could, which is more or less typical of the two of them. Most of you have attended these sessions before. Some of you have attended quite a few of them. It’s a bit like old hone week here. But for quite a few of you, t h i s i s t h e f i r s t t i m e I h a v e s e e n y o u a t o n e o f t h e s e m e e t ings, a n d t h i s i s t h e f i r s t t i m e , I think, that we have had attendance For from those of the majority persuasion. I am delighted to see this. you ladies who are honoring us with your presence this morning, I hope this is the beginning of a pronounced trend. The participation of soil survey agencies and soil scientists outside the United States has broadened, and I think that’s a good sign. We have a good deal to learn from our colleagues in Europe, South America, Africa, and Asia, as well as from our t r a d i t i o n a l c o o p e r a t o r s t o t h e N o r t h i n C a n a d a , and more recent cooperators to the South in Mexico. At long last, Soil Taxonomy has come off the press. After 25 years of e f f o r t , that’s got to be one of the longest gestation periods for a book that I know anything about. Twenty-five years--Jack McClelland, you can get up and take a bow. Y o u were t h e o n e w h o f i n a l l y k i c k e d i t o f f . It has been distributed throughout the U.S., a n d p r e t t y w e l l a l l o v e r t h e w o r l d . A n d in this period since our last meeting, the world’s energy, economic, and 0 food problems have worsened as they were predicted to do. That has a great d e a l o f i m p l i c a t i o n f o r u s , both in terms of the funding and support that we get for our work, and for the problems we have to deal with. In the United States, we have accelerated soil mapping and the rate of soil survey publication, bringing us nearer to the day when we shall have reliable soil surveys of all our land. As we approach that time, we must be thinking about the changes in organization, the changes in emphasis, the changes in training, and the changes in communication that will be required. To mention the matter of the reorganization of the Washington office of the S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e , I want to emphasize that it is a Washington office reorganization and it doesn’t have all that much impact on the work of the cooperative soil survey, nor particularly the work of this conference. J u s t f o r g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t , 80 that you will know why Klaus is in charge of this conference and not me and why some of the other changes have taken place, I will talk about it briefly.


Previously, in our Washington office we had four deputy administrators, one for Water Resources, one for Field Services, one for Soil Survey, and one for Administration. Now we have three. We reshuffled some divisions, created some new ones, znd organized them under three deputy edmiaiatrators, who report directly to the Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service. The three areas of activities are (1) Administration, (2) Programs, and (3) Technical Services. Administration includes procurement, budget and finance, personnel, and program evaluation. It is under the leadership of Verne Bathurst. Programs includes technical assistance under our Conservation Operations Programs-- river basin and small watersheds programs and resource conservation and development activities. Vie Barry is the Deputy Administrator for Programs. the has two assistant administrators, one for land resources programs and one for water resources programs. The various divisions that fall under them are the divisions with which Technical Services has the greatest interest, and we are fortunate to have some representatives of program groups with us at this meeting. Technical Services is my responsibility. It includes 10 divisions under two assistant administrators. Dr. Flach looks after the Soil Survey portion and Paul Howard, Field Services. Under Field Services are the Cartographic Division headed by Jerry Cockowski; Economics Division,Mack Gray; Environmental Services Division, Glen Loomis; Engineering Division, Neil Bogner; Inventory and Monitoring Division, Ray Diderikson (who is here today), and Ecological Sciences and Technology Division, Tom Shiflet. Ecological Sciences and Technology includes agronomy, range, biology, and woodland, and we have a representative of that division here--Bill Lloyd, our forestry expert. In soils, the Classification and Correlation Division is headed by Jack This is the division that deals with Soil Taxonomy, classification McClelland. and correlation, and maintaining the records and reports related to those matters. The Soil Survey Operations Division is being looked after, on an acting basis, by Don McCormack. Don is also head of Soil Survey InterpreI am not at tations. We are about to relieve Don of the Operations task. liberty to talk about the replacement yet, but you all~know him and I think you will agree that we have made a good choice. Frank Carlisle has been acting as Director, Soil Survey Investigations Division, the research branch including laboratories and field operations. I cannot announce the new Director of that Division either, but he is present and probably the grapevine will tell you who he is before the week is over.


I am very much concerned about Soil Survey, and I will be concerned with t h e c o n f e r e n c e . And, s i n c e I s t a r t e d m y c a r e e r a s a s o i l s c i e n t i s t o n the end of a spade in the dear days beyond recall, when we used plane tables rather than air photos as a base, I’m not likely to lose my interest. But, now I have a chance to expand cooperation with other disciplines. We have had a tradition of good cooperation between soil survey and engineering; soil survey and the plant sciences--agronomy, forestry, range management, a n d b i o l o g y . You may remember some of Dr. Kellogg’s lectures about the importance of economics, and much of our work is reflected in the economics of farming or other land uses. F o r t u n a t e l y , the understanding of the uses of soil surveys and the relationships between soil survey and economics, land-use planning, land management, c r o p p r o d u c t i o n , r e c r e a t i o n , wildlife, production of timber for pulp or for housing or whatever are being investigated much more thoroughly and with a much larger group of people today, not only in this country but around the world, than ever before. In the United States our cooperation with state agencies is growing all the time. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , o u r c o o p e r a t i o n “ a s w i t h l a n d g r a n t u n i v e r s i t i e s , particularly the agricultural experiment stations. But no” our cooperation i s w i t h s t a t e c o n s e r v a t i o n commissions, s t a t e d e p a r t m e n t s o f t a x e s , health, highways, a n d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , w i t h s t a t e e n v i r o n m e n t a l a g e n c i e s a n d departments of agriculture. I can’t name all the kinds of state agencies that are cooperating in soil surveys by providing money, manpower, supplemental e x p e r t i s e , and that are using these surveys to enhance their own programs. For example, Public Law 92-500, federal water quality: One of the sections, 208, requires that each state develop a plan for non-point source pollution 0 control that affects farming and other land uses. Various state agencies are charged with responsibility for it. Through the Soil Conservation Districts the Soil Conservation Service is very much involved, along with And it comes back to the kind some other federal agencies in many states. o f s o i l a s s h o w n o n o u r m a p s a n d c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n o u r r e p o r t s . With your h e l p , we can a d v i s e t h e s e c o o p e r a t i v e s t a t e - f e d e r a l o p e r a t i o n s t h a t a r e trying to develop plans to control this kind of pollution. It’s an extremely important use of soil surveys. We don’t have any federal Land-use planning But, we d o laws, a n d f r a n k l y , I w o u l d j u s t a s s o o n w e d i d n ’ t h a v e a n y . have state laws and local laws about Land-use planning. Increasingly, these laws are becoming dependent on soil surveys, as they should, because the capability of the soil resources to perform under different kinds of land u s e w i t h o u t c a u s i n g degradation o f e i t h e r t h e r e s o u r c e i t s e l f o r t h e environment, is obviously extremely important, a n d p o s s i b l e s o u r c e , of information on that subject is the soil survey.

s3’ 24


State agencies are participating actively in the important farmland inventory. The identification of prime and unique farmland and the identification and delineation of other important farmlands are important statewide and locally. These inventories are causing interest; they will be extremely helpful to both federal and state agencies. The Council on Environmental Quality has issued a request to consider the impact of major federal action on our resources of prime farmland. For example, just last week I attended hearings most of one day at OMB on the subject of strip mine legislation in the parts It is quite of the United States east of the hundredth meridian. likely that the new strip mining legislation will have reference to prime farmland. Many state agencies are helping us to accelerate the mapping and publication of surveys, and we welcome all of them. We are glad to have all the help we can get. Other federal agencies, mainly in agriculture, interior, and transportation, have been cooperating in the survey for many years, and the cooperation is increasing. ARS, Cooperative State Research Service, Extension Service, and the Forest Service, all have contributions to make, or have been making these contributions and they are increasing. I would mention particularly the recent agreement between Forest Service and SCS, growing out of the work of Mel Williams, Bill Wertz, Kermit Larson,md others in the Forest Service and in SCS, that developed this understanding between our agencies about what each is going to do in the area of soil survey and the strengthening df our cooperative effort. In Interior, Geological Survey, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation have been traditional cooperators. We are getting more things going with each of them. We are using Geological Survey to provide us with orthophoto maps and with intermediate scale base maps for a lot of our activities. BLM is expanding its soil survey efforts. T'his causes us some problems. When other agencies contract with consulting firms to make soil surveys and then load all the extra correlation and other quality control work on scs, it causes a crunch in places, and I think we have some things we do need to work out. As Klaus mentioned, the old Bureau of Public Roads was a regular participant in this conference. We are delighted that the Federal Highway Administration people are now back in the fold and meeting and talking with us, because we've got a lot of things to say to each other. Besides them of course, NASA, NOAA, HUD, EPA, and CEQ have regular meetings with us, at least at the Washington level, and at regional and even state levels they are working out ways in which t~he soil survey can be helpful to them.


For YOU visitors from other countries and others who may not be familiar with Soil Conservation Service organization, let me explain that our agency has the country divided off into four parts, and each section has an office to provide specialized technical assistance and services to the states.


office, or facility, is called the Technical Service Center. Our technical service center in Fort Worth has several units under one roof.

They provide technical leadership and services in engineering, train-

ing, cartography, information, and soils, to name a few. One of the main reasons for having a cartographic unit, plant sciences unit, soil correlation unit, and others under one roof is for easy exchange of information and ideas.

I see our overall role as requiring an interdis-

ciplinary approach to assistance to the states. The soil survey programs, as almost everyone here knows, is not the exclusive property of any one agency.

There are many from universities

and agencies in Washington and in the field that must mesh efforts to make the National Cooperative Soil Survey happen. But if you found yourself in a state agency office, or on a school campus, or research facility, and asked for directions to the national soil survey program, the answer you'd get would be "You can't get there from here."

Presentation by J. Vernon Martin, director, South Technical Service Center, Soil Conservation Service, Fort Worth, Texas, at the Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, Orlando, Florida, January 31, 1977.


Similarly, if a stranger found himself in Washington, and asked the way to the national soil survey, the answer would have to be, "You can't get there from here." Let me hasten to add that I am not bad-mouthing the leadership roles that must be carried out at the university and field level, or the Washington level--because we couldn't have the national soil survey without you. I want to make the point that the TSC fills a unique role.


We bring together

the results of research and university leadership, the work of field soil scientists, and national leadership.

If you ask us the way to the national

program, we are in a position to point out the way. In our role, the TSC Director and the Soil Correlation Unit head must constantly look in two directions. First, we must look toward the field.

We must give field people the

utmost in support that will result in improved efficiency and accuracy of work.

We must also innovate suggestions or methods that will increase soil

survey production. We must also look in the other direction:

The TSC Director and the

Soil Correlation Unit head must constantly keep the soil survey user in mind.

The information must be delivered to the public with a combination

of accuracy, usability, and timeliness. This places on us the demand that we be scientific,. but we must also respect and serve the practitioners who need the soil survey infonnation-the farmers, builders, planners, and others who want and need the information on which to base wise land use decisions which will result in a world built on sane principles, not just helter-skelter.


1 think it should be obvious that we can’t do our part just by following some dry policy statement that says we will “furnish technical assistance.”

To carry out our role, the Technical Service Center units, and es-

pecially the soil correlation unit, must work together with each other and national and state leaders to achieve a dimension of service and leadership that is not present at other levels. Here are some highlights that will illustrate my views on the leadership role we have: * The big thing is quality control.

States have responsibility for

maps and manuscripts, but we must spot-check to assure that they are of acceptable quality before they are submitted for printing.

The cartographic

unit of the TSC also has expert-help making spot checks so that when soil survey maps get into the hands of the user, he or she is assured of an accurate, usable document. Some of you may see this as an oversimplification. but we can lump the soil correlation function of the soil correlation unit under the heading of quality control--because soil correlation can be defined as the careful review of soil scientists’ work to meet pm-set standards. This work requires people who are not only top hands in the technical sense, but who have a conceptual view of their assignment. In other words, the correlation and spot checking include a factor of human leadership which can give close individual attention while at the same time maintain an overview of what we are trying to do with the national soil survey program. This isn’t easy.

We know our role requires a lot of our people, but we

have the kind of people who meet the challenge.


* Another highlight of TSC leadership is in the preparation and technical review of manuscripts.

Most of you know that not too many years ago,

it was felt that to achieve the quality needed in these documents, each had to be absolutely tailor-made.

It was like producing an automobile by

machining each part separately, and that was a slow and expensive process. The nature of the national soil survey includes an inherent problem that has been with us ever since Hugh Bennett was a student trainee-and that problem is production.

In recent years, we've found that we can use

some of the parts of our soil surveys from a central supplier, and, with just a little bit of hand-fitting, produce a serviceable document quicker and cheaper. in Fort Worth.

In 1965, we were clearing only about one manuscript a month This year we will clear 54.

This has not been done by adding more people, but by using technology to achieve objectives.

Working with universities and others, the South

correlation unit innovated the use of computers in manuscript preparation. We use a combination typesetter-computer that greatly reduces the burden of retyping manuscripts. Our role in the production of manuscripts has been enhanced by the addition of a technical editor.

His most valuable contribution, by the way,

may not be to edit, but to train soil survey party leaders to do a better job of writing in the field. I wouldn't want you to think we have achieved this increase in production without making some sacrifices.

Our TX soil scientists are having

less time for reading and preparing papers. and training have been curtailed.


Also, soils investigations

* This opens UP the subject of OUT role as trainers of soil scientists.

This is something that, in my view, must have across-state-lines leadership for the greatest effect.

If all soil science training took place within one

state, there would be a great problem of provincialism.

our soil correlation

unit employees like to conduct training on a face-to-face basis, sometimes in the field, and sometimes in our own facilities. accomplished this way.

But all training can't be

Our Employee Development Unit arranges two formal

courses in soils each year--one in soil basics, and one in soil correlation. The faculty comes from the soil correlation unit, universities, and from our cartographic unit, plant sciences unit, materials testing, and other units. * One of the functions of the TSC which is reflected in our role in the national soil survey is what we might call the "confluence" function.


already touched on our role of translating Washington to the field and the field to Washington--but our role goes one step further--we translate the field people to each other.

If a soil scientist in Alabama discovers a

time-saving trick, we see that soil scientists everywhere find out about it.

In the world of soil science, es I have mentioned, it is desireable

and often absolutely necessary to give training in the field. Our soil correlation unit and others in the TSC carry out this responsibility along with other travel and duties.

Good opportunities for exchange of information

among the states are generated.

We must also make sure.that the confluence

of effort among the states is orderly.

One of the important things we do

along this line is to help the states schedules so that soil surveys will be coordinated in a systematic, smooth flow of completed reports.


This confluence function is also at work among co-workers in the technical service center.

The soil series descriptions and interpretations have

improved since it became an interdisciplinary responsibility.

Series de-

scriptions and interpretations utilize the TSC forester, agronomist, engineers and others as necessary.

So if you see a series description including what

we think a woodland soil will do with certain species, you can be assured that it has knowledgeable input by a highly-qualified forester; or if it is an estimate of cotton production, you know an agronomist has approved it. * The ultimate measure of soil surveys is their use. the need for informing the public.

This brings in

Our Washington office has outdone it-

seif in recent years in the production of effective informational materials on the use of soils information.

In the TSC, our role includes giving help

to states in information programs for the purposes of achieving fuller use of soil surveys.

One special effort was right here in Florida.

When the


state conservationist wanted to accelerate public participation and understanding of soil surveys, he decided to use television public service announcements.

Our TSC information office worked with the Florida infsrmation

officer and several spots were made.

Although they were made over two years

ago, I saw several on television here in Florida last year.

They've received

heavy use. NOW as I wind down this talk, I want to point out a thread of thought that runs through this whole thing--that is the concept of constant change. The researching, field work, publication and distribution of soil surveys is not static in any way. possible input.

It is a dynamic program that requires the best

Rapid land-use changes, critical production of sediment,

the management of prime farmlands, and other critical land use issues create a a steady pressure on us to produce soil surveys and get them to the user. 32

We have come a long way in the past few years, and we haven't accom-

plished this progress without plenty of problems--but as I look to the future, I can offer no advice except that we must do still better. mand is not going to go away.

The need and de-

On the contrary, with improved education of

the public and acceptance of soil surveys, there will be increased demands. All this means that we can never settle down to a "normal" tempo in the national soil survey program.

However successful we think we've been in an-

ticipating the future and in making long-range plans, we must continually try to do better.

There are going to be changes, hazards, and roadblocks.

On top of this there will be demands created by new uses for the soil survey information that we can't even dream of now. I don't mean for this to sound like I take problems lightly, but never-


theless, leadership achieves by brushing aside obstacles to progress. is what we must do.


We must let nothing stand in the way of keeping a con-

tinuous flow of soil survey reports to those who want and need them. Whatever burdens these increased demands create, we cannot look on them es problems, but as a form of success.

Because soil surveys are of no value

for their own sake--but become of value only as people use them to make intelligent decisions on how they will use and treat the soil so that our future world will be built on wise land-use principles.


Role of the University in the Soil Survey Program' Charles F. Eno, Chairman Soil Science Department University of Florida January 31, 1977

It is a pleasure formeto discuss the role of the university in the soil survey program today. I say today, because 15-20 years ago the role would have been much different and therefore less exciting to consider. At that time, in many states, including Florida, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the state were often competing in the survey operation; our roles in the program were not clear.

Often State soil surveyors would be in one County

and SCS surveyors in the next with little or no coordination.

Yes, the

relationship of SCS and the universities in this program has changed--It has changed from one of Competition to one of Cooperation.

Because I am at the

University of Florida, permit me to use some examples from our program. In our State, the role hasbeen rather specifically stated in a legislative act passed in 1941: The Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations role is based upon the first legislative declaration of support for soil surveys. The State Legislature in 1941, in Chapter 604, entitled "General Agriculture, Horticulture, etc., Laws" enacted the following: 604.01 State-wide soil survey and mapping; In the declaration of policy, . they said--A thorough and careful survey and mapping of.the soils of Florida is hereby declared as a matter of legislative policy which shall be basic to: 1.

The development of intelligent research programs on the agricultural potentialities of the soils of the state;

'Presented before the Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Orlando, Florida. January 30-February 1, 1977 34


The organization of effective soil conservation and land-use planning programs;


Agricultural extension and home demonstration work;


Highway and secondary road planning;


Establishment of equitable land tax assessments;'


Agricultural teaching;


The development of a sound body of helpful agricultural information for nationwide distribution to prospective land owners [Note:


this calls for a national mechanism); and

A number of other social and agricultural enterprises of broad public interest.

The law further states: "The Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Florida shall administer this law and shall be responsible for the general supervision of this cooperative enterprise between and among federal, state, county, and local agencies; and that it be charged with the duty of developing an energetic soil survey program for the state accordingly as funds are made available for this purpose from federal, state, county, or other sources." In actual practice novr, the SCS and Soil Science Department personnel cooperatively survey the soils of the State.

Basically, SCS does the field

work and the Soil Science Department conducts the laboratory-investigations. The field reviews, correlation, and writing of soil survey reports are done cooperatively. final report.

The SCS produces the maps, prints the text, and issues the The reports are distributed by State and Federal agencies.

Inputs by the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations are made through the Soil Science Department and are constituted of: 1.

Regularly appropriated State and Federal funds 35


Scientists on State line item appointments


Twenty percent of all funds appropriated by counties and the State for the specific purpose of accelerating the survey program in certain


The remaining 80% of these funds go to SCS.

Collectively, with these resources, we operate a specialized laboratory program for soil characterization , employ laboratory technicians, and have three soil scientists specifically assigned to soil morphology, genesis, and survey; these faculty also spend a portion of their time in instructional programs.

The combined resources also provide us with supplies, equipment, and

travel funds.

With these inputs and the fine cooperation extended to us by

the SCS personnel, we presently have the best working team that has been developed since the Legislature passed the enabling legislation in 1941. Now, what are our goals? The primary goal is to promote a cooperative survey program with SCS that will insure the citizens of Florida that all concerned with land-use will have adequate surveys and resource data to make wise decisions on its allocation and use and to complete the survey in the shortest



In order to accomplish this goal, we must develop a

program that will not only meet the traditional and modern needs of an agricultural enterprise that rivals its counterpart in every other state in the Union, but also the needs of people and agencies associated with health, transportation, tax assessment, land-use planning, parks and recreational areas, urban and industrial construction, and many- other endeavors too numerous to mention or perhaps not yet a reality. We are making every effort to produce physical, chemical, and mineralogical research data that will enable all those using the soil to make proper decisions. 1.

These data include: A full description of the external and internal features of the major soils as exposed in recent road cuts or freshly excavated pits. 36


A textural classification based on particle size, distribution of the sand, silt, and clay in each horizon giving rise to such classes


as sand, sandy loam, loam, etc. 3.

Plasticity, liquid limit, permeability, and corrosivity of the major horizons.


Available water, soil reaction, extractable nutrients, organic matter content, exchange capacity.



The kinds and relative amounts of minerals (for example,

kaolinite, vermiculite, montomorillonite, etc.) that each soil contains. The generation of research information and excellent maps is of little value in the archives of libraries and the files of technologists and scientists around the nation. made useable.

To be of value, it must be used and, perhaps as important,

As many of you know, the Agricultural Experiment Stations are

generally a part of a larger University Division--in our case, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences which is often referred to as IFAS. IFAS also formally trains soil scientists and other land-users in the College of Agriculture and School of Forestry, Natural Resources and Conservation, and generally extends knowledge and training to the people of the State through the Cooperative Extension Service. Teaching, research, and extension functions are brought together at the Department level.

Another goal or role for Soil

Science Departments, therefore, is to train young men and women in the area of soil survey, soil characterization, and good land-use programs applicable to the needs of society.

It is our goal to extract soils data from the

"archives", the soil survey reports, etc. and transmit it in understandable terms to the formal student at the university and the informal student in the city and on the farm.

An example of informal training is the workshops we

have conducted for land appraisers, tax assessors, and county agents on the 37

use of soil survey information in their endeavors.

The formal training is

provided by our University courses in classification, morphology, genesis and soil survey.

We also have a research function in pedology that, many

times, is initiated to answer questions originating from the soil survey and characterization


The research, by faculty and graduate students, is

designed to provide additional information on the geomorphology, genesis, classification and survey of our soils.

The research is also a part of the

larger body of information necessary for making wise land-use decisions. The role of the University at-large, that is of all Universities, is to take the larger body of information and put it to use nationally and worldIt will require several generations of publications at all levels of


understanding many research projects and perhaps some additional surveys to capitalize fully on the value of our No. 1 resource -- the Soil. The goals of the Agricultural Experiment Stations or the University, if you will, in the Cooperative Soil Survey Program are, therefore, a part of broader goals: 1.

In sumnary, they are:

To cooperate not compete with SCS in surveying and characterizing the soils of every county as soon as possible.


To train scientists and technologists in soil science and proper land-use.


To conduct research necessary to elucidate questions arising from the survey.



To collect, interpret, and disseminate understandable information on soils and land-use to the citizens of every state.

It will take a real team effort to accomplish these goals but I am confident the SCS - University - Other Agency teams will succeed in this mission.

.SOIL SURVEY IN BELGIUM Rene J . Tavernier First of all I wish to thank Mr. W. K. J o h n s o n f o r t h e invitation to participate in this Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. I have had the privilege of attending several previous Conferences during the past 30 )-SClr.S, so I h a v e b e e n e a g e r l y l o o k i n g f o r w a r d t o t h i s o n e . I t is not only a good way to gather valuable information but also a fine opportunity for seeing old friends again, for renewing acquaintances and for making new friends. The Soil Survey in Belgium Although the s t u d y o f l a n d r e s o u r c e s i n B e l g i u m s t a r t e d i n t h e f i r s t p a r t o f the previous century, the systematic survey of the country only started in 1947. The mapping in the field is c a r r i e d o u t a t t h e s c a l e 1:5000, w h i l e t h e m a p s are p u b l i s h e d a t 1:20,000. Presently about 95 percent of the country has been mapped and the remainder should be finished within three years. Approximately 75 percent of the sheets have been published and it is planned to finish the printing before 1983. The most i m p o r t a n t a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e S o i l Survey work is oriented toward This work is carried out in coSoil Survey Interpretation. operation with the Soil Institutes of the Universities, with the Experiment Stations of the Ministry of Agriculture, and with the Research Centers of the Ministry of Public Works. S o i l S u r v e y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s s t i l l a r e an i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f the research in Belgium. T h e y a r e n o t o n l y r e l a t e d t o s o i l genesis and classification, but also to the interactions of v a r i o u s k i n d s o f s o i l s a n d p o t e n t i a l polluents s u c h a s f e r t i l i z e r s and pesticides. The study of soils in tropical and intertropical regions, which is already an old tradition of Soil Science in Belgium continues to form an important part of the Belgian Overseas Aid Programme, not o n l y i n Z a i r e , Ruanda and Burundi, but also in many other countries such as Cameroun, I v o r y C o a s t , I n d o n e s i a , Nayaysia, P e r u a n d s e v e r a l c o u n t r i e s w i t h mediterranean c l i m a t e s . This work has been facilitated by the creation in 1961 of an International Center for post-graduate S o i l S c i e n t i s t s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Ghent, w h e r e e v e r y y e a r a b o u t 25 young soil scientists, mainly from developing countries receive advanced training.


Soil Survey activities in Belgium have been strongly influenced by the USDA Soil Survey. Several of our present and former staff members have been trained in the United States and we are much indebted to many soil scientists of your country, amongst others to Dr. Charles E. Kellogg and Dr. Guy D. Smith. As early as 1949 Dr. Kellogg published "An explanatory study of Soil Groups in the Belgian Congo". This publication has been very, stimulating for all Belgian Soil Scientists working in tropical areas. Since 1950, the Belgian Soil Survey had the privilege of Co-operating with the USDA Soil Survey-particularly with Dr. Guy D. Smith--on the preparation of a new system of Soil Classification, which has now been published. We all have learned a great deal during the series of meetings, both in the U.S. and in Belgium at which the various approximations were discussed. an invitation to participate in

Thanks again for extending this conference.


SOIL RESOURCE IXVESTIGATIONS IY CAMIJA . John A. Shields Canada Department of Agriculture Ottawa, Ontario I must first take the opportunity to thank you for the invitation to participate in this work planning meeting. I assure you that my colleague, Dr. Cliff Acton and myself are very pleased to be here. Dr. Acton is Senior Pedologist and correlator for the Ontario soil survey. We also bring warm greeting from your friends John Day and John Nowland to the sunny north who attended your last meeting. SOIL CLMSIFICATION: The System of Soil Classification for Canada (Canada Department of Agriculture, 1970) has been updated as amended in 1972 and published as a revision in 1974 (Canada Dept. of Agriculture, 1974-Revised). Revisions included in the present volume are based on changes in the system agreed upon at the 1973 and 1976 meetings of the Canada Soil Survey Committee (CSSC) and on decisions of the Subcommittee on Soil Classification. This revision as prepared by the Classification Subcommittee of the Canada Soil Survey Committee under the capable (and somewhat persistent) chairmanship of Dr. J.A. YcKeague has maintained greater continuity in content and in format and writing style than previous versions synthesized from the efforts of various chairmen responsible for different soil orders. The major changes introduced in this publication are: 1.

Inclusion of a Cryosolic order for soils having permafrost close to the surface.


Elimination of subgroup modifiers and hence a major reduction in the number of possible subgroup combinations.


Deletion of soil type as a category in rhe system.


Increased uniformity of presentation of the soil orders.


Amplification of the introductory material to give more of the background and rationale of soil classification in Canada.

This version of the Canadian system reflects the present state of soil taxonomy in Canada. It was influenced by history, by regional biasses, by various concepts of logic, by new information on soils in Canada and elsewhere, and by international concepts of soil. It represents as it should, an approximation of a collective view of Canadian pedo.logiSts, but it is not necessarily entirely satisfactory ~a any. QW pedol, js..c.ensidered_as_? +ge .!?t!.e_~ evolution of a~imprp_"~~_~~y~s_t_,hat will results f:om g"'fher knowledge of soils and improved ordering of that knowledge.


The material is organized as follows: First, the history and rationale of soil classification in Canada are outlined briefly to point out the changes of concepts with time and the current points of view on soil taxonomy. This is followed by chapters that define soil, soil horizons and other basic terms, and explain how to key out the classification of a soil. A chapter is devoted to each of the 9 soil orders and the great groups and subgroups within each order. The orders are arranged alphabetically but great groups and subgroups are arranged as they were in previous versions of the system. Chapters on the family and series categories and on soil phases follow. The recently developed landform classification system for soil surveys (CSSC, 1976) is included as a separate chapter. The chapters on International Correlation and Terminology for Describing Soils are abbreviated appreciably from previous issues of this publication. SOIL SURVEY: Active Soil resource programs continued in all provinces. Broad biophysical surveys were conducted in wildland areas, reconnaissance surveys in agricultural areas, detailed surveys around urban areas and detailed biophysical eurveys in Xational Parks. Reconnaissance surveys were also conducted for gas pipeline location in the central Keewatin District of the Northwest Territories and for Department of Indian Affairs in the Yukon and Hay River in the Territories. Within the provinces, there was increased use of survey information for landuse planning and management. Consequently, emphasis was placed on interpreting the information for non-specialist mere and on early release of preliminary information. Surveyors served as environmental advisors on the Sarnia - Montreal pipeline and assisted in assessing its deleterious effects on crop production. In the Cordillera, surveyors advised planners on environmental hazards to coal development and others have advised planners within our National Parks. Surveyors in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta advised planners on urban development. Reports and recommendations were completed to assist Department of Indian Affairs to formulate a land use policy for the Northwest and Yukon Territories. Sustained pressure for special project surveys required to provide the information described above coupled with a relatively static man-year resource base has resulted in some reduction of man-years assigned to surveys in southern agricultural areas. Efforts are being continued to catch up on the backlog of unpublished soil maps and reports in these areas.



Development and implementation of theeCinadian soil information svstem (CanSIS) has progressed steadily on two fronts: a)

development of the digitized map, soil cartographic file - data input procedures, data management and derived maps. This was a large undertaking and many problems were encountered. However, in the very recent past many of these have have been overcome making this system now essentially operational. Most programming effort is now spent in debugging, and some additional development will be necessary in the future. This will centre primarily on map editing, data management and streamlining of procedures for producing derived maps.


development of data management procedures for the soil data file. There is a major undertaking Involving procedures of data input (tailored to reflect our complex data collection forms), editing and updating, report generation and a catalogue of output routines. We have completed and have as a package the routines for data input and editing, complete with Job Control Language. Alsixsome routine output procedures have been completed. The single major effort remaining is the programming necessary for the report generator, but hopefully this will be finished by Julyi77. Some debugging will be necessary. It is noteworthy that all "hard" data files will be run on this basic system.

LAND EVALUATION: The last two years have witnessed the conception and development of an Agricultural Land Evaluation Program by the Soil Research Institute in Ottawa. This program was developed with a clear understanding of the importance of agriculture to Canadian and world economics and the need to resolve land "se conflicts between agriculture and other major users of the Canadian land resource. Although the program borrows heavily from recent publication for the basis of procedure, it is moulded somewhat to reflect Canadian needs within the manpower resources available to meet these needs within a reasonable period of time. Considerable time and effort has been expended by F.A.O.* and others towards the development of an international framework for agricultural land evaluation. This was done with the ful,l realization that questions related to land evaluation can best be answered only in a local context with locally devised evaluation systems; derived from locally available data and presented in the most meaningful manner for local "se. The framework, in fact, provides primarily an outline of the principles and terminologies to be used in the construction of local systems. Central to the framework is the thesis of using

* The most significant of these is; Brinkman, R. and A.J. Smyth. 1973. Land Evaluation for rural purposes. Int. Inst. Land Reclam. and Imp., Wageningen, The Netherlands. 43

economic as well as physical criteria for comparing land suitabilities, on the grounds that any land can be made suitable if costs can be justified. Within the context of our program, land evaluation is viewed as a procedure or procedures concerned with assessing possibilities in the use of land, with the effects of these on the benefits obtained from land, and with the means through which desirable alternatives can be understood and undesirable ones avoided. Also it is concerned with the possibilities of change in the land itself, particularly where change may result in lowering of land quality. Principles for the approach to land evaluation problems are based on the assumption that farmland production potential should be determined by considering the land characteristics and economic factors that control yield per unit area. The significance of each contributory factor and of their interrelationships, depends on the exact nature of the land use considered. Land evaluation concerns itself with the following kinds of questions: a)

what are t.he qualities of agricultural lands relative to other lands in the nation?


what consequences can be foreseen if present land use practices and land ownership patterns remain unchanged?


what are the alternate socially and economically relevant uses that are physically possible, and which of these offer possibilities of sustained productivity or services, whithout detriment to the environment?


what are the environmental and social benefits or consequences of each alternative land use?


what inputs are necessary to optimize the benefits or consequences associated with each use?

Land evaluations may be expressed as either qualitative or quantitative classifications, but the more quantitative classifications will provide more objective and precise measures of alternatives of land use. The precision of quantification depends on the immediate purpose and the general precision of the study, and thus upon the stage in the planning process at which the study is undertaken. Assessments are developed generally within the contexts of particular map units and usually do not take detailed account of such factors as distance to markets, market trends, socio-political trends, etc. Quantitative economic assessments are normally confined to simple development costs in relation to production benefits. Normally these ate just sufficient to provide a reasonably reliable estimate to profitability, often based


on parameters which are provisionally chosen and, for the time being, imprecisely defined. The procedure of land evaluation progresses in stages, each stage being dependent on the availability of quantitative data and on the degrees and kinds of problems being experienced by resource users. Each stage is defined specifically in terms of a series of assumptions, these being of the type that would answer the pertinent land use problems with a minimum of ambiguity and a clear understanding of degree of reliability. Contemporary requirements of the program focus on better systematization of previous rating schemes and on quantification of categories used in relation to productivity and production potentials. These categories must be correlated with adequately defined and pertinent economic indices reflecting land utilization types and associated capital and recurrent costs. Consequently, during the past year emphasis was placed on collection of background information in preparation for undertaking two pilot areas next year. It was decided that the program should have several major thrusts in the beginning. Of these the one requiring major effort was~in the area of methodology development due primarily to the complexity of the problem coupled with the dangers of importing technologies from other areas. It is intended that the methodology reflect Canadian agricultural, manpower and support capacity. The methodology will be tested in two pilot areas beginning in 1977; one area under intensive land use and urban pressure in Ontario and one with extensive agricultural land use in the Great Plains. Other major areas requiring development center on the characterization of climate and the relationships between crops and weather, and the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a typology of farming system- This latter aspect is particularly important as it is the one single interface between economic and land resource data. Coincident with all of the above is the long term need for systematic yield and land management data for all areas of Canada. REXOTE SENSING: Initial results from using remotely sensed data on rangelands indicate that suitably selected imagery may be useful in providing supplementary data on extent and type of vegetation and soil moisture for use by range management. A hierarchial system of establishing uniform productivity units was developed to provide information of increasing specificity from regional crop conditions on a biomass basis through to evaluating productivity of specific crops on a defined homogeneous land system basis. This was developed using data accumulating over several years from the main Spring Wheat Test Sites.


Imagery (satellite and airborne) and ground,data were acquired from test sites in Quebec to evaluate crop identification abilities and to determine spring viability of alfalfa. Background research on spectral properties of a wide range of plants throughout the growing season showed that solar absorption (Fraunhoffer) lines and fluorescence from a laser source may assist in characterization of crop conditions. Potential relationships between active microwave transmission and soil moisture content were also investigated. THE ISSS COXGRESS: Members of the Canadian Soil Science Society continue to prepare for the International Soil Science Congress to be held in Edmonton June 18-27, 1978. There will be another announcement published in the ISSS bulletin in March. I hope you all will make your arrangements to attend. Soil tours are planned in various regions of southern Canada and one tour in northern Canada. All tour books are in the last stages of preparation for editing and translation into French only. The final decision on which tours will be conducted must await an evaluation of registrations in August.




As a representative of ORSTOH - that is French Overseas Scientific and Technical Authority - my purpose is not to talk about what is done in France itself, but in various countries most of which are located between the Tropics, and where ORSTOM soil scientists have been working, or are presently at work. The aforesaid authority started to operate immediately after world war II in French speaking African countries, as well as in Madagascar, New Caledonia and various other islands and also Guyana and the West Indies. Owing to the political changes developing in the world towards the end of the fifties, the status of ORSTOM changed after 1960. The research people of ORSTOM were entitled to work in parts of the tropical and mediterranean areas outside of the French speaking countries. After more than thirty years of work in of the world, I shall try to sum up, in a few words, what has already been done, what is going to be achieved in the near future,and what problems will arise. Starting in 1945, under the leadership of G. Aubert, the pedological team grew from the initial four to about a hundred, falling back now to a little more than ninety. The first task was to draw up the inventory of the soils of many African countries, Reconnaissance survey at scales varying from l/ZOO 000 to l/50 000 was above all performed. Owing to local requests, some large scale maps were also prepared (at the scales of l/20 000 and more). At least in the beginning, very little was known about tropical s o i l s . A large number of profiles were examined and discussed. To obtain the necessary analytical data, laboratories were built in several African capital cities, as well as in France, near Paris, where the central laboratories were constructed, to deliver the obligatory physical, chemical and mineralogical information. At the same time, close connections were established with the main universities of the country. Iti the meanwhile, it was felt necessary to dispose of a soil c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . After a first draft in 1956 by Aubert and Duchaufour, several others were prepared by Aubert during the following years. During the sixties, the efforts of all the pedologists working either in France or in African countries brought to achievement in 1967, a complete soil classification which could be used as well in temperate as in tropical areas.

ORSTOM, 70-74 Route d’ Aulnay, 93140 Bondy, France 47

By that time, several generalization soil maps had been drawn concerning countries like Senegal, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Tchad, Congo, Madagascar, at a scale of l/l 000 000. Some of the legends of these maps were set up with the more ancient classification; the more recent ones with the modern French classification. ORSTOM soil of the soil map of Africa and in the were prepared with soil units.

scientists were also involved in the first draft Africa and of the FAO world maps, especially in Far East (Pacific Islands). These, of course, the help of FAO specialists, using the FAO list of

During the late sixties and early seventies, soil surveys continued in many African countries where ORSTOM teams had been at work for many years. New soil maps were started or continued in such countries as: - Dahomey (now Republic of Benin) where a complete set of 9 maps covers the whole country at the scale of l/ 200 000 - Togo: three sheets at the scale of l/200 000 in the central part of the country - Cameroon: three sheets cover the upper Benoue valley three sheets concern the area between Brazzaville - congo: and the sea - Republic (now Empire) of Central Africa: many sheets concern the North, West and Central part of the country - Marocco: the Southwestern part of the country has been surveyed - Gabon: new sheets have been issued or are under printconcerning various parts of the country - Madagascar and La Reunion:

various areas have been surveyed

In the Pacific, a complete survey of the New Hebrides has been performed. The maps are being published now, one by one. A new generalization map has been prepared for New Caledonia. In America, several maps have been published which concern the coastal area of Guyana. The volcanic parts of Guadalupe and whole Flartinique were surveyed in detail (l/20 000). These large scale maps are necessary to prepare land use and capability maps. But, outside the traditional countries of ORSTOM, pedologists were at work in new areas,such as, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and in America in Venezuela and Ecuador. In these countries, instead of having teams of its own, ORSTOM participates in the surveys with the local soil teams. Various maF_’ have been achieved in these areas but are not printed yet. L8

S o , for the tia:e b e i n g , soil survey is still going on in many countries. It is considered very useful to study soils in the field to find out where end why they developed as they are. In such a way, much knowledge has been gathered on the genesis of the main tropical soils both on those that are frequently encountered such as ferrallitic soils, and on those that are important but occur in limited areas (andosols for example). In some countries, data necessary to the understanding of soils were so scarce that it was found necessary to collect them (for instance, geology, geomorphology, vegetation) along with those of soils (in New Hebrides).

All the information collected on soils has helped to build up and strengthen the classification, which has taken benefit of works on soils of both temperate and tropical regions. As surveys proceed and knowledge on soils grow, some people are of opinion that some change should be made, and even that a new approach should be found f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . It is necessary to take into account not only the progress on the knowledge, but also on the available techniques. The results gathered by all these soil surveys have been useful for the development of the different tropical countries; they helped to choose the best zones favorable to agriculture and have usually been followed by much more detailed studies concerning soil management, and especially soil conservation. Furthermore, new problems have arisen with the legends. Indeed, though one of the aims of the classification is to provide the surveyors with a good legend, it seems more and more difficult to use the classification as it stands now for the representation of the soil units. Soils are related with the landscape in general, and more closely with the slope. We certainly need to associate soils along a slope when they are genetically related and even when they are not. The representation of such related soils sets new problems for which different solutions are now being tried. At last, a soil map appears to everyone as a very elaborate document using a vocabulary of its own, which certainly sets problems for non initiated technical people. So very often, it appears necessary to express the results of the survey into a more easily understandable language. This is one of the aims of the soil resources map prepared for Upper Volta which is a link between the soil map itself and the technical people.


SOIL SURVEY IN THE NETHERLANDS G. J. W. Westerveld Netherlands Soil Survey Institute Wageningen - P.O.Box 98

The activities of the Netherlands Soil Survey Institute must be seen against the background of geographical and demographical conditions in this country and of the far reaching changes that have taken place in society during the last 25 years. The Netherlands belong geographically to the northwestern European Plain and are located along the North Sea at the estuaries of the rivers Rhine, Meuse and Schelde. The climate is maritime with moderate temperatures, a rainfall of 750 mm which is evenly spread over the year and a precipitation deficit of 100 - 120 mm in summer. Fifty percent of the country consists of flat and low lying soils developed in alluvial deposits (aquents and aquepts) and in peat. The remaining part is somewhat more elevated and slightly undulating with sandy (aquods) and loess ~(udalfs) soils developed in sedimentary deposits and in glacial till. The majority of the soils are hydromorphic with groundwatertables within 1.00 - 1.50 m below surface. They are artificially drained to allow agricultural use. Population density is high (average 396/km*) particularly in the low lying western part of the country (Amsterdam - The Hague - Rotterdam Utrecht), the so-called West-Holland conurbation, where half of the population is concentrated on 20% of the total landsurface. Agriculture is very intensive and uses 80% of the available land. Large amounts of money are spent on rural reconstruction to create greater productivity for agricultural workers. The employment in agriculture has declined from 17% to 6% of the working population in the last 25 years. Land is scarce and because of the increase in both population and prosperity higher demands are being made on agricultural land for urban and industrial use, for roads, recreation and national parks. Since 1950, 250.000 hectares have been allocated to these purposes, covering 10% of the total area available for agriculture. These problems have forced the Government to introduce zoning regulations emphasizing concern for the environment in order to maintain a livable country. High priority is given to environmental protection particularly against soil, air and water pollution.


In the fifties the work of the Dutch Soil Survey was mainly directed towards agriculture, including horticulture and forestry, and only in a minor way to non-agricultural areas. Since 1955 a rapid extension of soil survey applications materialized both in terms of land consolidation and rural reconstruction and in the widely ranging area.s of non-agricultural land use. Particularly in the urban zones a change in land use is usually determined by non-pedological factors and many soils have to be used for purposes for which they have serious limitations. Here, the soil scientist is asked what can be done with such soils to make them suitable, how much will have to be invested and what the results will be. A part of the surveys and related research in our Institute is done for commissioners, originating from both governmental offices and private enterprises. Every year 50 - 70 projects comprising 50 - 70.000 hectares are carried out, requiring 30% of the manpower in the Institute. Small scale maps are prepared for nation-wide land use planning purposes and large scale surveys for a wide range of purposes such as: urban development, rural reconstruction, forest management, leyout of recreation areas and sport fields, protection of nature, groundwater management, highway and pipe-line construction, developing sources of sand, gravel and clay. Also a regular soil survey of the entire country was started on a map scale 1:50.000. Up to now about 60% of the country has been mapped. This survey shall be completed within the next ten years requiring 20% of the available manpower. In order to compare the results of different soil survey methods, a field-study was initiated recently. In the same area different survey methods are tested on varying map scales: - a free survey method - a survey method in which the number and the location of the augerhole observations are fixed in a grid-, a random- and a stratified random system - in these methods the soil-boundaries are delineated both in the field and by a computer. For all methods, aspects like purity of the delineated areas and reliability of soil boundaries are analysed and compared.


For the need of both regular and commissioned surveys a framework for soil survey interpretations for agricultural and non-agricultural land uses has been developed. Estimates of soil suitability and limitations are based on separate estimates of pertinent and well defined factors for each kind of land use. Such factors are soil attributes that may be inferred from profile characteristics, e.g. drainage status, moisture supply, bearing capacity. Many basic studies remain to be done to complete this framework. Physical and hydrological soil characteristics are increasingly used in mathematical simulation models. These models are being developed for predicting the moisture distribution as a function of rainfall, evapotranspiration and groundwater movement. At present special studies are made to relate soil structure to different aspects of soil physical behavior. Aside from this work on soils the Dutch Soil Survey becomes increasingly involved with other aspects of environment. In cooperation with the National Geological Service a geomorphological survey for the entire country on a map scale 1:50.000 has been initiated and will be completed within 10 - 15 years. In a nationwide land use plan, prepared by the National Planning Board, agricultural needs are judged against needs for recreation, urbanisation, national parks, etc. Our Institute has provided not only the soil data for this plan and for similar regional ones, but also data on historical 0 aspects of the landscape as reflected by shape and age of parcellation, old roads, buildings, etc. All those data are surveyed and presented in a way that planners can use them. We are together with other Institutes cooperating in survey projects in which ecological data are surveyed and interpreted for physical planning purposes. A centre for ecological survey is currently being organized in close cooperation with the Netherlands Soil Survey Institute. As part of an environmental computer information system, a system for the earth sciences has been set up, including: input facilities for all data (boarelogs, maps)

p r o f i l e d e s c r i p t i o n s and

data base management systems: G-EXEC (NERK-UK) and GRASP (U.S. Geologic Survey) a system for automated cartography (Computervision. less elaborate than for USDA, but with the same soft-ware) obtained and developed in close cooperation with Soil Conservation Service (SCS) a limited number of application programs. We are in the process of producing the first maps in the context of a regular production procedure.


Furthermore, preparations are made and sample area surveys are carried out for a systematic survey based on the visual aspects of the landscape. The data will be entered in the Computervision system, and every customer will recieve taylor-made answers on maps, magnetic tapes or in the form of tables. In terms of outside activities we are actively engaged in the Working Groups of Soil Information Systems and Soil Micromorphology of the ISSS. Furthermore, Staff members of our Institute are asked as experts on soil survey in developing countries (e.g. Kenya, Zambia) and colleagues from abroad participate in training programs at our headquarters. Scientific papers of the Netherlands Soil Survey Institute, which seem to be of interest for colleagues abroad, are published in international periodicals or in our own series: “Soil Survey Papers” in the English language. In 1976 we published a textbook in the dutch l a n g u a g e w i t h p r o f i l e descriptions, laboratory data and characteristics on land use and physiography for 32 major soils in the Netherlands. Each description is illustrated with a color photograph of a soil profile and an oblique black and white aerial photograph of the landscape in which such soils are found. An English version of this book “The Soils of the Netherlands” is under preparation. The Institute is also involved in the activities of the International Soil Museum, which is accomodated since January 1977 this year in a new building close to our office at Wageningen. Mister Chairman Since the establishment of the Netherlands Soil Survey Institute in 1945, there has been a close link with the National Cooperative Soil Survey in the United States of America. We a p p r e c i a t e t h i s c o n t a c t very much due to the leading position of your country in soil survey and, soil survey interpretation methods. We bring you the best regards of our Director and our colleagues in Holland. We feel very happy that SCS has given us the opportunity to join this conference, to discuss with colleagues and to learn more from your Soil Survey methods and results. We thank-you very much for this invitation and hope this conference shall be successful for all participants. Wageningen, January 1977


The International Agricultural Research Institutes and the Use of Soil Survey Research Data F. R. Moormann, IITA

The International Institutes started in Mexico (CYEIMIT) and the Philippines (IRRI) by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, have grown since in number and are now funded by the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CCIARR), a loose confederation of donor countries and organizations and the World Bank. The philosophy behind the establishment of a string of institutes in the developing world was and is, to establish high level research and training in those areas, where much research is needed, but is either not available or not sufficiently developed. All institutes have a specific mandate; that of my institute, IITA in IZADAN, Nigeria is "to improve quantity-and quality-wise the foodcrop production in the humid lowland tropics." The early successes of the initial institutes, and their major contribution to the "Green Revolution" of the sixties is well known and publicized, as is the international recognition in the form of a Nobel prize for Norman Borlough of CIMHYT some years ago. The orientation of most work of those institutes that work with crops has been strongly towards the plantside of crop production. Breeding was and is a major concern, as were the supporting activities which were mainly, if not exclusively, in the field of agronomy. With the partial exception of IITA, soils, and more specifically the use of soil survey and land classification data, were and still are not a major topic of research and are not even considered as an important supporting aspect of the work in plant sciences. The "package deal" for improved crop production was and frequently still is considered to be the universally valid approach to improvement of crop production. Only 1:ITA had from the beginning a strong field-soil program where emphasis was given to the variability of soils in relation to crop performance. Though not having a formal soil survey program, the results of such investigation, and the collateral data on climate, landforms, hydrology, etc. have had considerable attention of at least a part of the plant-oriented scientists. There is a growing acknowledgement now that geographic soils data in the sphere of interest of the Institutes is of extreme importance for the future orientation of applied research work. As an example, I may single out IRRI, where presently the necessity of "local-specific" breeding of rice, and collateral agronomic research is keenly felt,


and persued by most of the staff The reasons for this are several, related partially to the personality and background of the principal staff, but even more so to the fact that the original idea of creating plant management packages with high yielding, high input varieties is “running out of steam.” Indeed, the green revolution techniques were tremendously successful in those soils areas where land qualities were near perfect, with little or no environmental restraints. These areas form a minority of the rice land, the larger part having a lesser inherent quality and one or more soils, hydrologic, topographic, climatic, or other restraints. Moreover, even in places where there are few environmental restraints, the socio-economic-conditions may be such that one has to be satisfied at least in the foreseeable future with a lower level of technology than that which has been reached by modern temperate zone agriculture. In IRRI, much effort now goes into the development of suitable technology, including the varietal adaption, for these less favorable conditions. If this trend is to become common, it is obvious that much more use has to be made of the data furnished by soil survey investigations, data which unfortunately are often incomplete or available only in a nonusable form. A requirement is that the field soil capability of the research of the majority of the institutes should be reinforced, but also (where the institutes do not and should not have a soil survey capability of their own) that the soil survey land classification specialists of the world should cater more intensively to the needs of our colleagues in the crop sciences.





North-Central F.





C. Westin -L

I. North Central Reqional Technical Work City, Michigan, flay 3-7, 1976




Nine committees prepared reports. They are: 1) Rooting Characteristics in Relation to Paralithic Contacts; 2) Iwproving Soil Survey Techniques; 3) Organic Soils; 4) ilater Relations; 5) Soil Potentials; 6) Teaching Soil Science; 7) Correlation and Classification; 8) Soil for Disposal of(?as~,e__... Products; and 9) Soils on Mine Spoils. Committee I, which has no national counterpart, considered objectives dealing with the need to provide soil surveyors 'with guidelines for unifornly identifying paralithic horizons as well as to study their effect on roots. They recommended that bulk density data be added to Soils-5 forms. Committee 2, on Improving Soil Survey Techniques, was new for the NC This cotr,nittee recoirsended region but corresponds co a national committee. that color IR photos and other imagery be tested, that photos be obtained at the optimum time for soils mapping, and that all-terrain vehicles be employed where appropriate. Committee 3 on Organic Soils tried to evaluate the Interpretive Guides for organic soils issued 7 February, 1975. They felt another year was iiowever, a num5er of other points were raised including needed for testing. rating organic soils. A numerical rating system was discussed to evaluate Other items considered: the soils potential as 2ell as its limitations. soil temperature and growing degree days; rooting depth; slope limitations; development difficulty available water holding capacity; wetness; flooding; rating; and forest production. CorxTittee 4 on Water Relations considered principally the questions "How can soil survey contribute to, and benefit by hydrologic modeling?" The committee felt that soil survey people need to determine where agricultural The coraittee listed several water is going and what is in the water. courses of action that can be taken including determining the performance characteristics of soils with season and use. Committee 5 considered Soil Potential and this'subject a\so was covered The committee felt in a paper de!ivered to the Workshop by I.. J. Sartelli. that soil limitations need to be evaluated by taking into consideration the Soil potentials need to technology available to overcome the limitation. be developed for all interpretations pertinent to the soil survey area. Ccnunittee 6 dealt with Improvement of Teathing

* Plant Dakota

Science 57006





Methods in Soil Science.




1977 North C e n t r a l R e p o r t

Travel courses and work shops were recommended and also the need was expressed to incorporate soil classification into all soil science currOther suggestions were to identify and establish a mailing list iculums. of Extension and Agricultural Experiment Station workers in soil resource and land use planning. Committee 7 was a combination of committees 2, 4, and 7 of the 1974 N.C.R.W.P.C. The committee was divided on the need to re-define the series control secion although more felt it adequate than not. The committee f e l t t h e r e ,qas little need to standardize phase criteria but that the use and standardization of soil drainage classes needed study. Also it was recommended that as quantitative soils data becomes available for a state that it be circulated to interested n e i g h b o r s t a t e s . Also the group felt that means should be developed to better integrate soil landscape into soil survey war!;. Committee 8 dealt with using soil as a treatment medium for waste This committee felt more precise definitions are needed, for products. example, infiltration rate is not constant with time and consequently should be defined more explicitly. Also the committee felt that ratings of soils for waste treatment should be based on soil potential rather than l i m i t a t i o n . A majority of the committee objected to rating so.ils in the mesic and frigid zones no better than moderate. Using potential, this objection is corrected because storage facilities can be utilized. The committee also suggested using slope rather than runoff because it is more easily understood by lay persons. S l o p e c l a s s e s recorunended are: O-62, 6-l2%, and over 12% for slight, moderate, and severe limitation. C o m m i t t e e 9 covered the Classification, Interpretation, and Modification of Soils on Mine Spoils and Disturbed Soils. The national committee requested a response on several points. One dealt with the need for a ne!v suborder of Spolents. The committee recorrmends further study but most members felt that mine spoils and disturbed soils can adequately be handled with the present classification system. R. 6. Grossman in a meeting with the federal group reminded everyone that in the next IO years the standard soil survey of the U.S. will be largely completed. As Land Grant University soil survey practionerc we need to concern ourselves with.changes this will make in our teaching and research programs. I;orth C e n t r a l Corrmittees 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 a r e e s p e c i a l l y c o n c e r n e d with the implications of this change in emphasis.


NCR-3 and NC-109

The technical research committee concerned with soil survey in the North Central Region is NCR-3. A funded research project - NC-109 began It has been renewed unti I September 30, in 1972 was approved through 1976. The name for the new NC-109 project is “Relating Soi I and Landscape 1981. Characteristics to Land Use.” A combined report for NCR-3 and NC-109 follows:


1977 North Central R e p o r t

Each state in the region is coopera:ing to develop a rating system for the soils of the NC Region (using the map from the publication t(C-76) based on yielding ability of the soils for corn, wheat, grass and trees. Five of the Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Lincoln S.C.S. Laboratory are participating in laboratory analysis of samples from 10 soils of the region. I n d i v i d u a l l y , roost of the Agricultural Experiment Stations are developing soils landscape guides for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes including tax assessment. Co-puter soil maps are being tried in several states for tax assessment purposes. Several states are preparing guides for waste disposal and others are preparing guides for suitability for urban development, reclamation of surface mined areas, application of minimum tillage and distribution of aluminum-sensitive wheat varieties. Host North-Central states have an accelerated survey effort state agencies such as Revenue Departments and county boards are to finance soil surveys.

where helping

several states also are experimenting with color IR and other special kinds of imagery to inprove mapping progress without a loss of quality. Remote sensing is being evaluated in several states. The North Central states generally have few problems applying Soil Taxonomy (an exception is that it has been troublesome in some areas of Spodosols and Mollisols and that there seems to be no way to get any application above the series category operational).



I felt that one theme dominanted soil survey activities in the North Central Region this past year - the need to plan for the day when the detailed soil surveys of the U.S. will be completed. This event will require a change in emphasis. This was expressed in the consideration given in NC corrmittees to soil potentials, rather than limitations. One committee dealt specifically with soil potentials and it was mentioned in the committees on organic soils, water relations, and the use of soils for disposal of wastes. The need to look ahead was also noted in the deliberations of the NC committee for improvement of teaching methods. It also is a force operating in the activity of soil surveyors to organize professionally. The NCR-3 and NC-109 comnittes are shifting major emphasis to interpretations of soil surveys as is evidenced by the name of our new project "Relating Soil and Landscape Characteristics to Land Use."


a Northeast Regional Soil Survey Work Planning Conference Report to the Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, January 30 - February 4. 1977 by S m i t h R. M. Nest Virginia University The J a n u a r y 1 9 7 6 NECSS conference fulfilled its purpose of b r i n g i n g together appropriate people for discussion of technical and scientific questions and for exchange, dissemination or transmittal of ideas and information to interested individuals or groups including the National Seventy-three representatives were Cooperative Soil Survey Conference. registered. Individuals present other then permanent (or alternate) State. Caribbean and Federal members and administrative advisors included invited participants from a State Sot1 and !Jater C o n s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n : t h e Cooperative Extension Service; State Soil Characterization Laboratories; U.S. National Perk Service; U.S. Plant, Soil and Nutrition Laboratory; and a State Dept. of Environments1 Resources. Some highlights of committee reports. 1.

Legal aspects of the use and interpretation of sofl surveys. This conrmittee did not hold formal meetings, but considerable i n t e r e s t w a s e v i d e n t in f u r t h e r i n g t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a t u s of soil scientists by organized societies and licensing as p r o v i d e d b y d i f f e r e n t s t a t e l a w s .


Use of soils for waste disposal. Chemical and physical properties of wastes and of soils must be considered and combinations recommended that (a) Fncrease agricultural production and (b) avoid harmful p o l l u t i o n o f s o i l s , water and growing plants.


Inventory and use of forest soils. Problems persist, involving mapping scale or intensity. levels of classification. and interpreting manageable landscape units. F o r e s t e r s , g e o l o g i s t s a n d s o i l scientfsts may need to consider more of these problems jointly under field conditions.


Soil survey interpretations. The development and use of soil ootentials requires closer field observations end more data representing Idcal c o n d i t i o n s and realistic alternatives. 59


Soil Noisture regime. It was recommended that water table studies should be conducted in the Northeast, e s p e c i a l l y t o c h a r a c t e r i z e oerched water tables and lateral flow on slopes and their significance to soil survey interpretations.


Soils reflecting a high d e g r e e o f p h y s i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e by man. Highly disturbed soils are recognized as economically imoortant. One million acres now occur in the northeast and about 45,000 acres are being disturbed annually. State Since modern laws and regulations have been updated. definition includes all soils made by man, it follows that a p p r o p r i a t e mapoing units should subdivide this increasingly important acreage into segments of landscape aporopriate for pedogenic. treatment and management studies. The conference voted to endorse the WV proposal as amended, involving a new suborder of Spolents and mapping units defined at the family level (including phases of families). Significant acreages of intensely used urban soils and land fills have been studied, mapped and interpreted fn the Washington metropolitan area through cooperation o f t h e M a r y l a n d U. Agr. Exper. Ste., the National Park service ) and the Soil Conservation Service and others.


Evaluating maoping units. More studies are needed to determine the composition. and to improve and update the accuracy of mapping units and Better field notes, use of the their interpretations. transect method and thoughtful mapping unit descriptions in published reports should be emphasized.


Histosols and tidal marsh soils. Legislation in eight northeastern states identifies tidal marshes as land under or contiguous to tidal waters Greater that support one or more salt marsh species. emphasis on tidal marsh will be required as population and p o l l u t i o n p r e s s u r e s i n t e n s i f y . Current investigations were sununerized and encouraged.


Soil survey research needs and priorities The National Survey Laboratory at Lincoln assures the The soil northeast of continued.suoport and assistance. survey input program will identify sources and kinds of available laboratory data but requires inputs from experiment Soil morphological changes noted stations and others. f o l l o w i n g waste disoosal s h o u l d a i d p r e d i c t i n g r e a s o n a b l e 60

S o i l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s must k e e p waste loading rates. pace with changing technology, new soil uses and research results from all sources, 10.

Remote sensing in soil survey. A regional coordinator for remote sensing, to be located at the TSC, was recommended. A bibliography of remote sensing research has been assembled and is available.

The Executive Connnittee of the Northeast considers that these 10 connnittee r e p o r t s i n c l u d i n g d i s c u s s i o n s c o n s t i t u t e t h e h e a r t o f t h e Conference. In addition to the working sessions there were several informal sessions about special activities of some members end guests. Representatives of the State Agricultural Experiment Statfons reported on activities related closely to soil survey. Horace Smith, SCS, Maryland, reoorted o n t h e s o i l s u r v e y o f the District of Columbia. John Foss, Maryland, reported on tephra and soil formation in Northwestern U.S. Gerald Orson, New York, reported on Maya Hounds in Honduras. Roger Case, SCS, New York, reported on soil interaretations for the Eastern Ontario Conrmission. Vim van Eck reported on West Virginia’s activities in East Africa. D ic k A r n o ld , N e w Y o r k , reported on a clime-sequence of soils in Nigeria. A special discussion led by John Rourke considered a number of aspects of the revised Soil Survey Manual. J.C. Patterson, U.S. National Park Service, d i s c u s s e d t h e Fmportance t o t h e P a r k S e r v i c e o f p r o p e r t i e s o f some h i g h l y disturbed or man made soils. The next meeting is scheduled for July 18-22, 1978, at the University of Connecticut (Storrs, Connecticut).



The biennial meeting of the Southern Regional Technical Work-Planning Conference was held in Jackson, Mississippi, April 5-8, 1976, with Ilr. R. C. Carter, Chairman (USDA-SCS) and Dr. D. E. Pettry, Vice-Chairman (Wississippi state University).

Fifty two individuals participated in the conference

representating twelve Landgrant Colleges and Experiment Stations, the Soil Conservation Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the U.S. Forest Service and the Agricultural Research Service. The members wel&med the participation of the following invited speakers: Mr. Doug Shanks? City Commissioner of Jackson, Miss. Mr. W. L. Heard, State Conservationist SCS, Jackson, Miss. Dr. W. K. Porter, Jr., Associate Director, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University. Dr. K. L. Anderson, Leader, Extension Agronomy Department, Mississippi State University. Dr. R. H. Griffin, NASA, Bay St. Louis, Miss. Mr. V. J. Cissna, Jr., Special Projects Officer, SoutherqMississippi Planning and Development District, Gulfport, Mississippi. MT: R. I. Dideriksen, Director, Land Inventory and Monitoring Division. SCS, Washington, D.C. The conference was organized into seven subject matter committees.


much work was accomplished by each of these predetermined conmittees prior to the conference, the chairman of each committee rotated to each of four discussion

*Department of Agronomy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.


groups to give each conferee an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make contributions to the final report.

The following subject matter

committees were active:’ 1. Histosols and soils of tidal areas. 2.

Waste disposal on land.


Soil potential ratings.


Kinds of soil maps.


Improving soil survey field procedures.


Soil yield potentials.


Major land resource areas.

Since each committee presented a report which was published and is available to members of this conference, I will not present a summary of each committee report.

Instead, I will report on some of the highlights of the meeting and

other items which may be of interest. During the 1976 Southern Regional Conference there was perhaps more emphasis placed on interpretation of soil properties for multipurpose land use than at any preceeding conference.

Dr. Porter (MSU) stressed that an under-

standing of soils is basic to agricultural research.

We recognize that current

agronomic research is becoming increasingly complex and often requires interdisciplinary efforts to solve pertinent problems.

The demand for interpretation

of soil survey information for non-farm uses is becoming increasingly important throughout the region.

Engineers, hydrologists, land use planning firms,

sanitarians and consulting agencies are seeking information which is often unavailable.

There is a rapid move being made in some areas of the region to

use land for treatment of waste water from sewage treatment plants, agricultural processing wastes and industrial wastes.

Consulting engineers are frequently

critical of sail scientists for failing to adequately characterize and evaluate 63

properties of soils below those necessary for placement in soil taxonomy inferring that the soil scientists are more interested in classification than interpretation. There is great need for cooperation of research workers in all areas of soil science in the development of interpretative tables and other information for soils and land use.

Emphasis should be placed on a positive approach such as

soil potential rather than limitations. be simplified to obtain maximum use.

Interpretative soils information must

Will the ADP programs developed for the

National Cooperative Soil Survey aid in generating land use maps that can be effectively used by a land use planning specialist that has not had a" introductory course in soil science?

Will automatic data processing, computer map

making, remote sensing, standardized tables, standardized write-ups and standardization of programs in general increase user acceptance and understanding of soil survey information?

Or, will it prevent the person nearest the soil

from becoming a thinker and interpreter of soils information?

I c a n ’ t answer

these questions but I think we should constantly evaluate our effectiveness in supplying soils information to an environmentally conscious


The need for accelerated soil survey and publication of reports of soil survey for land use planning was emphasized.

It is thought by some soil

scientists and users of soil survey maps that soil survey should reevaluate the detail of soil survey, particularly in suburban and potential suburban areas.

Dr. Anderson speaking on the role of the Exte"sio".Service in soil s u r v e y

pointed out the importance of introducing published soil survey reports to the public and the need to educate,>local officials on the uses of soil survey reports. An educational program should not be the responsibility of one agency alone. Contributions of the Land Grant Institutions' in the Southern Region to the Cooperative Soil Survey Program were discussed.

In general the states' activiti 9

have been increased for the region, however, anticipated appropriations in some 6:,

states has been less than expected which has restricted some programs. A comittee has been appointed to prepare an article for possible publication in the Crops and Soils Journal.

The article would deal primarily

with the relationship of southern soils and crop production. The changing background of the college graduate may have far reaching effects on the soil survey program.

A recent survey indicates that there is

a steady decline in college graduates in soil science that have farm backgrounds. There is also a marked increase in female students of soil science. During the past two years the demand for soil science graduates has exceeded the supply. In many areas, agencies conducting soil survey have been unable to attract the best students due to industry and private sectors which offer higher salaries and other incentives.

The demand for people with advanced degrees

also has resulted in many of the better qualified candidates continuing in graduate school.


Report of the Land Grant University Representative of the Western Region R. D. I&ail Department of Agronomy, Colorado State University This report will deviate from a normal report of summarizing the 1976 Western Regional Work Planning Conference since these reports are already available. Rather, I would like to spend a short time reviewing for you some of the research activities that are on-going a t v a r i o u s u n i v e r s i t i e s in the western region, and particularly, those research activities that are of direct interest to the Natfonal Cooperative Soil Survey. In the past five years, researchers representing most of the Land Grant Universities found in the western region have participated in a Regional Research Project entitled “Soil Interpretationsand Socio-Economic Criteria for Land Use Planning”. The objectives of this project were: 1) To evaluate the impact of urban encroachment on rural lands. 2) Identify and organize soil data and interpretations needed for present and potential clientele. 3) Evaluate the adequacy of present data and development of new data, interpretations and procedures for overcoming soil limitations. Some of the research activities under Objective 1 include case studies in California under which land use changes are being documented; effects of water transfer from irrigation to cities have been documented in Colorado; impacts of the Big Sky Recreation Development were studied in Montana; soil aualities of the Willamette Valley in Oregon were mapped and the information was placed into a computerized system for storage and anaylsis for the purpose of determining relationships of land use to soils with different inherent capabilities; Hawaii investigated the performance of their state’sagricultural dedication law. Research in New Mexico has treated the question of “Effects of land use controls on land values in rural-urban fringe areas.” A manuscript “as prepared on modeling land use problems in Arizona. A number of other studies were also conducted under this objective. The foregoing are pointed out in order to provide a background pertaining to the nature of research activities. Under Objective 2, a number of states have developed state soil maps and accompanying interpretations. An Arizona publication provides information that relates soils to climatic and geologic information. Land use suitability maps have been produced using a composite of natural resource maps and ratings developed by planners and scientists.



Colorado is in the process of publishing a "Land Capability Data Base" for all counties. Hontana has developed a computer graphic system for generating land resource maps associated with their state soil map. Hawaii has developed a system for rating soils (soil potential) for several agricultural and urban uses. Under Objective 3, California has compiled substantial soil loss data for a number of California soils. In Colorado, basic field and laboratory studies have been completed on 36 soils representative of proposed coal and oil shale development areas. . Colorado is also evaluating the reliability, credibility and usability of three engineering interpretations of the National Cooperative Soil Survey using the "Delphi" questionnaire technique. Hawaii has developed criteria to compute indices of soil potential. In Nevada, soil temperature regime data have been collected for producing a state map (1:750,000 scale). Soil noisture regimes are being tested in relation to the distribution and productivity of natural vegetation. Oregon has completed extensive studies on septic tank drainfield performance. Montana, in studies of soils potential, has shown that data on soil micro-climates are needed. This is a very brief review of the nature and scope of wme of the research activities being carried out by Agricultural Experiment Stations and Universities in the western region. Information relative to the progress and accomplishments of this research program are available through the Cooperative State Research Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. I appreciate this opportunity to acquaint you with the kinds of research activities that are presently on-going or that have been completed in the western region. Many of these research activities have been carried out in close cooperation and with the help of Soil Conservation Service Personnel. This cooperation and active participation has been greatly appreciated. We hope that the results of this research will help strengthen the Cooperative Soil Survey Program.


Soil and Water Problems of Mutual Interest!-/ Carl w. CarlsonY I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet and share ideas with the soil survey group. Those of us old enough to remember know something was lost when the soil research now in ARS was split from soil survey in the early 1950's.

This split led to a communication gap which, over time, has

resulted in a language barrier. $1~ close association with the SCS soil survey laboratories when I was at Mandan and later at Beltsville has made me aware of the wealth of data that these laboratories have obtained. was the best.

The management of these laboratories

Therefore, one has a lot of confidence in the data.

Anyone who has had much experience with field research is well aware of the value of a good soil survey.

The nature of many of our field experiments

are such that a conventional soil survey is adequate.

However, many of us

found out the hard way that a conventional soils map is not detailed enough for some field research.

Unless the soils factors responsible for the

response or the lack of response of the various treatments included in the experiment can be identified, one is at a loss to interpret the data or use it to ma!ce recommendations to other sites.

The soils maps and accompanying

taxonomy become the common denominator for communicating the research results. Our Administrator is asking for a new emphasis on the use of soil maps, soil taxonomy, and soil characterization in planning, initiating, and interpreting our research studies. inclll~l~in): pest control..

He is asking that this include all field research, We wxd your llrlp to wet this rcq~~cst.

Man's improvements in computers have made it possible to process and analyze large volumes of data. This tool has made modeling a way of life. Some of the early models in ARS were developed to predict and route water movement in and over watersheds.

The ACTMO (Agricultural Chemical Transport Xodel)

L/ Presentation at Soil Survey (SCS) Netting, 'Orlando, Florida, Jan. 30-Feb. 2/ Assistant Administrator, ARS-USDA, Washington, D.C. 68


and the USDA Hydrograph Laboratory models are examples.

These models could

not have been developed without the data made available by the SCS soil surveys and the supporting laboratory data.

In spite of the large amount

of available data, we frequently find that the geomorphological data are inadequate.

In addition, the spatial detail is not sufficient to predict,

with any degree of accuracy, how the watershed delivers water. Such details as the geology and the identification of the land characteristics which account for the shape and the present land use of the watershed are required to make a reliable prediction.

The Map Information Assembly and Display System

WADS), developed by Bob Birdwell in Oklahoma, provides the detailed data we need for many of our studies.

This system, which provides the land use

and soil characteristics on a 40-acre grid throughout the State, has sufficient detail to be most useful in our modeling efforts. The data on the water retention and transmission characteristics provided by the soil survey laboratories are sufficient for our needs. However, the detailed water flow information required to meet the Section 208 of the P.L. 92-500 needs require that we have a much better knowledge of water behavior than we now have. The greatest need is for better infiltration and hydraulic conductivity data. The problem of obtaining reliable field infiltration data is most difficult. Heated arguments have frequently ensued over which method yielded the best information.

Many of us are aware of the difficulty the USDA Hydrograph

Laboratory had in their attempts to make field measurements.

The importance

of the surface layers in these studies has become very evident. The grain shortages experienced internationally two years ago have shown the need for a better yield prediction capability. Last year, ARS initiated a research program concerned with improving these capabilities.

If we can

obtain the precision in our watershed models that we are attempting to achieve, we can provide the data needed for predicting crop yields. The degree of precision with which we can predict crop yields will depend, in 69

part, on how well we can describe the effective rooting and moisture extraction patterns of the important crops. Better estimates of moisture


flux in the profile will also be needed to understand the soil water relationships. The objective of a cooperative agreement signed by ARS and SCS last year was to improve the capability of the SCS to predict where and when wind erosion night occur.

The model that will eventually be used to make these

predictions will require some of the same soil and water data that is required in the crop prediction and watershed models. The large interest in utilizing agricultural residues as an energy source has raised a question about the needs for those residues to protect our soil and water resources.

Currently, ARS scientists at St. Paul, Minnesota,

are developing a model to make these estimates.

The cooperation of the SCS

on this project has been excellent. What about the future? The environmental guidelInes developed to comply with the water and air pollution legislation passed by recent sessions of Congress will restrict our future farming methods.

In addition, energy and ground water shortages

will make these inputs expensive and scarce.

When the present and future

world food needs are considered, it is safe to predict that the American farmer will be called upon to produce more food and fiber. The only way that these restrictions and goals will be met will be through better land use.

In making these decisions, the American people will

be expecting some alternatives.

These alternatives can only come if we

proceed with our modeling efforts in a very aggressive way. From these models, alternatives for growing our food and fiber should become evident.


I doubt that the public will tolerate some of the mistakes made in the government programs in the past. For example, we cannot afford to support a fallow-crop rotation farming system in areas like the,wheat-producing areas of Montana and the Dakotas.

These practices have resulted in the

"saline seeps" common to that area.

Nor will the public accept the plowing

of fragile wheat-producing areas of eastern Colorado.

After drought periods,

our government has provided funds for subsidizing the revegation of these lands .on at least two occasions. If we are to meet these challenges, there will have to be better coordination and closer cooperation between AM and SCS and the other agencies with resource conservation responsibilities.

If we can accept the challenge,

it is time that we get on with our responsibilities. Areas where emphasis is needed: Infiltration.

The SCS and AgS have cooperated in making infiltration

measurements in the past.

These efforts have yielded data which have been

used to develop guides and models. progress made to date.

Neither Agency is satisfied with the

Perhaps part of the problem may be that neither

Agency has ever decided what degree of precision would be acceptable or the number of soils that should be included.

In spite of past mistakes, we

need to continue our search for an acceptable method for measuring infiltration. Soil structure.

On several occasions, scientists from the two Agencies have

participated in soil structure workshops and field trips in an attempt to identify areas of mutual opportunity.

The last effort in this area that I

know of was Dr. W. E. Larson's and Dr. Grossman's field trip into the Northern Great Plains two years ago.

At that time, Dr. Grossman requested

that ARS bring their soil structure theories to the field.

From this, he

hoped to obtain a simple quantitative method for measuring soil structure in the field and in the laboratory. To my knowledge, this request was never





Mechanisms for accomplishing these cooperative projects: 1.

In the past, one or two SCS scientists have had short-term assignments

at ABS locations to work on problems of mutual interest. scientists on short assignments with SCS units. been very successful.

AES also has had

These assignments have

There is no substitute for "eyeball-to-eyeball"

discussion of problems of mutual concern.

Therefore, I recommend that

both Agencies continue to support these exchanges in the future. 2.

Because of the need for better infiltration data by both Agencies,

the field measurements undertaken two years ago should be pursued with added effort.

Each Agency should internally decide the degree of

accuracy that would be acceptable in order that its objectives and goals can be set.

I understand a workshop is planned in 1977 to work

out the details of the cooperative effort. 3.

Both Agencies have a real interest ina field and laboratory method

for quantitatively measuring soil structure. A joint task force should be appointed to outline a cooperative program on this important problem. 4.

ARS needs a soil map for every field experimental site. We are in the

process of determining how many sites are in need of such a survey. For some experiments. we also need a soil characterization.

After we have

this information, we will have our Administrator relay this need to Mr. R. M. Davis. 5.

We need to undertake a joint effort with SCS to determine how soil

properties and climate relate to food and fiber production. Here too, we need a joint task force to determine what effort is required by each Agency and how the effort best can be coordinated.




soil taxonomy, and characterization data are needed for most

field experiment sites.

If research results can be related to soil

properties, the impact of the research on land resource areas can be determined.

The modeling capability in the two Agencies makes it

possible to predict how our land resource areas will respond to man's activities.

The field and laboratory capability in the two Agencies

should provide most of the resource data needed to obtain maximum food and fiber yields without doing undue damage to our soil and water resources.

How well these needs are met will depend on how effective the

scientists in the two Agencies can work together.

74 P

Soil Survey Educational Programs Make for Effective Use” by Harold I. Owens Agronomist and Soil Conservationist Extension Service-USDA Members and guests of the soil survey work planning conference, it is indeed a pleasure to meet with you. Working with the educational aspects of the National Cooperative Soil Survey is a very rewarding activity. The Cooperative Extension Service, in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service, the experiment stations, and other agencies and institutions, plan and conduct educational and informational programs to encourage and stimulate more effective use of soil survey information and data. The cooperative effort in planning and conducting educational and informational programs related to the use of soil surveys is found at the national, state, and county levels. A coordinated effort is carried on between the SCS and the Extension Service, USDA, in Washington to notify our respective counterparts in the states of the status of soil surveys and the impending publications of new soil surveys. In the Extension Service we look to the stote Extension specialist in agronomy, soil science, soils, and/or soil conservation to take the lead in working with the SCS and the experiment station on educational and informational programs and activities. Educational programs and activities related to the use of soil surveys varies. In order to give you a brief report I would like to present a summary of some of the educational programs as reported by the state Extension specialists. In Florida, the educational effort is focused on workshops for farm managers, rural appraisers, vo-ag teachers, county Extension agents and participants in the cooperative research in forest fertilization programs. The goal of the workshops is to train the participants to assist local clientele in using the detailed soil surveys as they are released in the respective counties. Since 1969, ten workshops have been held. A handbook providing the program content of the workshops is used by the staff and participants. The program includes a one-half doy session of illustrated presentations on seven topics. This is followed by a one-half day tour to observe selected soil series and an open book test. In Florida, to supplement the workshops three fact sheets on soil survey data and information is planned for release by July 1977. In New Jersey, we find that soil surveys have been and are continuing to play a major role in land use programs. The cooperative educational-informational program has been developed and presented throughout the state on the use of soil survey maps and data. Cooperating are the Cooperative Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, and the State Department of Agriculture in planning and conducting one-day or evening short courses for different users of soil surveys. Topics include:

r/ Presented at the Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, Orlando, Florida, January 31, 1977. Jf


Soil survey -- A tool in land use planning.

2. Soil survey -- Its use (example: septic tank disposal systems). 3. Soil survey -- The history and use. Another use of soil surveys wos made at a number of county meetings held to explain the New Jersey sediment and erosion control law. Soil surveys were explained and how they can be used in sound planning, The Blue Print Commission on the future of New Jersey agriculture made use of soil surveys in locating prime agricultural lands. Soil surveys are explained at farmers’ meetings to show how soil surveys fit into the picture of making more efficient use of the soil testing program or the need and benefit of drainage on farms. Mony counties hove appropriated funds to speed up the soil survey program after the importance ond need of the accelerated soil survey program was explained to County Boards of Freedholders. The State of Washington reports they have held five soil survey introductions in the state in the past three years. One of their most successful introductions wos held in King County, the largest county in Washington in terms of population, in March 1975. A series of events and planning sessions, contacts, and publicity preceeded the final week-long sessions. A followup on the initial program sessions. Tours were held. The SCS has had considerable contact with mony original participants on a one-tosne basis. The original sessions hove lead to a series of four workshops in western Washington counties between Extension, SCS, and the Deportment of Social and Health Services to work with sanitarians, designers, and instollers of septic tanks on soil potentials for waste disposal. They report the key to their success with the soil survey introduction were: I.

An early start six months in advance of the soil survey introduction.


Identifying specific audiences and planning the educational sessions with them in order to give them what they want.


Having a local contact to keep in close touch with the audiences identified and interested.


The excellent cooperation between the SCS and Extension.


Not overselling the product, that is, making sure the surveys limitations were understood.

A cooperative educational-informotiohal program is conducted in Iowa involving the Cooperative Extension Service, the Soil ConservatioGvice, and the Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station. The educational 76

program starts before the field work is started. It is also conducted during and after the field work is completed and continues beyond the time when the final published report is distributed. The report from Iowa for the year July I, 1975, to June 30, 1976, shows the following: pre-field work information meetings were held in five counties. First acre ceremonies were held in four counties. Last acre ceremonies were held in five counties. Advance report meetings were held in two counties and the published report was explained in seven counties. You may be interested in the attendance that Iowa reports. For example, attendance at the soil survey report distribution meetings in Howard County was 430 people attending 9 meetings. The attendance per rneeting varied from 28 people to 93 people. In Linn County, 9 meetings were held with 319 attendees. The attendance varied from 19 to 73. In Webster County, I2 meetings were held with 796 people in attendance varying from 38 to I10 ot each meeting. In addition, they conduct training programs for county Extension directors and district conservationists, sanitarians, realtors, boards of supervisors, county engineers, county assessors, and rural development committees. They also publish special publications to supplement the soil survey reports including a bulletin on soil judging. Special publications that ore planned include o handbook for country sanitarians, Extension, SCS, and others; soil survey facts, soil productivity ratings, soil characteristics and herbicide management, and soil resources of IMissouri river bottom lands. From the examples of educational programs conducted in some of the states we can see that the state and county staffs tailor the activities and the techniques used to provide soil survey information to the many different users. Because of the ropid expanding demand for soils information, Tennessee Cooperative Extension Service, in recent years, has directed special attention to the expansion of its educational programs in the area of soils and soil surveys. The objective of the educational efforts ore to promote broader, more intensive, more effective use of soil surveys and soil information contained in soil survey reports. The initial efforts of the educational progrom were channelled into a relatively comprehensive soils in-service training program for Extension agents. The training program included three separate phases or units: I.

The first unit was centered around basic soils covering the topics of soil formation, basic physical and chemical properties of soils, including texture, structure, soil-water relationships,.clay minerology, and basic soil fertility relationships. Visual aids were used to present this material.

2. The second phase included in-the-field training sessions for each county staff. The soils specialist spent two full days in the field in each of the 95 counties training county staffs on the properties of the soils in their counties.


3. The third unit of this training is planned to be conducted in a classroom situation and will emphasize the use of soil survey information, soil interpretations for diferent purposes, and the relationship of soils to soil and crop management decisions and systems. Another educational activity conducted in Tennessee was to put special educational emphasis into counties in which progressive soil surveys were just getting underway and with counties with newly published soil survey reports. In counties where a progressive soil survey is about to start they organize and conduct county-wide meetings. All the links in the potential user chain (of soil surveys) are invited and encouraged to attend. In counties in which newly published soil survey reports are about to be released we have a set schedule of educational activities that we follow.


News articles are written and radio spots are prepared to design usefulness and publicize the soon-to-be-released soil survey report.

2. Early in this period a two day in-service training workshop is scheduled and conducted for the state agricultural workers in the county. Slide sets are developed prior to the workshop and used as aids in presenting the subject matter. Field work is also conducted during the workshop concentrating on the use of soil maps and the material contained in the (soil survey) report. Four or five tracts are selected showing the different soil associations and each tract or site constitutes a complete exercise in the use of the soil survey reports. On the last afternoon of the workshop time is devoted to formulating meetings designted to introduce the report, and how to use it to all the different groups in the user chain. In Tennessee they feel thot the local agricultural workers who live and work with the people in the county aren’t “tooled-up” and prepared to do the job, it won’t get done, so they encourage them to carry the ball from this point on. A soils specialist does attend and acts as a resource person and trouble shooter at the meetings conducted by local workers. Tennessee reports excellent results from this approach to educational programs and activities related to soil surveys.

REPORT PRESENTED TO NATIDNAL SOIL SURVEY CONFERENCE ORLANDO, FLORIDA JANUARY 30 - FEBRUARY 4, 1977 Kermit N. Larson Forest Service USDA The Forest Service welcomes the opportunity to participate in this conference and report to you on our soil survey activities. I would first like to acknowledge the recent publication and distribution of Soil Taxonomy by the Soil Survey Staff of the Soil Conservation Set-X. This publication is a valuable contribution to the field of soil science in the United States. We should not underestimate the difficulties and importance of this achievement. I believe that it is the responsibility of each scientific discipline to develop its own common system of classification and terminology. Many disciplines do not have such a system, particularly one that is useful in mapping and interpretation. Soil Taxonomy fulfills this responsibility, and represents a great advancement in the field of soil science in this country. For those of you who may not be familiar with the U.S. Forest Service, our activities are grouped into three principal areas. Administering the National Forest System (NFS) is a major responsibility. The NFS includes 187 million acres of Federal land located in 44 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The NFS is composed of 155 National Forests, 19 National Grasslands, and 19 Land Utilization Projects. The FS is charged also with providing assistance in the protection and management of the Forest resource outside the NFS. This arm of the FS, called State and Private Forestry (S&PF), works mainly through the various state forestry and natural resource agencies to further scientific land management. The Forest Service's third "arm" is research, an integral but independent part of the organization devoted to finding new and better ways to develop, manage, protect, and utilize our renewable natural resources. The Forest Service employed its first soil scientist in 1955. We have been a cooperator in the National Cooperative Soil Survey since that time. This represents over 20 years of active participation in the survey. The agencies' need and demand for soils information has increased dramatically during this time. Our soils staff is still struggling to keep pace with the demand for soils information which seems to increase each year. The soils staff in the National Forest System has grown from 10 in 1956 to 80 in 1966, and to 215 at the end of 1976. This does not include soil scientists in Forest Service Research or State and Private Forestry.

Knowledge of the basic soil resource is essential to all phases of planning and management of National Forest System Lands, and in the forestry related assistance provided through the State and Private Forest Service Programs. Because a substantial amount of the work involved in securinq and transmitting knowledge of the soil resource is investigative or of a developmental nature and involves exoansion, testing, and apolication of research findings, a strong link with forestry and related research, both within and outside the FS, is necessary. The FS soil management program is a primar,y contributor to an increased understanding about the science of forest and range soils. It is designed to provide knowledge about the soil resource including an assessment of soil capabilities for use in land management planning and decisionmaking, for resource development, and the protection of forest, range and related lands. Soil scientists in the FS soil management program orovide the exoertise to secure and apoly knowledge of the forest soil resource. They work with land managers and others to incorporate an understanding of soils in land and resource management activities to enable the FS to meet its land stewardship responsibilities. Some soil scientists are deeoly involved in land management planning as team members, or in many cases, team leaders. Activities of the FS soil management program as performed bv soil scientists are grouped into seven categories. (a) Soil Resource Inventory - The systematic examination of soils in the field and laboratory including descriptions, classification, and mapping of soils and the interpretation of soils according to their oroductivity and behavior under use and management. . Included in this activity is the NCSS when the FS is a participant. (b) Soil Science Suoport Services - The develonment, transfer and aoplication of soils knowledge to support the several resource systems and the management activities within them. (c) Soil Qualitv Management - The develooment and aoplication of management practices to maintain, restore, or improve levels of soil productivity on selected areas of land. It also includes the periodic evaluation and monitoring of soil conditions by review and measurement of soil oarameters at key sites. (d) Special Studies - A wide range of activities that generally involve adaotation of research or field experience to an operational program. The results of special studies and investigations may be presented in publications, handbooks, or management guides.

80 :: (

(e) Data Management and Analysis - The development and use of systems for collection, storage, retrieval and analysis of soils data for use by management, including remote sensing technology. (f) Training - Formal and informal training to upgrade the expertise of soil scientists and to increase the understanding of soil resource management by land managers and other specialists in all phases of forest and rangeland management. (g) Cooperation - Interaction with individuals and organizations in soil science and related fields outside the NFS. These may include, but are not limited to, Forest Service Research, State and Private Forestry, universities, professional societies, other government agencies, and private organizations. Most of our efforts to date have been directed toward soil resource inventories for use in our current land management planning efforts. To date, we have completed soil surveys on 131 mm acres of National Forest System land. This represents 70% of the total acreage of NFS lands. most of this acreage consists of third and fourth order surveys. Included in this total are approximately 30 mm acres of surveys done cooperatively within the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Our goal is to complete soil resource inventories suitable for land management planning, on all National Forest System lands by 1985. At our present rate of accomplishment, we should achieve this goal. Questions have been raised concerning the relationship of the Forest Service soil resource inventories and the National Cooperative Soil Survey. During the joint Soil Conservation Service - Forest Service coordination meeting in January 1976, it was mutually agreed to review this relationship: As a result, a joint task force Was designated with the charge to review the goals of each agency with respect to the procurement and use of soil information. A document was to be prepared that could be distributed to field offices in order to enhance mutual understanding and cooperation in this area of effort. This document has been completed, and has been approved by the Chief of the Forest Service, and the Administrator for the Soil Conservation Service. Actions related to the recommendations of this report are being initiated by both agencies. Recent legislation such as the Resource Planning Act of 1974, and particularly the National Forest Management Act of 1976, deal quite specifically with the concern for the basic soil resource of our Nation's forest and rangelands. Implementing this legislation is the responsibility of the Forest Service. However, since certain sections of these acts deal with the use and procurement of soils information on both Federal and private forest and rangelands, the Forest Service will be looking to the National Cooperative Soil Survey to play an important role in its efforts to meet the intent of this legislation.


NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY WORK/PLANNING CONFERENCE Orlando, Florida - January 31 - February 4. 1977 BUREAU OF LAND KANAGEHBNT SOILS ACTIVITIES* I am pleased to represent the Bureau of Land Management at this conference. We appreciate the assistance received from the Soil Conservation Service in supporting our Soils Program. The major soils activities in calendar year 1976 were: Cooperative Soil Surveys There were about 5 million acres of surveys underway in 1976. ?fost of this was through agreements with the SCS. A total of 153,000 acres was contracted in Oregon to private firms. BLH Soil Inventories BLX soil scientists in Oregon mapped about 20,000 acres. Xapping unit components consisted of phases of soil series. 12,000 acres - Order 2 8,000 acres - Order 3 Energy Minerals Rehabilitation Analysis (EMRIA) The BIX has contracts with the Soil Conservation Service and the Bureau of Reclamation on proposed coal mineral development areas. scs BR

250,000 acres 7.500 acres

Xontana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah New Mexico, Wyoming, North Dekoie

WC&D Phase I Inventory The Watershed Conservation and Development erosion inventory is about 95% complete in the 10 Western contiguous States. Detailed Requirements Definition (DRD) This study was initiated to identify elements by funCtions within resource activities (Watershed, Wildlife, Range, etch) to inform ADP personnel of the kinds of resource data that are being collected. The Bureau will be correlating its soils data with the SCS pedon coding system.

* LeRoy A. de&ulin, Principal Soil Scientist

Division of Watershed, Bureau of Land Management, USDI Washington, D.C. 82

The Bureau of Land Management has entered into a new era in administration of the National Resource Lands (NRL) resulting from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579). The Act includes requirements that coordinated resource inventories be conducted on the NRL to provide basic information for action programs. Other recent changes in Bureau Program responsibilities led to the need for a study to determine the role of the Watershed Activity. This study has identified the functional responsibilities and is in the process of determining staffing requirements. A major recommendation of the study team was that the Division of Watershed be designated as the Bureau focal point for the Soil Resource Program. A number of responsibilities in water, air, vegetation, and geology that relate to other Bureau programs are also recommended in this study for assignment to the Division. We expect the Director to give his decision on the study recommendations in a couple of months. Meanwhile, the Division of Watershed has assumed the responsibility for the Soil Resource Program. An evolving concern for the environment and subsequent court decisions are some of the events that have caused the BLM to press for more basic resource data. Soils data that can be used to predict the impact of a given management situation and help determine best management practices on the NRL, until recently, have been near non-existent. NEPA, environmental organizations, and other forces have demanded a higher degree of sophistication for use of soils data. In the past, BLM has obtained most of its soils information on small areas through contracts with Federal and State agencies for specific problems and research. It is necessary, therefore, to provide soils data for project site productivity, allotment management plans, and to help meet environmental statement deadlines in the grazing program. This is the most immediate need in the 10 Western contiguous States because the program requires coverage of most of the NRL. There are about 100 million acres to be inventoried in the next 12 years in addition to older inventories that must be updated. It will be difficult to reach this goal, but we have no choice if we are to meet other commitments dependent on this information. The question now is, "What is the most timely and economical method to obtain adequate soils data for planning and operations"? The development and use of Orders of Soil Survey have been beneficial to the Bureau in helping to establish rapport with management when discussing needs for soils information. Experience also is helping to establish a minimum level of mapping detail and determine what kind of soils information is needed for management interpretations. A mandate of Public Law 94-579 is that there shall be a systematic approach in the development and revision of land use plans to achieve integrated consideration


o f p h y s i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l , economic, and other sciences. Soil inventories must be coordinated and correlated with other resource inventories to satisfy this requirement of the Act. These inventories must not be considered just for a single use because of the immediate needs of the grazing program. Interpretive data also are needed for the Minerals, Lands, Recreation, Wildlife, and Forestry Programs. A Third-Order soil survey identifying phases of soil series will provide information to adequately assist in determination of best management practices for most BLM action programs. In some areas a Fourth-Order Inventory may be satisfactory. Consociations and associations consisting of phases of soil series must be the dominant mapping units where a Third-Order soil inventory is conducted on rangelands, timberlands, and wildlands. We are seeking to determine the minimum requirements for soil resource data and we should not settle for less because of the magnitude of the job or established time constraints. For example, the soils data needed to quantify potential vegetative growth must be obtained from no higher than the series category, especially in the Northern Great Plains where slight differences in water-holding capacity strongly influence forage production. Productivity of some of the Southwest desert soils may be shown in terms of soil families where very low total precipitation or seasonal distribution may have a greater influence on plant growth than do combined soil water-holding properties. The Bureau is moving toward future environmental statements prepared with procedures that will quantify vegetative growth in terms of soil productiv9 . Therefore, the BLM must establish uniform procedures and sampling techniques and revise its Manual instructions and guidelines to ensure uniformity. A team of resource personnel will be assembled in February 1977 to determine exactly what kind of soils information is needed. A modification of general field procedures and mapping unit design will also help to meet Bureau goals. The Bureau intends to follow procedures established by the National Cooperative Soil Survey as closely as possible when mapping and classifying soils on the ML. Our soil inventories are intended for Bureau programs and generally will not emphasize soil correlation; thus, avoiding lengthy delays in processing information. However, soils will be classified and interpreted without conflicting with NCSS procedures. We have begun our own soil mapping using this system to take advantage of existing data on adjacent lands and to avoid costly duplication of efforts and conversion of data at a later date. We have demonstrated in Western Oregon that we can map vast areas of difficult terrain and provide adequate interpretive data for the Forestry Program and other activities with a Third-Order soil inventory.

Our Soils Program includes soil inventory operations, interpretations and special investigations such as contracted studies and research. We are developing the program to include those soils functions that will provide the Bureau with adequate soils information to protect and enhance the soil resource, as well as provide data to support all activity programs. This means we will need quality soil inventories. No longer can we look at our rangelands and forest lands, and with a wave of the hand, map them as rough, broken, and stony land, or as mountainous uplands. We have a limited staff of about 45 permanent soil scientists. This number is expected to double in the next 4 years, but we do not expect to reach the capability to conduct all soil inventories internally. The major duties of District and Area Office soil scientists are to provide assistance to Area Managers through reconrmendations for action programs, and to help prepare environmental reports. Their roles and responsibilities in the District and Area Offices are variable depending upon local program emphasis. The major emphasis is in the energy minerals, grazing, and forestry programs. Other programs are not less important, but these are dominant in terms of impacts affecting the national economy and in land area that must be inventoried. In most Districts the BLM depends on outside assistance to gather basic soils data while our soil scientists are performing other operational activities to support District programs. However, this is not the most desirable arrangement from a long-range planning view. It would be best for the Bureau and for individual professional development if the soil scientists gather basic soils information on the land where they develop use recommendations and have responsibility in the impact of management practices. The trend in the Bureau is to have the soil scientist concentrate on the job he was formally trained for as we begin to hire more specialists to do the jobs demanded by recent legislation and court actions. The BLM soils program is experiencing "growing pains" and we have some expected difficulties such as recruitment of experienced personnel and development of uniform operational procedures. We need to improve our efficiency and capability to inventory and provide interpretations to meet today's demand of multiple land use management. Some of the challenges ahead are to obtain the dollars and manpower for the job, and to adequately train our sail scientists to increase their proficiency while making timely soil inventories. The BLM and cooperating agencies must determine the extent of their capabilities to gather resource data on the public lands while meeting their other commitments. We need to develop equitable cost sharing arrangements as well as explore ways to obtain the needed manpower. New mapping procedures must be developed to enable coverage of the Western rangelands in a short time while maintaining quality control.

REPORTS OF AGENCIES PARTICIPATING IN THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Activities L/ William B. Peters / Soil Science and related activities of Reclamation programs primarily relate to water and land resource development. They include economic land classification in selecting lands for irrigation; wetland surveys, and drainage and reclamation of salt-affected lands on existing irrigation projects; soil characterization for irrigation scheduling; revegetation of lands disturbed through construction of project features; reclamation of lands to be surface mined of mineral deposits; land and water appraisals for environmental studies; remote sensing research; predicting quality of return waterflows into drainage systems; water quality control, particularly salinity of major river systems; soil investigation for other agencies; assistance in selection of lands for irrigation to foreign countries and international financing organizations; and participation in interagency affairs, on committees, at workshops, and professional societies. The work on reclamation of lands to be disturbed by mining is performed for the USDI Bureau of Land Xanagement through contractual arrangements. It is Reclamation's practice to utilize USDA-SCS soil survey information to the fullest extent possible in all activities for planning, construction, development, settlement, operation and maintenance, and rehabilitation of projects. In this regard, Reclamation is very much interested in the new approach by the Soil Conservation Service to soil surveys, i.e., the concept and use of soil potential and related requirements in predicting and integrating land and management factors. Predicting the Quality of Irrigation ReturnUnder the leadership of Dr. Marvin J. Schaffer and Mr. Richard W. Ribbens, Reclamation has developed a computer simulation model which predicts both

L/ Brief report prepared for the Work Planning Conference of The National Cooperative Soil Survey sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Orlando, Florida, January 30-February 4, 1977. 2/ Head, Land Utilization Section, Resource Analysis Branch, Division of Planning Coordination, Engineering and Research Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

the quantity and quality of subsurface return flows from irrigation. The model has been applied to Reclamation projects in the Northern Great Plains, the intermountain West, and California. Portions of the model or the entire model itself are in use throughout the Western United States and in foreign countries. Physical, chemical, and biological processes are simulated within the soil root zone, the unsaturated zone in general, and the aquifer. Subprograms within the model can be utilized alone to make projections concerning the reclamation of salt-affected lands, the most efficient use of fertilizers, the design of drain spacings, and pollution of the aquifer. The model currently simulates concentrations of major cations and anions, and nitrogenous species. Reclamation intends to expand its capabilities to include phosphates, pesticides, and trace elements. The model may be extended to include acid soil conditions. Research is in progress to obtain additional verification of the model on large-scale irrigation projects and to determine the best method(s) to select or obtain respresentative field data. Assistance to the Developing Countries Reclamation has provided technical assistance in the field of multiplepurpose water resource development to over 108 developing nations. This assistance has been highly varied, encompassing many disciplines, including engineering, economics, geology, hydrology, soil science, agronomy, and environmentalism. It can be reduced to three broad categories: cl) the gratifying task of training foreign nationals in our facilities at home, (2) providing direct consultation on various aspects of water resource developments abroad, and (3) the challenge of water resource planning abroad, accomplished with counterparts from the host nations. The latter primarily involves early reconnaissance-type investigations and preparation of reports to the governments requesting these services. Detailed feasibility studies, design, and construction are usually carried out under contracts between the governments and private firms. The work is helping through mutual effort to unleash the grip of economic stagnation and the corollaries of poverty, hunger, and substandard living. Reclamation is currently, through the United States Agency for International Development, providing assistance in irrigation suitability land classification to the Ejiger River, Senegal River, and Gambia River areas in Western Africa. Preplanning for Reclamation of Lands To Be Disturbed by Mining of Coal The studies for BLM on reclamation timmineral areas are in response to the “coal rush” in meeting the energy crises. The objective is to identify


optimum coal-leasing sites having superior potential for reclamation and

to formulate lease stipulations. This involves obtaining basic data; making evaluations; and developing standards, guidelines, techniques, and alternate plans for land rehabilitation and restoring vegetative growth. The plans include recommendations for deposition and treatment of overburden and measures required to minimize environmental impacts, air and water pollution, and to promote safety. Environmental planning, design, and engineering are a very important aspect in formulation. Where viable alternative opportunities for enhancement are identified, plans are developed as requested by BLM. Alternative land uses and potentials might include rainfed agriculture differing from present cover and enterprises, irrigated agriculture, wildlife habitat, recreation, homesites, industrial developments, and others. In this planning, analysis is made of land use problems and opportunities associated with water plans, recognizing the natural and a modified land base, existing and potential land use patterns, zoning regulations, and general relationships to environmental, social, and economic aspects of the setting. All plans developed include an assessment of cost and benefits. The work is approached on an interagency and interdisciplinary basis. Reclamation, in cooperation with the USDI Geological Survey, is exploring and characterizing overburden;L/ surface and ground water; and developing and analyzing data with respect to geology, engineering, plant science, hydrology, soils, drainage, economics, ecology, environment, and other relevant considerations. The investigation with respect to lands largely involves characterizing the overburden for reclamation and determining land use suitability. In characterizing overburden, sufficient exploration and drilling are accomplished to describe and collect representative samples of soil and substrata to a depth below overburden and coal (maximum depth of 200 feet). The description of soil and substrata characteristics in relation to land characterization essentially conforms to the USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey procedures. Sampling of overburden at master sites and agronomic laboratory testing are on a comprehensive basis. At the other explorations and borings, representative samples are selected for laboratory characterization on a screenable basis to confirm judgment in field appraisals. The first priority in the agronomic laboratory characterization of soil is directed toward direct and indirect measurements to evaluate soil structure and its stability, effective soil-cation-exchange-capacity, and soil reaction. After this is accomplished, then consideration is given to testing that confirms the field characterization, explains the causes of phenomena previously observed or predicted, reveals the presence of toxic 31 Overburden is the material consolidated or unconsolidated overlying the coal.

substances (salinity level, boron content, alkali, acidity, reduction products, etc.), and indicates measures required to cope with the soil deficiency under eventual field conditions. Selected samples found by the laboratory testing to represent a range in properties conducive and adverse to establishment of vegetation are further subjected to greenhouse studies at the Colorado Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. These greenhouse and related studies are designed to establish possibilities and methods for establishing vegetation. Where these studies identify or detect unforeseen toxic conditions or soil deficiencies not susceptible to amelioration by established procedures, a program of applied research is reconnnended. A product of the characterization with respect to land is a resource map reflecting both the present condition and future conditions under alternative plans for reclamation and restoration. The Soil Survey aspects are coordinated by BLM with SCS at State and local offices. The USDA Forest Service Surface Environment and Mining (SEAM) serves as a consultant to BL.M on coordination matters. Concurrently with the above-described investigations, the overburden is also characterized for geological, hydrological, and engineering properties. The USGS is responsible for ground-water data collection. This work was initiated in 1974 and completed in 1975 at four specific s i t e s , comprising about 2,000 acres each, located near Ashland, Montana; Hannah, Wyoming; Meeker, Colorado; and Kanab, Utah. Similar studies at six additional sites were initiated in 1975 located near Dickinson, North Dakota; Ashland, Montana; Rawlins, Nyoming; Gillette, Wyoming; Steamboat Springs, Colorado; and Farmington, New Mexico. Field studies on these six sites have been completed and reports are in the final stages of preparation. Studies were initiated on four sites in 1976. These are located near Fannington, New Mexico; Steamboat Springs, Colorado; Beulah, North Dakota; and Miles City, Montana. Experience gained to date from these studies and consultations with others disclose rehabilitation of disturbed lands can be accomplished using procedures already developed. Soil testing and soil fertility evaluation are sufficiently advanced to prescribe optimum management practices for most conditions. Research is underway to further develop plants for erosion control. The principal obstacle precluding successful rehabilitation of disturbed lands has been the general lack of coordinated planning among disciplines, agencies, organizations, and activities. Mr. Hubertus Mittman of the USDA Forest Service has emphasized the need for greater involvement and increased action by persons experienced in planning. Problems have to be anticipated and alternatives considered from an interdisciplinary standpoint. Reclamation has applied its acquired experience in revegetation of disturbed lands related to canal construction, borrow pit excavation, backfill of project drains and damsites, and maintenance roads construction a c t i v i t i e s . Reclamation’s activities require adequate staff capabilities,


facilities, and administrative "know how" to coordinate the varieties of disciplines and activities related to resource development and environmental protection. Irrigation Management Services Program The Irrigation Management Services is a program developed by the Bureau of Reclamation to direct and assist irrigation and water districts in establishing programs to promote more effective and efficient use of their water supply. It is directed toward better onfarm water management and to extending water management through the distribution and storage systems. While the program was initiated primarily as a research effort, the beneficiaries of the program are expected to financially support these programs in their operational stages, The results of these program efforts will be applied in the design of new projects and the rehabilitation of irrigation systems. The establishment of the Irrigation Management Services Program on irrigation and water districts is a cooperative effort with the Soil Conservation Service and the State Extension Service. Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program The purpose of this investigation is to develop plans for controlling salinity in the lower reaches of the Colorado River to meet salinity standards set on the lower main stem. The mineral burden of the Colorado River is the foremost water quality problem in the basin and carries both interstate and international implications. Continued development of the water resources is expected to generate additional salinity increases with concomitant economic losses to agriculture and H&I users if the salinity is not controlled. Natural sources contribute most of the salinity to the river. Return flows from irrigation and municipal and industrial uses also add significant quantities of salt. Ploreover, concentrating effects are produced by water exports out of the basin, use of water by vegetation, and evaporation from free water surfaces. This investigation program will consider individual problem areas, develop control plans, and make specific recommendations for remedial action. Under the program, feasibility plans are being prepared for control of salinity from irrigated areas, as well as point and diffuse sources. Four of the original projects have been authorized for construction and advance planning activities are underway. Definite Plan Reports are being prepared for the Paradox Valley, Grand Valley, and Las Vegas Wash Units. The Crystal Geyser Unit construction has been deferred due to decreased cost effectiveness. To date, the program findings on salinity sources are pointing toward a need to emphasize a total water management approach to salinity control. Support studies involving the preparation of a mathematical model for management of the river, economic evaluation of water quality, institutional, and legal review have been made. Preliminary work has been completed on the applicability of ion exchange technology.


On the irrigation sources, irrigation scheduling techniques to improve irrlgation efficiency are now being applied to 7,000 acres in the Grand Valley area, Colorado; to 9,800 acres in the Palo Verde Irrigation District, California; to 12,000 acres on the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona; to 3,000 acres in Lower Gunnison Basin; and to 6,000 acres in the Uinta Basin of Utah. To assure effectiveness in irrigation source control, feasibility studies of the conveyance and drainage systems are being made to disclose improvements that could be made which would achieve reductions in salt loading, Feasibility studies on point sources at LaVerkin Springs and Littlefield Springs in Utah and Arizona are to be completed in FY77. All other point sources and diffuse sources in the program involve basic data collection as a prerequisite to report preparation. These include Glenwood-Dotsero Springs, the Meeker Dome. and XcElmo Creek in Colorado; the Price, San Rafael, and Dirty Devil Rivers in Utah; and the Big Sandy in Wyoming. On the latter, pilot studies have been undertaken to appraise efficiency of desalting the water using natural freezing, involving the use of the natural cold temperatures in the area to freeze the water and thereby remove most of the salt. Cooperative research with the USDA Agricultural Research Service has been started to evaluate the relationship between high irrigation efficiencies and reductions in salt loading. Land and channel processes contributing to diffuse salt loading are being examined by Utah State University and Colorado State University. Land Use Planning The Soil Science Training Institute conducted at Colorado State University, commencing in 1974, was modified and supplemented to comprise a Land Use and Water Planning Institute for the years 1974 through 1976. The Institute was conducted under capable direction of Dr. Robert D. Heil. The objectives of the Institute ware to broaden and upgrade the knowledge of planners in the field of land use planning and to emphasize the important interrelationships between water and land development and use. The 1974 course was structured to provide management-level personnel an overview of the interface between land use and water planning. The course emphasized the principles of good land use planning including the physical, economical, biological, political, sociological, and other factors which are important in the development of viable land use plans. It has been the intent that subsequent courses be directed toward needs in broadening and attaining greater technical. proficiency among workers actually involved in investigations. The Institute, as conducted in 1975, emphasized the physical factors inherent in the land use and water planning process. Such factors included soils, geology, geography, ecology, revegetation of strip-mined areas, hydrology, archeology, anthropology, and others.


The Institute for 1976 emphasized nonphysical factors involved in the planning process in relation to the and Standards. These included, but were not restricted to, economics, the legal aspects involved in water development projects, social implications, public involvement, a discussion of national policy toward water development, data acquisition and interpretation, demography, and the preservation of agricultural lands from a political viewpoint. The physical factors as presented at the 1975 Institute were again generally reviewed as being required in the complete planning process. Remote Sensing Research Reclamation continues to support research in remote sensing for many applications including land classification. Most of the Soil Science activities have been in cooperation with the EROS Program and directed toward development of methods to assist in better identification of depths to water table, surface water accumulation and drainageways, vegetative cover and crop identification, depth to root and water impeding barriers, and gross soil features including soil moisture and salinity. Land Classification Summaries on land classification activities by States are presented in tabular form on table 1.



Table 1 IRRIGATION SUITABILITY LAND CLASSIFICATION Fiscal Years 1977 and 1978 California Solano County Sacramento River Seepage Project Napa County Ventura County YOlO county

Allen Camp Butte Valley Lake County Mid-Valley, Raisin City

Colorado San Miguel Project

Animas-La Plats Project

Idaho Oakley Fan Division Southwest Idaho area Ririe area

Xddle Snake River area Salmon Falls Project Upper Snake River area

Kansas Kanopolis Unit Montana Upper Missouri River Basin Project Flathead area New Mexico Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation

Animas-La Plats Project

North Dakota Apple Creek area

Garrison Unit

Oklahoma Waurika Project - Northwest 44 count

Oklahoma State Water Plan Southwest 20 counties

Oregon Medford Division Umstilla Basin Project Tualatin Project Baker Valley

Grants Pass Irrigation District Warm Springs Indian Reservation Merlin Division 93

Table l--Continued South Dakota Grass Rope Unit

Oahe Unit Utah Central Utah Project, Bonneville Unit Leland Bench Unit Upalco unit

Uintah Unit Ute Indian Reservation

Washington Yakima Indian Reservation Spokane Indian Reservation Columbia Basin Project Yakim River Basin Colville Indian Reservation Touchet Division Kennewick Division Extension

Bumping Lake Enlargement Cmak East Benton Irrigation District Kalispel Indian Reservation Brewster Flat Kittitas area Oroville-Tonasket Project Wyoming Shoshone Project, Polecat Bench

Sublette area Riverton Project


Report from U.S. Geological Survey to the Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, Orlando, Florida, January 30 through February 4, 1977

Report made by James R. Anderson, Chief, Geography Program, Land Information and Analysis Office, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 22092 The Soil Conservation Service and the Geological Survey have a memorandum of understanding relative to the exchange of data and program coordination. The invitation to the USGS to participate in this Work Planning Conference is one of several ways by which exchange of data and program coordination has been occurring during recent months. I will briefly report on some activities and research that should be of interest in the context of this Work Planning Conference. I have also brought along some materials pertaining to the status of orthophotoquad releases, l:lOO,OOO and 1:50,000 scale maps, land use/land cover mapping, the operation of the National Cartographic and Information Center, and the Land Information and Analysis Office, which has been established since the last Work Planning Conference was held 2 years ago. In May 1975 a cooperative agreement was signed between SCS and NCIC. Under this agreement SCS provides NCIC with indexes of completed soil surveys and addresses from which they can be obtained in order to assist in providing users with information about soil survey availability. NCIC is providing standard formats for aerial imagery information, issuing catalogs, indexes, newsletters, etc., and assisting SCS to provide NCIC information to users whenever SCS so desires. 95

In the Topographic Division intermediate-scale base maps for the support


of area studies and planning activities are being compiled at scales ranging from 1:50,000 to 1:125,000 with major emphasis on l:lOO,OOO. These maps are being derived from existing 7.5 and 15 minute topographic maps with some updating. scs.

Major support for this program is coming from

A status map indicating progress may be obtained from NCIC.

About 4,000 orthophotoquads were prepared in 1976 and 5,000 to 6,000 are scheduled for FY 1977.

GS is presently preparing about 1,200 orthophotoquads

annually for SCS for use as bases for soil surveys.

A status index is

available from NCIC. In the Water Resources Division hydrologic studies are being conducted at sites in the coal regions of western United States that have high potential for leasing and mining.

The soils are sampled in the fall and

spring to coincide as near as possible with maximum wet and maximum dry conditions.

These data are used to obtain estimates of quantities of

water stored in the soil and evapotranspired.

Changes in bulk density of

soil with depth are also measured in order to compute quantities of moisture stored.

Moisture retention capacity and the hydrologically active

depth of soils are determined as part of evaluating rehabilitation potential at mined sites.

Wherever possible, these studies are correlated with SCS

soils survey data in order to increase the transfer value of our work to nearby areas with mining potential.


In the Geologic Division the mapping of surficial deposits is being done for a number of purposes including the study of individual landslides and the study of faults and ground motion needed in connection with nuclear reactor site investigations.

Also in the Geologic Division, maps of the

United States are being prepared at a scale of 1:7,500,000 as a part of the National Environmental Overview Program.

Included are maps of surficial

geology, volcanic hazards, karst, swelling clays, areas susceptible to erosion by "off the road vehicles," quaternary dating techniques, and a lithologic map.

Work on landslides is being expanded to include a

nationwide inventory, establishment of an information center, mapping in critical areas, and further research on processes involved. The Branch of Regional Geochemistry of the Geologic Division currently has two research projects in soils geochemistry. In the Energy Regions soils project, a reconnaissance geochemical survey of the soils in the western United States energy lands is being made with primary emphasis on the magnitude of regional geochemical variation. study of trace element availability in soils.

The second project is a

Knowledge of element avail-

ability, as opposed to total element concentration, is critical in mined land reclamation. In the Land Information and Analysis Office which has been created since the last Work Planning Conference, the need for closer interaction between the compilers of earth science data and land-resource planners and decision makers is being recognized.

The five programs of this office are:



Resources Applications Program, Resource and Land Investigations Program, Geography Program, Environmental Impact Analysis Program, and the Earth Resources Observation Systems Program (EROS). Activities and research include urban area studies in several urban centers such as the San Francisco Bay Area, Pittsburgh, Puget Sound, and Denver, land use/land cover mapping to provide baseline maps and statistical data for the U.S., operation of the EROS Data Center at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, preparation of environmental impact statements, and the publication of several bulletins, professional papers, and other reports and articles. Some examples are: "ERTS-1 - A New Window to Our Planet" (Professional Paper 929) "A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data" (Professional Paper 964) "The Environment of South Florida, A Summary Report" (Professional Paper 1011) "Directory to U.S. Geological Survey Program Activities in Coastal Areas 1974-76" (Bulletin 1428) "A Guide to State Programs for the Reclamation of Surface Mined Areas" (Circular 731)


Summary of Research Studies Sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration for which SCS provided assistance Donald G. Fobs* My main purpose this afternoon is to describe several research studies in which the Federal Highway Administration has relied on and received assistance from the Soil Conservation Service. However, in order to provide some background for these studies, I’d like to briefly describe the mission of FftWA and those programs appropriate to the description of these studies, developed to accomplish FHWA’s mission. The Federal Highway Administration is one of eight operating administrations of the Department of Transportation. The Federal Railroad, Aviation, Urban Mass Transportation and Coast Guard being the other modal agencies in the Department. The overall objective of the FHWA is to provide leadership and programs for the development of a highway transportation system that will effectively satisfy national, regional, and local requirement for the movement of people and goods, while maintaining a balance with other nodes of the national transportation system. As in any other enterprise, the role of research and development is to harness existing technology and to create new technology to solve problems encountered. In order to effectively carry out it’s mission the Office of Research has developed a Federally Coordinated Program of Research and Development in highway transportation, which is often referred to as the FCP. The studies I plan to discuss are among some 900 studies that comprise the FCP. The FCP is an array of some 55 research projects directed toward solving the most urgent problems facing local, State and Federal highway officials responsible for the planning location, design and operation of transportation facilities. The FCP was formulated in 1970. The structure of the FCP was developed to provide a framework for both public and private research groups to work in a united approach to the solution of major identifiable problem areas in highway transportation. The major problem areas were classified into categories, of which there are presently nine, with each category divided into projects, presently about 55, and each project divided into tasks. One or more studies are then conducted to accomplish the objectivies of a given task. The overriding emphasis in the FCP coordination in that it is a program that promotes the participation by others based on the concept that the most productive and,efficient method of achieving its goals is to coordinate and complement the research efforts of others. *Chief, Soils and Exploratory Techniques Group Materials Division, Office of Research 99

Category 4 is devoted to improving the performance of presently used a materials and developing new materials for highway construction. One of the projects under Category 4 concerns the development of methods for measuring and improving the performance of soil and rock materials for the construction of highway pavement base courses, subbases and subgrades. Perhaps the oldest method for improving soils for engineering uses is Although lime that of soil treatment with quick lime or hydrated lime. has been used since the end of World War II in highway application, many differences existed in the engineering properties and performance of the altered soil materials treated with various limes. With increasing use of lime stabilized fine-grained soils for pavement construction, necessitated by the depletion of aggregates caused by construction of the Interstate Highway System, a study was undertaken to elucidate those soil and lime characteristics responsible for performance. This study,l' which was conducted by the Portland Cement Association, has two broad objectives. First, to determine the role of magnesium and the relative effectiveness of calcitic limes and dolomitic limes in the stabilization of a wide range of U.S. soils. In addition, the Soil Conservation Service was charged with the task of selecting and obtaining a number of soils representative of major U.S. soil areas and suitable for stabilization with lime. Thirty-five clay soil samples representative of U.S. Soil Series were obtained and treated with hydrated calcitic and dolomitic limes, some of which were obtained from commercial sources and some were manufactured in the laboratory. In all, 14 limes were used in the study. The major criteria for evaluating the lime-soil-water systems was the effects of the properties of the system components on the unconfined compressive strength of compacted specimens. The change in soil strength of compacted specimens provided by lime treatment is often referred to as a soils lime reactivity. The limes used represented different properties produced by factors such as type of kiln used for calcining, burning time, burning temperature, lime type, composition and source of limestone etc. The soils sampled represented differences in the amount and type of clay minerals, amount of amorphous and organic material in the soil, cation exchange capacity and the specific ions occupying exchange sites, specific surface area and techniques used to prepare soil samples prior to lime treatment. The major conclusion of the study was that for all practical purposes either calcitic or dolomitic monohydrate lime was equally effective for treating soils for engineering purposes. Several more detailed conclusions are listed below: 2/

11 Administrative Contract No. DOT-FH-11-8159 "Role of Magnesium in the Stabilization of Soil with Lime" 2/ Report No. FHWA-RD-75-98 "The Role of ?Lagnesium Oxide in Lime Stabilization," Vclume 1, October 1976 100


Mineralogy was a significant factor in strength development. For example, the illite clays were not very reactive with the limes and did not develop as high a compressive strength as the montmorillonite or kaolinite clays.


Soil constituents had a significant effect on the strength development of lime stabilized soils. For example: a.

carbonates as a soil constituent contributed to strength development.


significant amounts of magnesium ions inhibited strength development when carbonates were not a soil constituent


strength development of montorillonite soils increased with cation exchange capacity when magnesium ion or carbonate content were not significant


for illite clays strength development depended primarily on minor soils constituents such as montmorillonite or amorphous silica content


amorphous aluminum oxide soil constituents inhibited strength development of kaolinite clay soils


low strength developed by the Cecil soil was due to the preferential reaction of gibbsite with calcium hydroxide. In addition, the formation of C-S-H gels were not observed with the Cecil soil.


C-S-H gels formed in perference with dolomitic monohydrate lime in the presence of montmorillonite clay constituents that were nonexpandable when glycolated rather than with hydrated calcitic limes.


Calcium silicate hydrate contributed to the compressive strength of soil-lime mixes.


The presence of greater amounts of aluminum ions in kaolinites promoted the formation of ghelenite hydrate that may contribute to strength development.


Noncrystalline, nearly amorphous reaction products, were observed by SEM at the edges of clay sheets, as reticulated network structures on the clay domain sheet and as dense coatings on particles (clay domains). The stronger soil-lime mixes exhibited the denser coatings and reticulated networks.



Greater amounts of crystalline reaction products were present in the soils with the greater strength gains. These products were i d e n t i f i e d a s g h e l e n i t e h y d r a t e , magcesium h y d r o x i d e , c a l c i u m aluminate hydrate, and calcium hemicarboaluminate.


H y d r a t e d c a l c i t i c l i m e s were m o r e e f f e c t i v e i n r e d u c i n g s o i l plasticity than dolomitic monohydrate limes.

Project 4C of Category 4 has as its objective to evaluate various waste products as material for highway construction and maintenance and to develop procedures for their use. One of the tasks in Project 4C is devoted to converting waste resulting from industrial production processes which occur in such quantities so as to constitute a potential source of pollution to the environment. Power plant ashes and waste sulfates are now under this study. Sulfate wastes arise as byproducts from industrial processes of environmental control. For example, approximately 30 million tons of phosphogypsnm w a s t e a r e g e n e r a t e d a n n u a l l y f r o m t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f posphoric acid, 2 million tons of waste sulfate result from the desulfurization of power plants flu gases (it is estimated that by 1980 to 1988, this amount will increase to 100 million tons) and about 1 million tons is generated in the neutralization of acid mine drainage and steel pickling liquiors. SCS’s c h a r g e f o r t h i s s t u d y w a s t o a s s i s t t h e M i d w e s t R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e 2/ in the selection and procurement of soil samples representing major soil series (large area1 extent) within a 100 mile radius of the various 0 Samples of 31 soil series were acquired and sources of sulfate waste. used in a laboratory testing program. The main thrust of the testing program was directed toward evaluating the effects of sulfate waste addition on the unconfined compressive strength of the soils samples. In addition, the effects of sulfate waste, lime/sulfate waste, lime/ fly ash, sulfate waste/cement kiln dust, fly ash/lime, sulfate waste/ cement and sulfate waste/kiln dust lime systems on the strength of the soils were evaluated. The major conclusion of this study 4/ w e r e t h a t s u l f a t e w a s t e a l o n e h a s very little effect on the engineering properties of soil (strength, resistance to wetting-drying or freezing and thawing and shrink-swell potential) i.e., it acts as an inert, fine-grained non-plastic filler. The combination of sulfate waste and lime is an excellent material for increasing the strength of soil; the use of sulfate waste often reduces the amount of lime required for stabilization and increases the rate o f s t r e n g t h d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e u s e o f s u l f a t e waste a l s o p e r m i t s t h e u s e o f byproduct lime (cement kiln dust) for soil stabilization at lesser rates than when byproduct lime is used alone. 31 Administrative Contract No. DOT-FH-11-S515 “Use of Sulfate Waste for Remedial Treatment of Soils” 4/ Report No. FHWA-RD-76-143 “ U s e o f W a s t e S u l f a t e f o r R e m e d i a l Treatment of Soils; Vol 1, -Discussion of Results, August 1976 (in pri 102

The third study in which SCS participated involved the evaluation of chemical compaction aids. Annually, highway construction requires that several hundred million tons of soil be compacted. This study, 5/tonducted by Iowa State University, was directed toward evaluating the effectiveness of various chemicals for increasing soil density for a given mechanical effort, reducing the amount of effort required to obtain a specified density or reducing the amount of water required for compaction. The SCS was charged with assisting the researchers in selecting and obtaining samples of 25 soil series representative of the major soils in the United States. A further constraint was that the series should be representative of a range of clay mineralogies i.e., the number of soil series selected with montmorillonite predominant should be proportional to the amount of montmorillontic soils encountered in highway construction. At the outset it was hoped that a general relationship could be established between the physical, chemical and mineralogical characteristics of the soil and the nature of the chemical compaction aid i.e., acidic chemicals are effective with basic soils, certain classes of chemicals are effective with montmorillonitic soils, etc. However, no consistent relationships could be established indicating that each soil-chemical system had to be evaluated individually. The primary output from this study is the development of simple, rational and rapid methods for evaluating the effectiveness of chemical treatment for improving soil compactability. To date, only a few of the some 30 chemicals tried have demonstrated a degree of effectiveness of any practical significance. In closing, on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration, I’d like to express our sincere appreciation and that of our contractors, Portland Cement Association, Midwest Research Institute and Iowa State University for the cooperation and assistance provided by Drs. Bartelli and McCormack and all the Regional, State and County Soil Scientists of the Soil Conservation Service.

A/ Administrative Contract No. DOT-FH-11-8135, “Chemical Compaction Aids for Fine-Grained Soils”


Soils and $ettlerents:

A Focus for Kesoxrcr Planning

I appreciate the opportunity to be with you for your deliberations this week and to represent the viewpoint of the soil survey user.

And I endorse

your statement, Bill Johnson, about expanding the interchange between soil survey and other disciplines. This afternoon I'll talk with you about soils and human settlements, a focus for resourve planning.

To introduce this I would like .to share with

you a recent experience. A few months ago I visited that famous faming area known as Pennsylvania Dutch country.

It was a Sunday morning--a Xennonite elder v:as talking to

his audience of tourists about the Amish and the Mennonites. He told of their religion, culture, and history.

The elder said that in the 1600's,

because of religious persecution, Xennonite farmers left Germany to take up life where they could worship freely. Eastern Seaboard of North America,

Some came to the colonies of the

The elder said the farmers knew techniques

for productively working the limestone soils of Germany.

They were looking

for these same limestone soils so they could continue to farm the same way. These farmers heard that limestone soil existed in Pennsylvania.


the elder told us an old saying that Mennonites can smell limestone soil! At any rate, they migrated to the area east of the Susquehapna River in what

is now southeastern Pennsylvania and began farming anew. Because of a particular soil, Mennonites settled in Pennsylvania and prospered.


of this particular soil, today there are settlements with picturesque

Notes prepared for presentation by Ida D. Cuthbertson .it the Work Planning . Conference of the Natiowl Cooperative Soil Survey. Orlando, Florida,~ January 31, 1977. l-w


in Pennsylvania;

Because of this particular soil, our national

culture is enriched. I relate this "Bicentenniel ?:inute" because it illustrates how soil has influenced human settlements in the U.S. and our cultural history. I relate this to you because, as a corruwnity planner, I am very much interested in the formation of hunan settlements. There are other examples that relate soils co human settlements: The homestead lands, for example, and the handbill posted in the Swedish railroad station that !:old of soils of North Dakota. Long after the frontier closed, soil continues to influence settlement patterns.

We know only too well how the floodplains have been used, how

the best soils for crops are planted with houses,

(One wonders how many

subdivisions across the country have the word "orchard" in their name.) Industrial parks occupy former cropland.

Highways replace cropped acres, And, as settlements grow,

and render nearby acres useless for farming.

mare agricultural acres are turned over to production of sand, gravel, and crushed rock for more settlements.

This litany is familiar. And we've

heard the response, "Why doesn't someone do something aboui: this?" "Doing something" is what resource planning is all about. In SCS, resource planning refers to activities undertaken to help others to arrive at sound decisions regarding the resoU*C~:s.


and conservation of natural

These technical assistance activities include providing infor-

mation on soil and water resources, flora, and fauna.


Providing technical

assistance wsans giving information on techniques for manipulating the soils to allow satisfactory accommodation of various uses.


The term does

not refer to providing dollars, as it does in some other agencies.


planning assistance is a natural outgrowth of conservation planning assistance that farmers and ranchers receive from SCS.

SCS bases both

resource planning and conservation planning assistance on the recognition that soil is one of the factors that should get early and major consideration when planning for the future. as it is for farming.

This is as true for community development

This unique assistance is available to all people

vho make or influence decisions that disturb soils or change the use of land. Who are the people who make or influence these community development decisions?

They are Land owners, land managers, or government officials

with authority in land matters.

These people are:

Developers Bankers Builders Contractors Land buyers, for both residential and~commercial/industrial


Elected officials of local government: Councilmen, trustees, town selectmen, mayors. Appointed officials of local government: Members of bbards, such as s c h o o l s , recreation, health, planning, parks, or industrial development boards. Heads and staff of local government agencies: Schools, parks, recreation, planning, public works, or health departments, including, of course,. the professional planner.



Members of milticounty boards. Elected and appointed state officials. Heads and staff of state agencies. Officials and staff of national government. Officials and staff of international‘government. Add them up and you have many, many people in the private and public sectors-all with influence or authority over decisions regarding human settlements, the land and its use. For a rmment think about these people who influence these decisions. If you look at the country as a whole, the majority of these people are not professional managers or public administrators. Many serve voluntarily in r;hat we call “after dinner government.”

They are lay people who are

knowledgeable in their own fields of endeavor. but not particularly knowledgeable about soils, which we say is one of these factors that should get early and major consideration in the decisions affecting human settlements and land. These informed, lay people need resource planning assistance. They neec information on soil resources, on manipulating the soils. or reserving soil for specific uses.

They need resource plann~ing assistance to help ensure

a quality environment in which to live, work, and play; assistance to prevent mistakes which can be expensive.

They need this In today’s economy

of scarcity, preventing mistakes is very important in both the public and private sect13rs;


some of th.oSe peoTle'r
Others either

You can help us -

You can help "do something about it." Here are -

some ways you can help to reach these people who influence community and land decisions in the public and private sectors: 1.

Invite these influantial people to join in planning for the soil sur?ey.

Invite them early in the planning process.

it may be easy to accommodate their special needs.

At this stage Because they

are in on the survey planning, they will be primed :o receive resource planning assistance. 2.

Talk to these influential people in lay language. save a thousand words by drawing a picture.

:ven better,

Ne sometimes have

difficulty when we try to explain complex, technical information. Think of the difficulty the listener has in trying to' understand it! 3.

To be helpful we must be understood.

Present facts to these people who influence land decisions and then tell them why these facts are significant.

A planning co*

missioner--a well informed layman-once said to me, "I think it is important that we know about soils when the Commission makes a recommendation on community development.

But when someone tells

me a soil is 'slowly permeable,' I'd like to know how slow is 'slowly '--four hours? Three days? know why this is important.

Two weeks? And I'd like to

And what the consequences are."



here are three ways to Iink resource planning assist.snce and people who

influr;lce decLsior.s about hc.-;ln scttlerents. is also at work.

Interestingly; z reverse process

People who receive resource planning assistance may be your

first supporters vhen you seek funds to accelerate a soil survey. For all your efforts to involve people in planning for a soil survey, to talk in lay terms, to explain the significance for their concerns--for all these efforts you will be rewarded with their highest regard.

I am happy

to share with you the praise that local officials and conmunity planners accorded you last Spring.

I wish you cotild have received it firsthand.

The occasion was the joint wseting of the American Society of Planning Officials and the American Institute of Planners. At this meeting USDA had a large exhibit, including one display highlighting the prime farmland mapping program.

The planners were very enthusiastic to learn oi this.

Each wanted to know when County X was scheduled for mapping.

In talking

with the planners who stopped at the exhibit, I took an unofficial poll. Many planners know of SCS and the soil survey. An even higher percentage of planning students do, which bodes well for the future. several hundred planners, many of them offered compliments.

While talking to They know the

soil survey as a basic reference of natural resource information, a very useful reference for planning at the comznunity, regional, or state level.



::e resourx planners'are grateful to you too, sources of information.

Your surveys are unique

AS a measure of their usefulness you may recall

that many of today's speakers refer to the disciplines and the public who use these unique documents.

Your surveys are basic to our assistance.

5Jith your efforts and ours, and those of the developer and banker and builder and goverwwnt official, we can look to the day when the soil always receives early and major consideration in planning for human settlements. Thank you.





Introduction The cartographic unit>of the Soil Conservation Service has purchased, installed, and is in the process of checking out the Advanced Mapping System (A'IS). The AMS was designed to produce any map needed by the Soil Conservation Service. Maps such as base, topographic, soil, and interpretive maps will be digitized, stored together with associated tabular data in computer format and then processed, analyzed, and retrieved as desired. Primary emphasis will be placed on digitizing soil data from published soil surveys, but any line data can be digitized such as land use, ownership, or any other type of information. Base maps will be prepared for interpretive maps or any other type of thematic map. The final product of the digitized soils and base maps will be different types of interpretive maps. status The hardware for the AMS was installed in February 1976. All hardware is working as required. The system is in operation but not in production. At the present time, we are debugging the software and looking for more efficient ways of doing different types of operations. The software commands are all complete, and we are working on more efficient commands and way of editing and entering symbols at a greater speed. Mapping Applications The maps generated by the system such as river basin, watershed, geology, resource conservation and development, or any other type of thematic maps, will be used for planning purposes by Soil Conservation Service personnel. Topographic maps will be prepared by digitizing at the stereoplotter, editing, and then final drafting on the system. To help you better understand the capability of AMS, some of the potential uses for the system are:



Base Naps - The following kinds of operations involving base maps can be performed by AMS without manual redrafting: a.

Drafting of base maps for displaying resource data or interpretations, retaining selected culture or drainage features.


Enlarging or reducing the scale of the original map while retaining proper line widths. If a photographic enlargement or reduction were made, it would result in line widths either wider or narrower than desirable.


Elimination of specified types of data when maps are reduced. For instance, we can eliminate secondary roads or drains which would,not be possible with a photographic reduction.


Construction of a series of maps of the same area, each map showing a single kind of culture or drainage feature.


Joining of selected portions of two or more base maps to form a composite base mapisuch as watershed map involving two or more counties or a soil survey area involving portions of counties.


Joining an entire area of two or more counties and on the composite map showing selected culture or drainage features such as a baswmap for an RC&D area.

The following kinds of data can be stored for a base map, each on a separate layer that can be used alone or in combination with other layers. The user may specify the data desired such as: (1) Political boundaries; national, state, county;township, city, village, other (2) Boundaries of water areas (3) Rivers or streams of different size and classification (4) Highways or roads of different classification (5) Cities or towns of different population (6) Railroads (7) Project measure locations (8) S e c t i o n l i n e s


(9) Registration marks, longitude latitude, state plane coordinates Base map data will be digitized principally from the 1:24,000 USGS map series although other controlled bases will be used as reauired to fill needs identified by SCS offices. 2.

Interpretive and resource maps - The primary capability of AKS is the preparation of various kinds of interpretive and resource maps based on data encoded into the system. Several examples are as follows: a.

Maps of areas showing specified percentage of slope or other individual soil properties


Maps showing areas of prime farmland or other specified level of soil limitation or potential


Maps showing the degree of limitation, potential, or productivity of an entire area of a town, watershed, or county


Maps of water resource data including watershed, river basin boundaries, and so forth. (1) Maps delineating only those units greater: than or less than specified size (2) Maps delineating only those ~units with specified water quality, drainage, recreational, or flood control needs


Maps of vegetative cover, range site, or ecosystem maps


Topographic Maps - Topographic maps will be digitized at the time the contours are being plotted. All roads, streams, and other cultural information will be digitized along with the contours and cross-sections. These data will be used as input to other computer programs or plotted as a finished contour map.


Status Maps - From digitized base maps with county boundaries or boundaries of other administrative or project areas; progress or status maps can be prepared. Once such a file is created, the status map can be updated at a later date by merely programming changes that have occurred since the file was last updated.


Acreage Determination - For any map unit displayed on resource, interpretive or status maps, AMS will automatically measure acreage.


AEIS Configuration The AMS located at Hyattsville, Maryland, is configured around four subsystems. Each subsystem independently performs one or more operations. The system is made up of the scanning, identification, e d i t , and drafting subsystems. 1.

Scanning subsystem - This device automatically scans and digitizes a sheet that has any type of lines. The lines can be contours or boundaries. Depending on the density of lines, the scanning time varies from two to eight minutes per soil map sheet.

2. Identification subsystem - Data from the scanner will be transferred to the identification subsystem. The identifying symbols for the areas, whether they be soil areas or some other type of area, will be entered at the keyboard. All lines will be identified in an interactive environment and will be tagged in the data base. Character recognition is not yet part of the system. 3.

Edit subsystem - The edit subsystem has a high-speed ball point pen plotter which will produce a plot of the map. The plotted map will then be given to an editor for a thorough color check. Errors will be marked on an overlay and sent back. The corrections will be made to the data base through the graphic display screens (CRT’S). After the maps have been edited and corrected, processing will take place to: (a) Join sheets together or section a portion of an area out of a larger area, (b) Adjust the information to the correct base, (c) S c a l e , (d) Prepare the interpretations, (e) Prepare color separations, and (f) Report areas in acres or hectares as required.


Automatic drafting subsystem - After the map has been completed, the final map will be drafted on the automatic drafting machine using a beam of light to expose photographic film for a high quality, finished product. The map can be plotted at any scale, with any line width desired.



Remote units - In addition to these four subsystems, we have installed remote units at each cartographic unit. Manual d i g i t i z e r s , computers with 64K memory, and edit screens are used to prepare base and thematic data tapes for all Service programs that are plotted on the automatic drafting subsystem.

AMS Capabilities The system, as it is designed, does not have any analyzing capabilities. The system is a simple input and output device. Analyzing capabilities will be added to the system after SCS defines their needs for this capability. At the present time many different agencies are working on computer programs to analyze data on different overlays such as topography, land use, vegetation, climate, land ownership, etc. All of these programs are different and require a different data input format, so they are not presently compatible. We are working with USGS on establishing compatibility in our computer mapping programs. The output capabilities of the system are a high quality, photoplotted, finisheh map at any s c a l e , showing required detail, with necessary color seoarations.


The accuracy of the system is based upon the accuracy of the input uroduct The s o i l s information that we will be digitizing has been surveyed and mapped at a scale of 1:15,840, l:ZO,OOO, 1:24,000, a n d 1:31,000. The scanning system is highly accurate in digitizing the location of these lines from the input map. These soils lines will be adjusted to fit a 1:24,000 USGS base map. All data for the soils and base information will be filed at 1:24,000. Finished maps can be produced at any smaller scale and be very accurate. Since the system is not in production, we do not have accurate cost data. The system was designed to digitize 80 average size soil surveys per year and produce interpretive maps for these soil surveys. At this time, we estimated that it willccost approximately $3,000 per county to digitize the soils data and then approximately $200-$400 each to produce an interpretive map. This is a line segment-type system. All lines coordinates at the beginning and ending point the line. The soil symbols on either side of with the line. With this data base structure, polygons and cells for other types of computer


are filed away with and all coordinates along the line are also stored we are able to produce programs.

Can AMS Prepare Press-ready Negatives for the NCSS Program? The answer to this question is yes! Procedures and costs were requested by Dr. Flach. They are being The proposed procedure will likely be as follows: prepared. 1.

The state shall prepare the soil map compilation manuscript in pencil as they are now doing for the new procedure method;


The cartographic unit shall contract for the culture, drainage, and soil line and name overlays,


The culture, drainage, and soil line overlays will be scanned and processed, and then the soil symbols and names will be entered at the keyboard.


An edit plot will be drawn and sent to the state for edit, and


The cartographic unit will make the corrections.


The final negative will be drafted on AMS and ready for the press.

In conclusion, a group of Washington office staff members representing They shall all SCS programs are studying the application of AMS. recoormend the priority areas of use for AMS. Placing soils data into a data base shall provide the first building block of a total computerized data system for more efficiently carrying out Service programs. Our efforts to make AMS compatible with other agencies systems will reduce duplication of effort in mapping programs.


Report of the Ecological Sciences and Technology Division William J. Lloyd*

Ladies and gentlemen: I cbnsider i t a p r i v i l e g e a s w e l l a s a p l e a s u r e This is the to represent my division at this work planning conference. s e c o n d s u c h c o n f e r e n c e f o r ne as I attended two years ago here at Orlando. Some of you I know well. Many of you I have met once or twice before. Some of you are new to me. I am hoping I can gain a better acquaintance with each of you in the next few days. Our prime interest is in soil interpretations. Other speakers have mentioned that a soil survey does not end with putting lines on a map. We look on the soils map as being only the skeleton of the survey. Through the development of needed interpretations we put the meat on those bones. If you have an interest in soil interpretations, it follows that you must have a concern for soil survey design. This brings us to a situation much like the one posed by the question of which come first, the chicken or the egg. Soil scientists may say, “tell us what kind of a soil survey you want and we will produce it for you.” The plant scientists turn it around, “ p r o d u c e a s o i l s u r v e y a n d w e w i l l f i g u r e o u t h o w t o u s e i t . ” This gives us a lead and follow situation. Soil scientists must involve the plant scientists in the design of the soil survey. Similarly, plant scientists must involve themselves. Unilateral actions can not be expected to produce desirable results. An earlier speaker, Dr. Tefertiller, mentioned that because of the shrinking world in which we live it is essential that we know the potential for each soil for any possible use or crop. Soil potential has two parts or considerations. The first is the actual potential of the soil. The second is the knowledge of all limitations, hazards, and problems with which the user must deal and the understanding of what steps must be taken to overcome, sidestep, or compensate for those limitations. The first consideration, the potential, is relatively easy to determine. The second consideration, coping with the limitations, is not so easy. As we crop or use land for any particular purpose, a fund of experience S0me data will be developed. Our task is to document those experiences. users will make serious mistakes of which we should take note. Other users will synthesize new techniques or procedures which will prove successful. These we must note as well. It should not be necessary to reinvent the wheel more than a few times.

*Plant Sciences Division, SCS, Washington, D. C. 117

Hopefully, in a few years we will be able to array all soils in terms of their suitability for any crop or use. In the United states, we have soils which have forest cover, yet have a woodproducing potential of less than one half cubic meter per hectare per year (approximately seven cubic feet per acre per year). Other soils have a wood-producing potential of twenty cubic meters per hectare per year (approximately 300 cubic feet per acre per year). With such broad spread in potential there is a corresponding differential in economic opportunity. A nation wedded to the principle of free enterprise can not ignore such differential in potential. Obviously we must make full use of soil survey interpretations to assure maximum inputs of labor and money to grow wood on the most productive lands and minimum inputs on the less productive. Many low-producing lands might well be dedicated to purposes other than wood production. The recently completed prime farm lands inventory has stirred up a great deal of interest. I have been fascinated by the responses of the public to that inventory. The response indicates a quickening of public interest in land. We must recognize that a generation of Americans has grown up who have not gone “over the river and through the woods to grandfather’s house.” A modern rendering of that song would have the singers mking Delta airlines or the Boston subway to grandfather’s house. An urban society can not be expected to have emotional ties to the land as do people who worked on farms in their youth. Perhaps the prime land inventory has helped build an awareness that milk is not produced by a supermarket and 2 x 4’s are not produced by a lumberyard. Hopefully, the public recognizes that we can no longer take the abundance of land as granted. The Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 required the Forest Service to make an assessment of the nation’s forest and range resources and develop a program for the conservation and development o f those resources. The assessment was prepared under severe limitations of time and we must compliment the Forest Service for the comprehensive document which they produced. We are critical of the assessment in that no real attention was given to the National Cooperative Soil Survey as a base for planning. We feel that no assessment of natural resources is complete without,full consideration of soil potentials and limitations as can be drawn from the soil survey. In 1966 three agencies (Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and Extension Service) entered into a tri-partite agreement setting up guidelines for the forestry work of the Department. That agreement is now being amended to include the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service as a co-signer. We are asking that the amended version recognize the soil survey as a basis for all land use and I management planning.



I l o o k f o r w a r d t o v i s i t i n g w i t h e a c h o f y o u d u r i n g t h e renainder of the week. I will appreciate receiving any thoughts you might have as to how the Ecological Sciences and Technology Division can work more closely with you.


IMPORTANT FARNLAND INVENTORY Raymond I. Dideriksen* A recently completed Potential Cropland Study by the Inventory and Monitoring Division reveals that about 250 million acres of our 400 million cropland base is prime. Only 24 million acres of land in other uses but readily available for conservation to cropland is prime. A very small acreage, indeed for the U.S. Yes, there are more acres of land, about 87 million, that could be converted but not without invironmental c o s t s . Between 1967 and 1975, 2 million acres were urbanized each year in the United States and nearly 1 million acres a year were converted to lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. Another 12 million acres are currently being held for urban use. As the food situation has gained attention, there had been a growing concern for the continuing conversion of the country’s best agricultural land into other uses. From the rural couple in South Dakota who fought to prevent a borrow pit on their small acreage of corn ground to the county officials in Long Island, New York, working desperately to save some of the remaining vegetable farms from development we hear a similar message. Too many acres to top quality farmland are being converted to other uses. a With this settine it is not difficult to understand whv one of the Division’s activyties, started in 1975 as a pilot effoit involving 122 counties in the U.S., is rapidly demanding more of the Soil Conservation Service and the Department’s attention. It is the Important Farmland This inventory identifies, on a map, prime and unique farmland Inventory. and additional farmlands of state and local importance. Prime farmland is land best suited for producing food, feed, forage, f i b e r , and, oilseed crops. It is the land that is most productive; requires the least energy, fertilizer, and other inputs; has the fewest environmental hazards; and returns optimum profits to the farmer. Criteria for prime farmland are based on soil survey data. Unique farmland is land used for producing specific high-value food and fiber crops. It is land other than prime, but is still very important because it has a special combination of site, soil, and climatic conditions that make it highly suited for growing a particular crop. An example of this “one-of-a-kind” combination is the tart cherry area of States are responsible for determining which unique farmlands Michigan. are to be inventoried. Presentation by R. I. Dideriksen, Director, Inventory and Monitoring Division, SC’S, at the NCSS Conference, Orlando, Florida. January 31, 1977


Criteria for additional farmlands of state and local importance are determined by agricultural experts at the state and local levels. In general, farmland of statewide importance includes other lands suited for cropping while those of local importance may include additional lands that make up a viable farm unit or farm community. Thus, to make an important farmland inventory we need soil survey, land use, and socioeconomic data. During 1976, t w o s i g n i f i c a n t p o l i c i e s f o r r u r a l l a n d s w e r e i s s u e d t h a t will support the soil survey and the important farmland inventory effort. USDA has developed a policy to advocate the protection of prime Lands from premature or unnecessary conversion to other uses, especially those prime lands threatened by conversion to irreversible land uses. Secondly, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has recognized prime and unique farmland as an important part of our national heritage. They have interpreted existing policy to preserve an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice to include highly productive farmlands. As a result, a l l f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s a r e t o a s s e s s t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e i r proposed actions in regard to prime and unique farmlands. Most gratifying is the awareness of the general public, local officials, a n d s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s t h a t t h e r e a r e i n d e e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n l a n d q u a l i t y and that the most productive soils need to be retained for agriculture. Si nc e major criteria for defining prime and other important farmlands are based primarily on soil surveys, these significant actions and attitudes will strongly benefit soil survey. For example, New York has recently passed legislation to provide funds for soil surveys, to, and I quote, “accelerate the inventory of prime lands.” Plans are to complete nearly 1300 high priority important farmland inventories by 1981 and monitor them every 5 years to determine changes in use. I selected the important farmland inventory for discussion to emphasize how much soil surveys are needed for our overall land inventory and monitoring program. Soil surveys with interpretations are powerful tools in land use planning; but where combined with other natural, social and economic resource data they become even more useful and meaningful to It is this those that must make land use planning and policy decisions. latter point that sets the role of the land inventory and monitoring program apart from the soil survey program. It also shows their mutual supportiveness. Your efforts to accelerate soil survey mapping, step up publication rates, and improve interpretations are demanding of your staff and soil scient i s t s ’ t i m e . Yet, there is clear evidence that the role of the soil scientist will continue to expand in the years ahead. As we proceed to develop and implement inventory and monitoring activities, your support is needed. Let me list some of the opportunities that I see for the iormediate f u t u r e .


1. We should work together to assure that a suite of controlled base maps are available for soil survey and other essential inventories. The use of orthophoto base sheets for soil survey will greatly aid in sampling techniques and future digitizing of soil surveys. We need financial support for the cost-sharing program with USGS to produce i n t e r m e d i a t e s c a l e rraps at scales of 1:50,000 and l:lOO,OOO. In addition to their use for generalized soil maps and interpretations and the inventory of important farmlands, they can be used for river basin studies, IX&D projects, watershed projects, and other maps for conservation operations and related activities. Other agencies, too, are involved in the use of these controlled base maps. BLM has ordered a large number in the Western States in a quadrangle format, The Fish and Wildlife Service is planning their use wetland inventories and USGS will use the base to display land use formation. The Topographic Division, USGS, has received OMB approval of their FY 1978 budget. It includes the full amount requested for the cost-share intermediate scale base map program based on the projected needs of SCS, BLM, and others. 2.

Every soil survey completed and published makes our job easier. However, some of the surveys identified as completed do not have a soil survey of the urban areas. These are needed. Soil surveys need to be updated on the Conservation Needs Inventory statistical sample sites. These sites or a subset of these sites wer used for several inventories and studies. Might the same 2 percent e. sample we need to obtain reliable county resource data be used in a followup program for soil survey that would tell you when a completed soil survey should be recorrelated, reinterpreted, or remapped? This might be considered an extension of your sampling procedure to validate quality of map compilation. How might this work? Well, a simple form completed by a district conservationist might provide the test for adequacy of interpretations. Soil scientists monitoring the sample sites might signal the need for updating correlation or remapping If this was adopted as a continuing activity, both programs should benefit and the impact on soil scientists’ time would be minimal for any one year.


Tremendous progress has been made in soil survey interpretations. You are developing a more positive approaceh for presenting soil behavior predictions with soil potentials. In doing so we cannot overlook those interpretations that others have used and will continue to use for their programs. The national study of prime farmland strongly suggests that the agricultural land capability classification system is not adequately correlated in some parts& the U.S. For example, some states indicate that a part of their Class VI soils were prime farmland. we feel that upgrading the system should be given high priority in soil


Many states have laws requiring the use of soil surveys for tax assessment of agricultural land. Some are bssed on agricultural capability classes and others on the productivity indexes. For environmental impact statements, data on the productivity and invironmental tradeoffs of substituting prime lands for other lands are needed. We urge, as a first step, that national guidelines be developed for preparing productivity indexes so that this needed information can be added to the soil interpretations. 4.

We should cooperate to cost-share the task of digitizing all of the 900 plus soil surveys that are completed. Nap separations are needed for nearly every one of these surveys if they are to be digitized automatically. This task must be done unless we contract to hand digitize these surveys, a costly effort. To show our interest, we have made arrangements with the Cartographic Division to digitize 18 soil survey areas. Host of these also required us to contract for map separations. When this is done we will have firm data on costs and time. We urge that strategies be developed soon to digitize all completed surveys and future soil surveys. Finably, let me say that soil survey information is the first important key to an understanding of our environment. If we are bold enough to move forward to inventory other related resources and proceed to interpret the interrelationships, we can truly provide the tools needed for conservation planning, resource use and development, community development, and environmental improvement.


Soil Classification and Correlation John E. McClelland Director, Soil Classification and Correlation, SCS During the past several years we have accelerated our soil survey program for the most part by contributions in both money and personnel from other agencies and units of government. It is our goal to have modern published soil surveys for the nation by the end of the century. The Soil Classification and Correlation portion of the program is being accelerated by increased responsibilities at the state and technical service centers as well as by increased cooperator inputs. On July 1, 1976 there were 1382 soil scientists in the SCS of which 22 were in the Washington Office, 47 at the technical service centers and the laboratories, 169 in state offices, and 1154 in the field. In addition about 41 technicians support the soil survey program. In the cooperative effort federal cooperators have 160 soil scientists, and there are about 450 soil scientists employed using nonfederal funds. We are now Since our last meeting, Soil Taxonomy has been published. working on improving it. Several proposals for amendments are being considered, many of which concern subgroups that are provided for but without complete.definitions. The revision of the Soil Survey Manual is continuing. We hope to have a final revised draft circulated by the end of 1977 and will publish it as soon as cotrnnents are received and editing is completed. We are continuing to have revised portions reviewed by cooperators. The National Soils Handbook is gradually being developed. When completed it will replace the soil survey memorandum series. For some parts of the handbook, drafts have been circulated and comments incorporated into them. Some of these are now in effect. Much of the rest of the handbook is being circulated for review or is being prepared. The National Soils Handbook deals with policy and its application or the application of procedures that will change from time to time. The Soil Survey Nanual spells out basic procedures for making soil surveys anywhere. It is a popular book and has been reprinted every few years. The National Soils Handbook is being printed in loose leaf form. In this form amendments can be inserted easily and new sections added. It is intended that all cooperators in the national cooperative soil survey will receive copies.


SOIL SURVEY INTERPRETATIONS DIVISION D o n a l d E. McCormack Director, Soil Survey Interpretations Division This Division is concerned with the application and use of soil surveys. It is apparent that this conference is giving increasing attention to this subject. Major activities of the division will include implementing the soil potential concept, establishing a systematic collection of soil performance data, soil interpretations for minimum tillage a n d w a s t e d i s p o s a l , and continued study of improved procedures for the publication of soil surveys. Soil potentials provide a vehicle for presenting more fully what is known about soils than soil limitations or any other approach now used. They p e r m i t u s t o g e t a r o u n d t h e n e g a t i v e , nonuse a s p e c t s o f s o i l l i m i t a t i o n s resulting from the tendency to assume that soils having severe limitations could not be used. Soil potentials represent in a positive sense the quality or suitability of soils when feasible modern technologies are used in maximize performance. Performance or production levels that car. be achieved using such technologies and the costs of these practices are part of the process of developing soil potentials. Also included is the identification of continuing limitations or maintenance problems after feasible practices are applied. We intend to take the actions necessary to institute soil potentials in the near future. We have been discussing and debating the issues long enough, and it is time to proceed. A Washington office committee representing affected disciplines is developing a policy statement and a very general set of guidelines. A systematic procedure for recording soil performance is required to support the soil potential procedure. Actually it has always been necessary in order to verify soil interpretations, but we have never established the methodologies for a nationwide system except for the soil-woodland and soil-range site studies. An attempt was made 2 or 3 years ago to institute such a system. T h e p r o p o s a l w a s f a v o r a b l y r e c e i v e d , with many comments to the effect that it has been badly needed for a long time. On the other hand, many states commented that a great deal of effort would be required and that the staffs were already overloaded. We will attempt to institute procedures that can be followed in states at a pace they consider appropriate. We h a v e b e e n v a r y l a t e i n d e v e l o p i n g a d e q u a t e s o i l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r m i n i m u m tillage, e s p e c i a l l y n o - t i l l . It is apparent that the success of no-till for corn and other crops is dependent on soil properties and we n e e d a c o n c e r t e d e f f o r t t o d e v e l o p a p p r o p r i a t e s o i l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . we also want to study carefully the soil interpretations that we should be We solicit your making for disposal of various kinds of wastes in soils. proposals in both of these areas.


The Division will continue the example set by Dr. Bartelli in developing new procedures to facilitate the publication of soil surveys. As a result of the acceleration of publications made possible by new p r o c e d u r e s , the time between the completion of mapping and publication is progressively being reduced. A review in 1973 indicated that the time lag averaged 5.5 years then. Recent projections indicate that the lag will be down to 3 years in FY 1978 and about 2 years in FY 1979.


Soil Survey Investigations Division Raymond B. Daniels Director, Soil Survey Investigations Division

The transfer of Soil Survey Investigation Specialists to the Technical Service Center will be completed by July, 1977. Many details of the kind of work these specialists will be doing needs to be worked out with the Directors of the Service Centers.

Some of the men have 15 to 20 years

experience in field research and we do not want them doing work that can be handled by less experienced individuals. If the present plans of the Soil Conservation Service and the individuals in the field phases of Soil Survey Investigations are not changed, we will have only two experienced field men in the field field positions by July, 1977.

One of our major projects is to find and employ qualified field

men for these positions.

It is preferred that the individuals filling these

positions have academic training through the Ph.D. level.


Soil Survey Operations Division Donald E. McCormack Acting Director, Soil Survey Operations Division The principle function of this Division deals with the management of soil surveys. Work planning, scheduling, inspections, techniques, and budgeting are major activities. Through these activities, we attempt to maximize the resources available for making soil surveys and to get the most out of the resources available. We are giving emphasis to identifying the needs of the soil survey for funds and personnel, preparing careful justifications, and following through so that these needs are properly expressed in the budget proposals of SCS and USDA. Success in these efforts will assure continuing support for completion of the soil survey of the nation. Currently being studied is a revision in the content of soil survey work plSnS. This study will consider the need for careful evaluations of the objectives of each soil survey to serve as a basis for certain specifications that must be established prior to the start of the survey, especially the scale and the minimum size of delineations of contrasting soils. We believe it is appropriate for these objectives to be stated in rather specific terms in soil survey work plans. Also, the minimum size of delineations should also be specified. We would welcome your proposals for other revisio that should be included. P The outlines and formats for soil survey inspections of states will be reconsidered. It appears that they ways with a thorough evaluation of means to improve which should be the main purpose of the inspections. should be available so that there is time to consider of key importance.

(formerly appraisals) may interfere in some soil surveys in states, Sufficient flexibility in depth those issues

The Division works closely with the scheduling of soil surveys for publication and maintaining accurate dates in the CASPUSS schedule. One of the challenges is to schedule the completion of soil surveys so that the text and the maps are ready for publication at about the same time. We are steadily improving this coordination. Beginning in FY 1978, we intend to release to the field a schedule for the publication of soil surveys that indicates those surveys that will actually be published. in the fiscal year. Unfortunately, it has never before been possible to do this. Our so-called soil survey publication schedule has heretofore been misleading as it was a list of those surveys for which the text manuscript would be sent to GPO during the fiscal year. Many of the surveys listed were not published within two years of the time the text was submitted to GPO.


Soil mapping is now completed in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Naryland, a n d Delaware, a n d i s n e a r i n g c o m p l e t i o n i n s e v e r a l o t h e r s t a t e s . A s states are completed, we intend to shift funds and personnel to other states where the work is not so far advanced. If this is not done the overall effort nationwide will gradually decrease. We are developing guidelines for analyses of workloads and staffing of soil scientists in states and administrative after field mapping is completed. The soil science discipline must continue to be properly represented in SCS activities.




Committee Nwnber 1 - Modernizing Soil Surveys Charges : 1.

Evaluate the magnitude of the problem and explore economical means for upgrading published soil sumeys.


Develop and/or cause to be developed, and assemble models for soil formation and other eectlons of published soil surveys that can be fed into Linolex systems for modular writing. Models should also incLude sections dealing with both farm and nonfarm soil potential discussions, and soil treatment of wastes and other environmental impacts of soil use.


Identify methods for applying graphic and tabular display systems to soil survey interpretations.

4. Develop formats for soil survey text manuscripts for use in the publication of soil surveys of different Orders (I-V). This

could be done to meet the specific objectives where one land use predominates, or by Land Resource Areas.

Introduction: Four subcommittees were established to handle each of the above charges. Committee work was done largely by correspondence. Reports were written and circulated to participants. The chairman prepared a preliminary overall report from material submitted by the subcommittee chairman. These reports and recommendations were reviewed and amended at this Work Planning Conference. The summary of recommendations is followed by a discussion from the floor. Recommendations : A.

Upgrade Published Surveys. 1.

Adopt the following four category definitions for upgrading published soil surveys. a. Category 1.

(1) Mapping units (delineations)are not adequate by today’s standards. 132

The mapping units cannot be interpreted ~to meet~~current ne lie surveys that~ fa~ll~ in this category require a new compleQ survey. category 2.



(1) Mapping units (delineations) are adequate but are not on a

photographic background.

(2) The napping units can be interpreted to meet current needs In this category the soil lines would be transferred to a new photographic base by a soil scientist who is familiar with the area. With some field checkins the soil maDs can be Dreuared in a’ fraction of the time reauired to remap the area. ;fhe names bf the map units in the “old” surrey could be used and soil interpretations selected that match the old napping units. Recorrelation and use of new map unit names nay be prefsrred in many surveys. Publish a supplemental soil report containing new revised soil maps, text, and tables. c. Category 3. (1) Most mapping units are adequate but some are inadequate by today’s standards. (2) Most mapping units can be interpreted but some need remapping to interpret for current needs. The surveys in this category include areas that wsre upped on B broad 0 scale. Thus, some mapping units may include such an array of soils that they cannot be interpreted for current user needs. If the land use in these areas is changing and large areas sre involved, consideration should be given to supplementing the mapping and amending the correlation. A supplemental report would be published containing the maps of that part on which supplemental mapping was done, updated interpretations and any new interpretations that were needed. d.

Category 4. (1) Mapping units we adequate by today’s standards. (2) The napping units can be interpreted to meet current needs.

Use the soil map and mapping units as published and upgrade the survey by upgrading the interpretations and issuing a supplemental soil report. 2.

Develop procedures~for evalu$ng ~$_ @lished soil survey as to UPgrading needs and make these a part of the National Soils Handbook.

3. Consider upgrading needs along with orginal field work when setting annual priorities at state and national levels.



Modular Writing. 1.


Charge regional committees to devzlop soil formation section models for one land resource or geographic area in each Land Resource Region.

Display System. 1.

The Resource and Management Information System (RAMIS) Task Force be asked to explore the possibility of a computerized data file as the principal repository for soil data. The RAMIS Task Force is currently examining SCS’s data needs.


Encourage states to take action to assure that local planning for soil surveys involves major potential users and that all surveys include interpretations to meet foreseeable needs.

3. The number of figures in a published soil survey be related to their quality and effectiveness rather than an arbitrary limited number. 4. Soil Conservation Service prepare a soil graphics notebook of

examples and approximate costs to be distributed to each state.


Manuscript Format for Soil Survey Orders.


2. E.

Permit maximum flexibility in manuscript form and content by using existing formats as examples with variations justified ‘by needs of users. Use tables related to expected needs of users whether generated by the computer or not. Discontinue charge Number 4 of Committee Number 1.

Other Recosxnendations. 1.

The committee “Modernizing Soil Surveys” be continued.

Discussion and Comments: Committee 1. Flach - We need national guidelines for upgrading soil surveys. Rourke - We want regional input into these guidelines. Flach - Okay to get regional input, then coordinate at national level before states start to evaluate a survey for upgrading.


Naphao - Develop guidelines on national level, then send out for comments. McCormack - Ten year8 ago, there was a study to make use of older surveys. Refer to this. Flach - The gray area is between "survey adequate" and "survey not adequate." Whiteside - Don't downgrade some of the old surveys. Look at these old surveys objectively. Fenton - Let feedback from users guide us. This is what Iowa is doing in deciding whether to remap. Cuthbertson - Ask the user whether the survey is adequate. Cockowski - Can we live with the lines being off when transferring line maps to a photobase? Whiteside - Experience shows the lines "fit remarkably well." Warn the users that the lines are off a little. Fuchs - Techniques of detetihing survey adequacy will need to be variable by categories.

Flach - We will. be forced to look at all the surveys. If

recorrelation is needed, it should be done. Dement - Don’t wait until the end of survey work. We should be doing this now.

Nichols - Test these four categories on the old TVA surveys.

FlEch - Put this in the committee report. Flach - We are concerned about moving personnel. Don't transfer knowledgeable people until the recorrelation is completed. Wilding - Okay.

As long as we don't delay their promotion.

Flach - Priority of needs should be considered. =pping.)

(Remapping vs new

McCormack - Use ADP to do the task of renaming mapping units. Stout - Use the mapping unit use file in upgrading interpretations in old surveys. Wilding - We rpag not be able to establish the composition of some napping units without going back to recheck mapping. We need to design techniques to fit the survey. (Example: Different for Order V survey than Order II)

Dideriksen - Evaluating the old surveys can serve several needs if we design the procedure properly. Whiteside - We average 3 man months of' field time in renaming and describing soils in an average survey upgrade. Martin - Setting priorities should not be done just by SW and not just by soil scientists. Be sure there is total input, from user through the top administrators. Subcommittee IB. Flach - After you get the first couple of models, the rest would go quickly. Why not develop models for all Land Resource Areas? Fuchs - Too many resource areas to ask regional committees to prepare one for each. Touchet - Why not by Land Resource Regions? Do a rcpresentaive resource area for each of these regions. Subcommittee 1C. If 8011 scientists were better writers, we would have fewer problems.

McClelland -

There is a limit to how much we can innovate aad still retain the benefits of automation. Leaving format open leads to problem with material in manuscripts. We don't want to cut off new ideas, though.

McC0nuack -

Fenton - IA work plans, agree to a format that will not change during the survey. FuZhS - This committee did not consider a writing format as much as display. Grossman - Are

people iA EXteASiOA

involved with thi.S?

Owen8 - Use of visual aids to explain the survey might be better. Flach - Might cut the publication to the bare bone and on local publications. Owens -



Might consider having more people from the Extension Service on these committees.

Rust - Whm wil.l. we stop printing soil ourveys? With computers we have the capability to produce many displays. We must be able to serve the users.

r”lach -

We are concerned about the cost of publications.

R. Johnson - Cut to the minimum the nunber of publications, but a cookbook of what could be generated and let th? user tell us what he wants and let him pay for it. Flach - Laws require that we make surveys and publish them. McClelJmd - If you don’t publish, how will the general public get this informationi Flach - Extra copies don’t cost much, except storage charges. R. Johnson - We don’t need more studies on formt. Recently we had a Task Force which related in part to users needs and now we are back at the old stereotype. Subcommittee lD. Li.&- Did the committee consider the format of the published soil survey or formats of certain sections? Dirking - Formats for sections in different order surmgs. Naphau - Present models adopted for Orders I and II surveys are inadequate for Orders III, IV and V. The use of these models is complicated when you have a mixture of different orders in one survey.


Wilding - Computers are good for canned introductions, etc. By doing this for all parts of a soil sumey, we are removing the opportunity of a soil scientist to write. This is going to make the survey technically sterile. Parts of the manuscript should be handwritten. It was moved and seconded that the conferenc a accept Committee 1 report as amended. The motion carried. Recorder:

J. C. Powall


*E. A. Naphan +W. D. Nettleton F. F. Peterson ‘J. C. i’owall ti4arvi.n Meier G. H. Simnssn R. M. Smith E. E. voss D. S. Way XJ. M. Williams K. K. Young

Committee Members ?3. T. Birdwell +E. J. Ciolkosz - Vice Chairman *I. D. Cuthbertson “4. W. Fuchs - Chairman R. H. Gilbert R. 0. Googins G. L. Decker C. G. Johnson 'R. '4. Johnson *D. E. McCsmck - Advisor *Attendauce at conference



NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK-PLANNING CONFERENCE OF THE COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY January 31 - February 4, 1977 Orlando, Florida Committee #2 - Improving Soil Survey Techniques CHARGES 1.

Explore ways of improving field mapping operations, legend design and soil mapping to increase efficiency and accuracy. Study the job of updating late "line-map" surveys with remote sensing techniques and a minimum of field work.


Identify problems related to soil survey techniques and formulate plans to solve.


Summarize activities of working groups of International Society of Soil Science on soil information systems and on applications of remote sensing for work planning conference.


Explore ways for using ADP in correlation process.

Charge No. 1 The committee was split as to the value of attempting to update late "line-map" surveys with or without using remote sensing techniques. Factual information about experience using remote sensing techniques for updating did not come to the attention of the committee. Comnents regarding the value of updating ranged from: --we are ahead if we redo the entire survey, --useful and reduce the amount of field work needed to remap, --we should recognize their value and utilize them if remapping is not essential, --have value and can be updated at much lower cost than complete remapping. Some late line-map surveys are being completely remapped, others are being updated using various techniques. Published line-map soil surveys have at least two significant differences from "modern" soil surveys. They lack a photographic base and do not contain modern up-to-date soil interpretations (generally, they have only agricultural related interpretations). In addition, they may or may not have other qualities generally attributed to more modern surveys, such as, the design of mapping units to meet present needs and descriptions adequate to recorrelate soils for updating


It seems obvious that whenever valid questions are interpretations. raised about the adequacy of line-map surveys to meet present needs, these surveys should be evaluated before a decision is made to remap. Even if the final decision is to remap, the evaluation furnishes information that will have use for accelerating field operations and attaining product quality of the new survey. The major item then becomes, what procedures can be used to determine the-"quality" of the survey and its adequacy for present needs? It should not be assumed that all line-map surveys do not adequately delineate soil areas for present needs. This characteristic of the map should be evaluated if there is a reasonable possibility they are suitable or can be made suitable with less input than complete remapping. The inputs required may vary and each survey should be individually evaluated. Many of the later line-map surveys used aerial photos for field sheets. These should be obtained for use during the evaluation. Factors that should be considered when evaluating line-map surveys for updating or remapping include the following: 1.

Identify the present needs and projected future uses of the soil survey information. Some purposes may have significantly changed since the survey was made. Evaluations of line-map surveys cannot be effectively made unless current needs are fully identified. If it is subsequently determined that complete resurveying is not needed, the evaluation will identify where some adjustments may be required.


Evaluate the line-map survey qualities for meeting these current needs. Identify specific suitabilities as well as deficiencies. Some important considerations are: a) The concepts of the taxonomic soil units of line-map surveys were based on a different system of soil classification than the current Soil Taxonomy. The ranges of all soil properties of the taxonomic units may not precisely conform to classes in the present system but those that are important for needed interpretations may be adequate.


Composition of mapping units and consistency between delineations of mapping units should also be evaluated. It may be that only certain areas of the previous survey are not adequate for present needs. A procedure used in Michigan to characterize mapping unit composition is described in Attachment No. 1. It should be noted that the Michigan procedure assumes the original mapping unit design is still adequate and that reasonable quality control was exercised throughout the survey.


c) The cultural map detail should be analyzed to determine if it is sufficient for accurately locating specific areas on the map. If lack of base map detail is the major or only deficiency, evaluate alternatives for updating the base. d) Some line-map surveys have adequate soil delineations and descriptions but lack slope phases essential for present uses. Slope maps can be obtained for 7 l/2-minute quads that are very useful for characterizing slope properties. The slope maps can be scaled to match the base map scale for analyzing soil-map unit slope relationships and transferring data. e) To evaluate line-map surveys , some systematic method of sampling that will yield reasonably reliable documented data is essential. A cormnon transecting technique that has been used and found useful is Attachment No. 2 of this report. Various physical characteristics of a survey area may be such that one method of transecting may be more practical than others. The intensity of application of transecting procedures should be sufficient to characterize the nature of the mapping unit consistent with NCSS standards for correlation and intended soil interpretations. 3.

If the evaluation of the line-map survey indicates that the mapping units are adequate for current needs, then decisions can be made concerning: a) Need for republishing the soil survey after upgrading the names and descriptions to current standards. b) Supplementing present publication. c) Developing specifications for a new soil map base, if this is needed. d) Additional field studies needed to upgrade soil information to meet current needs.

Charge No. 1 Recommendations 1.

Line-map surveys should be evaluated for meeting present needs before a firm decision is made to completely remap the area. It should be documented that remapping will furnish a significant improvement of soil information for present and anticipated needs.


Guidelines and procedures for evaluating and updating line-map surveys are needed and should be included in the National Soils Handbook.

Charge No. 2 Various comments were received related to the attainment of "quality control" in soil surveys. They were rather general and related to achieving better



quality of field notes, taxonomic descriptions, mapping unit descriptions, legend design, interpretations, understanding of soil-landscape relationships, use of existing data and experience, photo imagery (or map base), and identific~ation of purposes for making the survey. It appears that most of these are not universal problems, but ones that develop periodically through normal operations. The NCSS quality standards for most of these items and the procedures for attaining them are given in the National Soils Handbook and the Soil Survey Manual. It does not seem appropriate to repeat in detail in this committee report the material from the Handbook. It is recognized that these are important elements of a soil survey and they need continued attention to.obtain good quality. In regards to comments concerning general improvement in the quality of field data, the need for training to soil scientists in the principles of soil-geomorphology relationships has been identified. Soil scientists who at one time received good onsite training from soil-geomorphology study groups are becoming fewer. Many present soil scientists began their career after training sessions at the soil-geomorphology study areas ceased or for other reasons did not receive this training. As a result, few have had the opportunity to improve their knowledge and skills in this field. It is recognized that an understanding of the principles of soilgeomorphology relationships and their application is essential for efficiently making and interpreting soil surveys. Various methods of transecting and statistical analysis of sample data have been used in soil survey activities. Transect sampling and analysis have been applied: a) at the initiation of a survey to aid in mapping unit and legend design, b) during the survey to study existing mapping units and the possible need for new mapping units, and c) at the end of a survey to evaluate mapping units and consistency throughout the survey. Many studies have been made of survey areas using transect methods and statistical analysis of the data to estimate the nature of the taxonomic soil unit and the composition of the mapping unit. Often the "quality" of a soil survey is indicated by the percent of the mapping unit that is within the class limits of the taxonomic unit that is used for identification. This has some validity if the taxonomic classes are near perfect for defining kinds of soil for the various purposes for which surveys are made. The evaluation using precisely defined.classes of.Soil Taxonomy can indicate how accurately the soils were mapped in this respect. From the use perspective, a more realistic evaluation would determine the uniformity of the soil properties that effect use and management for the purposes of the survey. This is the kind of evaluation that will be needed by most of the users. Transect data should include the percent composition of the mapping unit that is within the taxonomic class and the percent of soils that have the same or very similar use and management requirements for the purposes of the survey.


Several different transecting methods have been used in soil surveys. A common one used is Attachment No. 2 of this report. Other methods have been presented in scientific journals and other technical articles and some not yet published. A comprehensive review of the many methods is not part of this report. "Poor quality" panchromatic aerial photography for field soil mapping continues to be identified as a problem. Nearly all comments are rather general in nature and without specific details. Where some details are identified, they are usually related to poor contrast and lack of sharpness. These deficiencies may originate with the contractor and involve quality control in the processing phase. The SCS cartographic unit is continuing efforts to overcome these problems. More direct relations with the contractors are resulting in some increase in quality. However, not all imagery problems can be easily overcome. Poor air quality is not generally decreasing. Recently, accepted photography is of somewhat better quality. After October 1, 1977, all SCS contracting for new aerial photography will be done through the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Within USDA regulations, standards and specifications for soil survey needs will be met. The uniform application of soil moisture regimes, particularly the drier ones, have presented some problems. Few soil moisture measurements have been made to evaluate the present criteria for Aridic (Torric), Ustic, and Xeric moisture regimes. The SCS has a CCOBOL program of a model written to calculate from climatic data the moisture regime according to the definitions of Soil Taxonomy. The output of this model is useful as one element of several to help estimate soil moisture regimes. It needs additional testing and verification with actual soil measurements. Plans are being developed to accomplish additional testing and modification, if needed. Soil moisture measurements from moisture control sections along with precipitation data are needed. Charge No. 2 Recommendations 1.

Soil scientist training in the principles of soil-geomorphology relationships and their application to soil mapping should be strengthened.


Guidelines for using transecting procedures and data analysis for evaluating the nature and composition of mapping units of soil surveys of different intensities need to be included in the National Soils Handbook.


Additional soil moisture data should be collected and present guidelines evaluated in an effort to improve application of Aridic (and Torric), Ustic, and Xeric soil moisture regimes.

4. High-quality aerial photo imagery is essential for optimum quality and quantity of soil mapping. All possible alternatives should be evaluated and reasonable ones used to ensure the best quality photos are obtained for field soil mapping operations. Charge No. 3 As the scope of applications of soil data increases, there is a growing need for soil information systems to process the large volume of data. The need is not only to process soil information directly, but to be able to interface it with other related environmental data. Worldwide, many kinds of soil information systems are being developed and evaluated. They range in nature from basic soil data record files to automated cartography producing interpretive maps. An excellent review of soil information systems is in Proceedings of the Meeting of the International Society of Soil Science Working Group on Soil Infonnations Systems, Wageningen, The Netherlands, September 1-4, 1975. The proceedings are published by the Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1975. A symposium on Resource Informations Systems is planned for the 11th International Congress of the ISSS, Edmonton, Canada, June 19-27, 1978. Progress on the SCS Advance Mapping System continues. Although some problems still exist, they are being resolved and the outlook for the future looks good. This system is designed to accept data from a soil survey map and process it and produce various soil interpretive maps. It is planned for the system to be operational this year. An optical mark reader system for reading forms marked to record pedon description information is functional. The programs for interpreting mark forms are in the final testing stage. This system has been developed to write pedon descriptions with the aid of a computer. Uses for which the mark-sense coding can be applied include: 1.

The use of mark-coding forms for taking notes of soil reactions and observations in the field.

2. The use of mark-coding forms for recording the collection of samples for laboratory analyses. 3. The revision of the SCS-SOILS-10 forms from a card-punching system to a mark-sensing system. Engineering test data for selectively sampled soils are now being processed by a large computer and outputted on magnetic tape. The format is set up by a word processor in final camera-ready copy suitable for publication in a soil survey.

a 143

Development of the programs for complete processing of physical and chemical laboratory data is progressing. This subsystem will permit the direct inputting of laboratory data with the output in narrative and tabular form ready for publication. Investigations into the application of remote sensing techniques for resource inventorying continue over a broad spectrum. Most of these activities are related to broader uses than applicable to the majority of soil surveys. Land satellite and similar imagery cannot provide the resolution required for most soil mapping needs. While some resource data needs can only be satisfied by LANDSAT data, the greatest percentage can be met by high resolution black and white photography from aircraft. Active multispectral radar imagery is a relatively new field. It has considerable potential for earth observation studies. Some capabilities of active multispectral radar that have potential for soil surveys include: 1.

Evaluating soil moisture by detecting plant water deficiencies.


Detect soil moisture content (upper 15-20 cm).


From space altitudes, radar can obtain stereoscopic imagery.


Penetrates darkness and clouds.

5. Long wave length radar (some where greater than 3 cm) can penetrate vegetation and soils to 15 to 20 an. The SCS has a three-man interdisciplinary group in Reston, Virginia, to evaluate and test advance remote sensing technology and its application to SCS activities. In a recent in-Service report, they state that remote sensing technology has been tried and: a. looks promising - examples


Color infrared imagery has proved to be cost-effective in speeding up soil surveys in areas with native vegetation. Soils in the area need to have contrasting water holding capacity and imagery needs to be taken when some of the area is under moisture stress for maximum benefits.


High resolution black and white imagery from aircraft at appropriate scales will satisfy most needs.


Orthophoto maps - provide excellent base maps for mapping soils and for published soil surveys. They are free of distortion and objects are in true position on landscape. These maps save money and time in compiling completed soil surveys. They also have similar advantages if the soil survey on this base is to be digitized. 144

4) Using several types of imagery at the same time, can be more cost-effective for use in resource surveys than using any one of the types by itself. 5) LANDSAT imagery and multispectral data has proved costeffective for reconnaissance soil surveys. 6) Conclusion reached in the Hildage County, Texas, project that evaluated various kinds of imagery for soil mapping use was that color infrared and color photography were valuable tools for mapping soils. b.

limited or no value - examples 1) LANDSAT imagery and multispectral data lack sufficient resolution for soil surveys of the Order 1 and Order 2 level of detail (detailed soil surveys). 2) Color infrared imagery is of limited value for soil surveys in areas that are irrigated.

Minnesota recently evaluated soil mapping techniques using panchromatic, black and white infrared, and color infrared. A preliminary report of this evaluation is Attachment No. 3. It is also noteworthy that colorinfrared photography can substantially improve the probability of obtaining good-quality imagery during the flying season. This results from the fact that color infrared can record images through more haze than can panchromatic film. The Minnesota studies indicate that although the original cost is slightly higher, the value returned through higher quality surveys and increased production more than offsets the higher costs. The special imagery was acquired by the University of Minnesota. At the last conference (1975), it was requested that the possible declassification of some technology could possibly furnish potentially valuable material. This possibility was studied and it's reported that in general classified and nonclassified material satisfies the same type of requirements. Classified material has many of the same limitations as conventional aerial photography currently available for USDA use. Moreover, as long as present security restrictions remain enforced, it is difficult and costly to use. Charge No. 3 Recommendations 1.

More effective coordination and distribution of information about the direct application of non-panchromatic imagery in making and interpreting soil surveys are needed. Regional connnittees have given this some emphasis. This emphasis should continue. Soil Survey Technical Notes offer an excellent opportunity to distribute results of evaluations of material and techniques. 145


Utilizing the experience gained in Minnesota, the application of color infrared photography to soil mapping should be tested in other states.

Charge No. 4 SCS-SOILS-6 form (copy attached) designed primarily to recall soil interpretive material on SCS-SOILS-5 form has potential for other applications as well. If SCS-SOILS-6 forms are used from early in the survey work and well maintained during the survey, they can be used to obtain from the Ames, Iowa, Computer Center, a field correlation document. This document would contain the recommended mapping unit names and symbols along with other symbols used but dropped during the survey. If the final correlation is the same as the field correlation, the same format can be designated as the final correlation. Little use has been made of this procedure mainly because of the turnaround time. Another application of the SCS-SOILS-6 form that has attained limited use is for input data for a mapping unit use file. The Soil Classification and Mapping Branch at Hyattsville is working on programming this record file. There are many possibilities for formatting the output and anyone who has a need for this data should let their needs be known. One of the major problems related to the mapping unit use file concerns the fact that mapping units are not correlated to a national system. Although the taxonomic units used to identify mapping units are correlated to the System of Soil Taxonomy, mapping unit names are not correlated. No other comments or suggestions for ADP use in the correlation processes were received. Charge No. 4 Recommendations 1.

Potential uses of ADP in the soil correlation process should continue to be studied and evaluated.


Development of the mapping unit use file should continue.

General Recommendations 1.

The committee on Improving Soil Survey Techniques should be continued.

2. The report of this committee should be accepted by the conference. Both general recommendations were accepted by the conference.


Chairman - V. G. Link* Vice Chairman - E. P. Whiteside* Members: J. M. Allen

0. R. R. T.

0. B. A. E.

Bockes Oaniels* Dierking* Fenton*


R. P. C. F. J.

H. R. A. T. D.

Gilbert Johnson McGrew Miller Rourke*

0. E. McCormack* and J. A. Gockowski*

* Members in attendance


F. C. G. J. B. L.

M. A. W. A. G. P.

Scilley* Steers TeSelle Thompson* Watson Wilding*

Notes concerning updating and quality control of soil surveys in Michigan E.P. Whitesida

In the past five years soil survey personnel of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and some other scientists in the National Cooperative Soil Survey, have made a number of studies of the composition of map units on curCur general conclusion is rent and older published soil surveys in Nichigan. that an independent sampling of the map units is necessary to adequately characterize their compositions after completion of the field sheets in order to evaluate the adequacy of the map units, their names and their descriptions for current uses of the soil surveys. Here I have summarized the results of those studies for consideration of Committees 1 and 2 of the 1977, WC-NCSS. These studies assume that the usual quality control techniques in setting up the map units and properly coordinating the work of party members have been satisfactorily applied to the completed field sheets or published maps being evaluated. These are essential prior conditions for adequate surveys. T h e i r fulfillment involves continuing efforts and eternal vigilance of party chiefs, working with new personnel and our evolving understanding of soil-landscape relationships. In general, however, we feel that the correlation procedures in use by the National Cooperative Soil Survey have been reasonably satisfactory since 1920. Of course numerous improvements in techniques, base maps and mapping aids have been introduced since that time. Aerfal photography was one of those improvements introduced in the mid-thirties. However, the plane table surveys or topographic sheet bases of earlier surveys have proved to be very adequate in most cssas studied to date (including the 1926 Tuscola County soil map). Basically the techniques in sampling the map units have been soil observations at points, or points on line transects on the landscape,selected systematically to represent the area or the map units included in a soil survey tithout introducing biases in the samples. A sample of et Least 30 to 50 poiuts in each map unit or 50 to 100 points in a survey are~a‘have been considered adequate as judged by agreement of successive samplings of similar size or Larger size. Table L shows the results of the studies to date in the then current soil surveys or older surveys being evaluated. The independent sample soil observations are compared tith the map unit names as to series, surface texture, slope class or erosion class and the soil management groups (of similar soil series) represented by the series in the names of the map units. It is evident from these data that the surface textures, slope classes and erosion classes, vhere tested, agreed 64 to 98% with the names of the map units. The soil series and soil management groups agreed 52 to 62% and 62 to 712, respectively, with the map unit names -- both in the current surveys (1973, in


Attachment No. 1

Clinton, Washtenav and Wayne Cos.) and in the older surveys with the updated map legends. The Eaton County survey showed least agreement with series names of the map units and their soil management group. A’sample of 50 observations in Newaygo County after updating showed 66% agreement with the series and soil management groups of the updated map unit names -- while the over 1500 observations made in updating the map legend showed 53 and 61% agreement, respectively. Perhaps observations at 50 points were not sufficient to provide a good evaluation. Some people feel that eve” 78 observations in Eaton County are inadequate. It seems that a sample of 100 points or 150 points might be better. If these were coordinated into three sets of 50 observations distributed over the area the values with 50, 100 and 150 could be compared. I” Table 2 the percentages of each county in map units with one, two, three or contrasting series in their updated names are shorn compared to the Independent names of map units in two more recently completed soil surveys. evaluations of the legends in Muskegon and St. Clair Counties have not been made since their completion but they were made and published on aerial photographs. It is evident that while there are smaller percentages of the map units in older surveys with updated legends, that have only one series name, most of them have only 2 series in their names. Some of those older surveys have little of their area in map units with contrasting series in their updated names. Whether it is feasible to reduce the proportions of those units with contrasting names needs separate study.

Our conclusion here is that many of the soil surveys completed in Michigan still have considerable utility for farmland evaluation and more general planning purposes. Updating the names and descriptive legends of those surveys facilitates the use of the available soil information until more adequate surveys for current uses can be provided in the portions of those counties most in need of more adequate surveys for various purposes. Another comparison possible with the data at hand is, how well do the sample data agree with the series mentioned in the descriptions of the map units. Table 3 shows such a comparison for three counties with recently updated map unit names and descriptions (Tuscola. Oceans and Nevaygo) end the survey completed in 1973 in Eaton County. In the first three agreements with the descriptive legends are SO to 92X. I” Eaton County 749; of the sample observations of series are referred to in the map unit descriptions. Finally, updated names and legends of the map units mentioned above were all published older soil surveys with line maps. The dates of COSllQktiOT! of the original surveys and their updatings are shown in Table 3. Each of those counties has elected to enlarge those published soil maps and reproduce them on the most recent available aerial photography along with the updated legends and modern interpretation sheets in a companion volume. The total cost for field work and publication has amounted to only about 5X of the cost of resurveys of the areas. That expense is easily justified for the useful information salvaged, the improved basis for supplying most needed information where and when needed, and the improved quality control the application of these techniques makes possible on current surveys. 1.49

Attachment NO. 1

I suspect that soil surveys of similar vintages and decails elsewhere in the North Central Region may be found to have similar utilities and limitations to those studied to date in Michigan.


I ‘believe similar updating studies should be carried out on most SUZ’V~YS completed since 1920 in Hichigan. We have not yet applied these updating techniques to the Land Type (Soil Association Maps) made in northern Michigan for general land use planning purposes in the 1930’s and 1940’s. These point observation samplea are the simplcsc and least expensive quality evaluation techniques available to date, perhaps more elaborate procedures with better statistical parameters are also needed in some situations. To attempt less at this stage of soil science in the making and interpreting of soil surveys for various purposes it seems to me is untenable.


Attachment No. 1

Table 1.

Percentage agreement of the current or updated map unit naues in Xichigan Counties with sample observations of various soil scientists.

date and observer


Number of observation

X,Agreement of observations with parts of mm unit names or soil management groups E~0&Xl Mmt. * Surface Slope G&Ups Series Texture * Class

Clinton, 1973 G. Wee&es, SCS







Eaton, 1973 E.P. Whiteside, MAES







Washtenaw 1973 MAES s c i e n t i s t s Newaygo, 1939 (updated, 1973) D. Mokma, MAES

(1787)* 50





(62) 90




Oceana, 1933 (updated, 1972) D. N&ma, MAES





Tuscola, 1926 (updated. 1973) D . M&ma, MAES









Antrim**. 1923 (updated, 1975-76) D. Mokma, MAES 6 D. Buchanan, SCS


***Includea similar series mentioned in the report descriptions only. ** For 10 townships where updating done. * Numbers in parentheses based on observations used in updating.



Attachment No. 1

Table 2.

Aerial percentage of counties in map units with one, two, three or contrasting series in their names.

No. of

Updated surveys and map dates Newayeo Tuscola OCeana I&trim 1939 1923 1933 1926

series in names

Recent surveys and map dates st. Clair Muskegon 1968 1940





























Table 3.

Percentage of sample observations agreeing with series In the descriptive legends.

County Date completed Date updated Z Series Agreement















88* 80**


* Based on total observations in the updating. ** Based on an independent sample after updating or mapping. ._ ***This includes 8011s mentioned in the descriptions withoat their series names.


Attachment No. 2 TRANSECT METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF THE COMPOSITION OF SOIL MAPPING UNITS* William M. Johnson, Principal Soil Correlator, Berkeley, California** Knowledge of the kind and extent of the various components of soil mapping units is a necessity for proper soil classification and for useful interpretations. This is true whether the mapping units be complexes, associations of phases of soil types. Even in a relatively "pure" phase of a soil type there are usually some inclusions of unlike soils and some variability in soil characteristics within the defined phase. Soil scientists commonly estimate the proportions of the different kinds of soils present from scattered observations made during the course of mapping. Occasionally the soil surveyor makes highly detailed maps of selected small areas showing the boundaries of all taxonomic soil units present. Then by planimeter or other device, he determines the area of each kind of soil. By extension of these sample results he estimates the composition of the mapping units throughout the soil survey area. Neither of these procedures is entirely satisfactory, the first because it is inaccurate, the second because it is costly and time-consuming. Transect methods provide quick and easy ways of' accurately estimating the composition of soil mapping units. Principle of Transect Methods Transect methods of area determination depend on the principle that total length of a given body along a straight-line transect is directly proportional to the area of that body within the limits of the larger delineation transected. Transect methods used in the Soil Survey are equivalent to Rosiwal transects g/ of thin-sections used by petrographers to determine the composition of rocks. Chayes L/ has given the mathematical proof of the validity of the technique. Procedure One of two transect methods may be used, depending upon the distinctness and ease of recognition of soil differences in the field. The first, the lineintercept method, is quicker if the observer can recognize at sight each kind of soil (or gradation in soil) as he passes its boundary. The second, the point-intercept method, is required if the,soil boundaries are not easily observable or if the kinds of soil present have not yet-been recognized and catalogued. The line-intercept method: The surveyor selects the directions of transects at random. Starting at one edge of the area under study, he walks along a straight line in the pre-selected direction, counting his steps. He notes the number of steps taken at each boundary between kinds of soil and records * Taken from Soil Survey Field Letter, SCS, June 1961 l

* Presently, Deputy Administrator for Technical Services, SCS 153

Attachment No. 2

the number in his notebook. Upon reaching a pre-selected point, or the far boundary of the study area, he stops, records the total number of steps at this point, and selects at random the direction of his next transect. After several transects have been measured in this fashion, the results are totalled and averaged to obtain the proportions of each kind of soil. A page from the surveyor's notebook then might look like this: Soil mapping unit symbol: 13482 Transect No. 1 Number of Steps Kind of Soil 1: 89 274 316 344 384

- - 89 11


134A 157 134B 157 134A 157 1348

274 316 344 384 500

Transect No. 2 Number of Steps Kind of Soil 0 177 270 292 333 363 Soil 134A 1348 157


177 270 292 333 363 500

134B 157 134A 157 134A 1348

Total Steps, All Transects 6;: 284

Percent of Area 6;*: 28:4

Point-Intercept Method: As in the line-intercept method, the surveyor of his transects. Next, he walks first selects at random the directions . _ each straight-line transect, counting his steps as before. In this case, though, he does not know or cannot recognize the boundaries between adjacent kinds of soil. Therefore he stops at regular intervals, say every 25, 50 or 100 steps, depending upon the size of the area and the predicted complexity of the soil pattern. At each stop he excavates or augers the soil, examines and classifies it. The kind of soil is recorded 154

Attachment No. 2

in the field notebook at each stop, opposite the number of that stop. After a number of transects have been completed with this procedure, the results are totalled. The number of steps assigned to each kind of soil is proportional to the area of each kind of soil within the study area. Standards and Errors The transect methods require random selection of the transect directions. They also require that a sufficient length (or number of stops) be covered to give estimates within the permissible limits of error. In order to characterize a iven mapping unit in terms of proportions of its separate components ?. kinds of soils) it is not necessary to know exactly the percentage of each. The following table suggests permissible limits of error in estimating the proportions of the more and less extensive components of mapping units in standard detailed soil surveys: Proportion of the Total Area of the Mapping Unit Occupied by a Given Kind of Soil 3/10 - 9/10 l/20 - 3/10 less than - l/20 Allowable Error in Estimating Proportion, Percent _ + 10 + 20 + 50 The number and length of transects required to achieve accurate estimates varies with the regularity and fineness of the soil pattern. Very irregular patterns and those that include occasional small bodies of unlike soils require more transect length per unit of area than those with regular patterns and no inclusions of very minor extent. Statistical analyses can be applied to transect data whenever it is necessary to determine how accurate the estimates are. It is not necessary for the surveyor to know his length of step, because the transect methods are used to estimate proportions rather than absolute values. It is necessary, though, that the surveyor's steps be uniform in length.


Attachment No. 2

Example The following example will serve to illustrate the use of both lineintercept and point-intercept methods. Figure 1 shows a sample map delineation (the heavy peripheral line) with the three included soils also delineated (light interior lines). The four straight transect lines are marked by dashed lines A-A', B-B', C-C', and D-D'. The lineintercept stops are shown by small dots superimposed on the transect lines. After estimating the composition of the whole map delineation by both methods, the true proportions of the three components were determined by cutting and weighing. Results are given in Table 1.

k P

Figure 1 156

Attachment No. 2

Soil Component Symbol

True Proportion of Total

Line-Intercept Est. Length Proportion of Area

Pain. No. 0' Stop!

ntercept Est. Proportion of Area



















Table 1.

Comparison of estimated proportions, using line-intercept and point-intercept methods, with true proportions in a sample map delineation. REFERENCES


Chayes, F. 1956. Petrographic modal analysis; an elementary statistical appraisal. John Wiley and Sons, New York.


Rosiwal, A. 1898. Uber geometrische. Gesteinsanalysen. Verhandl. der K. K. Geol. Reichsanstalt, Wien, pp. 143-175.









. . ..l.........~...................~.........1......~..,...11....,.1...... 1~,.......,......~..,..,,.....,....,,... I.........,..,...,..,....,...,












MAPPING UNIT ACREAGE FIELD MAPPING UNIT NAME COUNTY I I COUNTY 2 *........I,......,.,......,,,,.,......,,,,,,.,,,.,.,,,. . . . ..II......



I........,.........,.........,.........,....,....,,........~.....,... 1.........,.........,......,,.,.........,.........,,,,.....~



lJ% -



I . . , .





CRITICAL PHASE CRITERIA INTEftPftETATlON (use first line 101 single-taxon unit or first taxon ot .mufU-taxa unit. second ha for second unil. etc.) :‘~;~~,~,,,~RECORD~, , ,~ ‘Vet’: iWi3E.R ~. ’ SLOPE 1 U S D A T E X T U R E t OTHERS (tloodtng. growing se.ww ra~nlall, erosion. aspect, etc.) I l....l...., ..I pi....,.........,.........,........., . . . . . . . . . I.........,.........,. . . . . . . . .



Tfom is designed for direct keypmching. P r i n t all entires o n e c h a r a c t e r per block, md use rrpper-case for aipbabetic characters. Leave unused lines blenk. Use no canvas in “meric f i e l d s . W i n i t i a l s o f t h e r e c o r d e r aa, the date in upper righhr-hand c o m e r , e . g . , m IO-25-n. E a c h time a revision is m?de e n t e r initials and date below if,

“Cmnry ?“, etc. Conrinue *am a n secord line if necesrary.



mapping unit a

ter t e ssnbo1 and name of mppi”g unit recall=%F menled for the field correiatia”. Continue name On secord line if “ecessaTy. Card T e. “ter the p u b l i c a t i o n symbol and the mapping unir name approved at the fiml correlatjo”. E n t e r d a t e (month and yeari that mQQi”g u n i t 1s approved, e . g . . H/73. Contime name of n a p p i n g unir a” second line

If rhe survey area is in a s i n g l e c o m f y , enwr rmder “ C o u n t y 1” in the “I” .tiea” colon on line 1 t h e a c r e a g e that is rirhi” the arrvey area. Enter the total county a c r e a g e i n the ‘Tom1” cclunn. Usually &se .acreaPes ill b e the same. If the survey area is in rare than one county e”rer the acreage data for the second county under “County 2” on line Al. E n t e r t h e d3f3 for third amI fourth cwntier on line AZ. ezc. Enter Ihe COMW dara i n t h e sme

Card T e B.

---cdbi e current field symbol in the d e s i g n a t e d f i e l d a ” line B1. The @ml must conrai” 5 o r less

c h a r a c t e r s . Crhe kewch operator w i l l e n t e r rhe z$ul auromatically on ail other cards o f type B tbrwgh H That a r e used.) Other Smlbols u s e d t o identify rhe mappiq mir on f i e l d s h e e r s a r e l i s t e d on Clr.3 hrn F.

i f “ecessarv. Card 1 e E. ---laFPercent of Unit” leave blank for all simletaxa” units. For *Iti-ram units enter the esrimted percentage of the rota, ma~piq ““ir acupied by the give” tam”. 7b1he 9.m of the named t3.a may not eq+l 100 percent. Enter rhe infanmrio” for each tbw” v the me seque”ce as the t~3. are listed r”.the mappmp u n i t “me--the first tam” 0” line Fl, the second on line FZ, etc. Urder “Interpretation Record SumLeer” enter rhe u n i q u e identifier for the noil inrerpretatio” retard to b e amxiated w i t h t h e g i v e ” t3~0”: thar ide”tifi?r is 0 ” t h e t a p o f the cqmter-printed i”rerpretaria” record. e . g . , m004z. F o r zoil’l classified at the family level or higher in the taxmwmy o r v a r i a n t s ( i d e n t i f i e d b y F or Y urder “Kind” o” card B1) that are not cmrdinated w i t h o t h e r states ard r e g i o n s , QreQare a separare hiis-5.

These recardr are to be used only far the NNW area for which the,’ were develcwd. Co mt f i l l Out a Soils-5 fom for miSCellS”eWS

lard twes. “tier “SIoQe”, enfer the slope ranges for each

Code T-

ample* _ Enter a C when mapping unit is a mmQlex o f s e r i e s , v a r i a n t s , taradjuncts, mircella“ e c u s land tfles or classes in categories above the s e r i e s .

used 0” f i e l d oheetr. If more than 1 4 , u s e secord l i n e .

Taxedjunct - E n t e r a T h*e” most or all of the s o i l s in mapping u n i t are taxadjunct t o t h e rimed s e r i e s . Undifferenriaced group - Enter a U when mapping wit i s a ” d i f f e r e n t i a t e d gmup o f s e r i e s . v a r i a n t s , taxjdjurrts, m i s c e l l a n e o u s lark3 trper o r c l a s s e s in caregories above t h e s e r i e s . Variant . Enter a V *he” a single tawnomic unit ir P variant o f 8 s e r i e s .

Card Type c. This c a r d m cm be used to adjmt t h e layer depths or delete l a y e r s g i v e ” in the i”rerprer?tio” r e c o r d t o f i t t h e mapping unit. Enter a dash I” the

layer to be deleted. If “a adjusmenrr are needed. lezve b l a n k . U s e rbe first 6 calm on the first

l i n e to make chanq*r i n a s i n g l e - r a m ” rapping unit o r t h e f i r s t taxon in a multi-tdla u”lt. T h e 6 colml to the’righr a” the first line are for t h e ram” thaT appears recoil in rhe_me o f a Mali-ta.xa mit, the

third tam” on the second line. The 1ayers are rubsred in sequence frm the top dam as indicared the i”rerpretation record.

For the second ch;rracter of the code enter one of

the foIlwin*:

Ihe swls in tie “Kird” f i e l d my cbmge d u r i n g t h e course o f t h e sun’ey, e . g . , fm ‘I to S. IIe synbal refers to the latezr mapping unit “ m e e n t e r e d . Enter f i e l d m e o f m a p p i n g mif md the acreage in each ccuxy (if bmm). I f t h e =QQing unir a c r e a g e i s t o b - e s e p a r a t e d f o r mre than two ccurier. enwr the a c r e a g e f o r t h e t h i r d cavity on line 82 rmder ‘Comty 1”. acreage for the fourrh cou”f~ on line BZ


e range-site name if applicable. Use the first line for the range-sire of the emire mapping unit or the first mm” at a nulti-faxa unit, t h e second line for the second tam”, and the third line *or *be third t?xon.


Attachment No. 3 EVALUATION OF PHOTOGRAPHY AS RELATED TO THE SOIL SURVEY OF CLAY COUNTY, NI?lXESOTA Three kinds of photography have been available for various parts of Clay County. The photos include black and white pan for the entire county. During the spring of 1974 the northern tier of townships "era photographed for the purpose of evaluating color IR transparencies and their black and white internegatives as a tool in speeding and improving soil survey operations. This original flight was supplied at a scale of 1:40,000. An additional area of about 3 townships was photographed during the spring of 1975 to provide these IR photos at a scale of l:ZO,OOO. This is the publication scale for Clay Coun.ty. The remaining areas were photographed the spring of 1976 so color IR transparencies and black and white internegatives are now available at some scale for the entire county. Theinitial photography was flown in June and some difficulties ware encountered. The spring of 1974 was initially quite dry with some early spring tillage. This followed a wet period delayed spring field operations. The color IR transparencies that relate to vegetative growth therefore revealed various stages of growth on seeded fields, while other fields ware just cultivated and others had no spring cultivation. These conditions resulted in a masking of detail on vegetated and cultivated fields. 1r.was therefore difficult to relate soil boundaries accurately across a given area by photo interpretation. The differences on photographs relating to vegetative cover ware not so great on black and white IR internegatives and these photos showed sharp detail and contrast except where fields were recently cultivated. Some of this detail was significant to soil boundaries as related to the survey legend. Careful field control was needed to determine what detail represented mappable soil differences. This task was more difficult because of the necessity to adjust interpretations from a 1:40,000 to a 1:20,000 scale. The survey party found that this factor plus the photo detail related to cultural practice and time of flight reduced the value of this initial photography as a tool to speed and improve soil survey operations. The photos supplied from the photography of spring 1975 ware of excellent quality. These were flown at a time that provided the most uniformity possible as related to soil surface condition. In addition, these photos were supplied at the county mapping scale and used as field sheets with no transfer or adjustment of scale necessary. The photos supplied in this May 1975 flight were all on valley landscapes with soil textures ranging from silty clay to fine sand. All soil mapping on this area was accomplished "sing the black and white IR internegatives. These photographs provided the mapping party with excellent contrast and imagery., It should be noted that on some areas the contrast and detail was exaggerated and not all differences related to mappable separations. These photos did, however, show meaningful differences in sharp enough ixaagery so that more precise soil boundaries could be drawn. This sharp imagery and detail also resulted in accurate surveys with less field control. In comparison, the black and white pan photos generally have the same imagery but contrast is so variable it is more difficult to interpret. Accurate Lines separating soils are therefore difficult to draw and more field control is necessary for acceptable levels of quality. In addition some mapping units proposed for separation, like wetter phases of Fargo soils, are not easily visible on the landscape and have soil morphologic features that are similar. The soil condition is however significant to use and

Attachment No. 3

management as related by numerous discussions with owners and operators. This difference in wetness condition is visible in sharp detail on the black and white IR internegatives and only slightly or non visible on the pan photos. The mapping party feels very strongly that the flight provides photos that are so much superior to mapping this landscape and that the pan photos are obsolete by comparison. Where a few areas in these kinds of landscapes were mapped on pan photography they experienced considerably more difficulty in delineating soils. This is especially true when experiences are more linited and the soil scientist is not sensitive to very slight differences in imagery as they may relate to meaningful soil separations. The colored IR transparencies, supplied with this photography, basically provided the survey with little additional as a resource to expedite soil survey operations. On a few questionable areas they did provide slightly different imagery that had interpretive value. They are difficult to work with in the field however since the portable light tables are rather cumbersome. They are also difficult to keep clean since dust adheres easily to the transparency or its cover. On a few ares of the 1974 - 1:40.000 scale flight the IR internegatives were enlarged to the l:ZO,OOO scale. These enlargements also provided photos with sharper, more meaningful imagery than pan photos. They were not as sharp as the 1975 l:ZO,OOO scale flight however. An under exposure in the enlargement process seemed to be responsible for some of the reduction in quality. The weight of paper used also relates to the quality of photos. Paper used should be no lighter grade than that used for the original flight photos developed. The remaining area of Clay County was photographed the spring of '76. This coverage provided stereocoverage for the upland landscapes only. The same comments on quality and use apply to this flight when relating to lake plain landscapes. It should be noted, however, that the quality of IR internegatives from this flight were inferior to those of the 1975 flight. Under exposure of these negatives resulted in reduced contrast. Some of these were returned and reprocessed for improved quality. It should be also noted that the IR internegatives have slightly less value in upland landscapes. This is true because here separations are commonly made on a distinct relief pattern that is related to soils and their position in the landscape. A sharper imagery does however allow for more accurate placement of lines. The stereo quality of the IR internegatives is also considerably better than that for the pan photos supplied in Clay County. In summary our experience with photography in the Clay County, Minnesota soil survey leaves the following conclusions: 1.

Photography should be of the same scale as the published survey.


Time of photography is important to the unifornity of imagery across a given landscape.


The IR internegatives provide the most useful photographic product for accelerated soil surveys we have worked with to date. 161





To be most beneficial the IR photos should be supplied from a single flight with careful attention to time of flight and quality of reproduction.


The IR photography allows us to accur+tely separate significant soil conditions where pan photos give little or no indication of where to draw lines separating these conditions.


Although IR photos aid any soil scientist in napping, they are of particular aid to those with less experience.


It is difficult to assess the total value of this improved photography but depending upon landscapes and complexity it would seem"to be worth an additional expenditure of from 25 to 75 percent.




WASTE TREATMENT ON NAMED KINDS OF SOILS Using the interim guide for rating limitations of soils for disposal of waste (Advisory Soils-14, May 8, 1973), previous reports of this and the Organic Soils Committee and reports of regional committees, improve national guidelines for waste treatment on named kinds of soils.

Include limitation ratings for national application.

2. Include principles for developing soil potential ratings for appropriate local areas. The application of these principles should be demonstrated on examples for potential ratings for at least two and preferably four survey areas from contrasting climatic areas. 3.

Include ratings for the following materials: a.

High N feedlot and dairy waste.


High BOD secondary treatment plant residues (sludge).


Low BOD secondary treatment plant effluent.

Introduction: Information about soil suitability and limitations for waste disposition is needed wherever human or animal populations are concentrated within limited land areas. Land nearby for waste disposition also often becomes increasingly less available. Problems in waste disposition become regionally oriented when treated land is used to produce crops. Manure utilization on arid croplands is often limited by availability of irrigable land. Three work groups were established to review and assess important problems related to soil uses in waste management. Highlights of the work groups are summarized in the Committee report. Reports of the three work groups with documentation are appended.


General Recommendations: Those directed specifically to Work Group I, assessing national application of guides to soil limitations; Work Group II, animal manure; and Work croup III, sewage sludge; are presented in respective reports. 1. Nitrogen utilization be reviewed and refined by crops so that better estimates of loading rates can be made by named kinds of soils. 2. Allowances be made to permit greater specificity in state than in national guidelines. Heavy metal investigations of soils and plants should be strongly 3. supported and expanded, so that consequences and magnit~~de of changes in soils with sludge application can be properly assessed. Selective sampling Of Soils and use of analytical methods with sufficient sensitivity is essential. 4. Effort should be made to assess waste disposition by groups of geographically associated soils on landscapes, so that patterns of waste movement and their consequences on land can be more adequately understood. 5.

Committee 3 should be continued.

Work Group I.

Assess National Application of Guides to Soil Limitations

A canvass was made of state and regional offices to compile lists of soil ratings for waste disposal. A summary of responses is presented: Total states responding I.

States responding with brief statements but lacking soil rating lists

II. States submitting technical guides based partly on Advisory Soils-14 III.

States submitting rating by soil series



5 5

Attention of the Committee 3 report is focused on the list of soil ratings received from Wisconsin, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. Evaluations of soil limitations are based on the value of manure as fertilizer in each of the states, and not as a waste product needing disposal. Ratings are compared for 21 common soils of Wisconsin and Michigan. Advisory Soils-14, table 2, was used as the primary guide in Michigan; in'hiisconsin it was used with slight modifications.


Fourteen soils ccmmon to Wisconsin and Michigan were given essentially the same rating (table 1). Soil ratings for manure acceptance reflect important characteristics associated with family groupings of soils. Ratings for seven other common soils did not differ by more than one class (table 2). Two sandy soils were rated mole severely in Wisconsin than in Michigan and three fine-textured soils less severely. Range of series characteristics probably contributes to differences noted among the fine-textured soils. For example, the Blount and Morley soils in Wisconsin have moderately slow permeability and are rated to have moderate limitation; in Michigan, these soils have slow soil permeability and the rating is downgraded. How rapid soil permeability has influenced soil ratings given the Chelsea and Rubicon soils in the two states are described in detail in the Work Group I report (attached). The use of 6 inches of available water capacity in Wisconsin rather than 7.8 inches in Michigan probably contributes to different ratings given the Emmet and Fox soils. In New York and Pennsylvania ratings are based on capability of plants to utilize the N in the manure. The best soils receive a maximum manure loading rate of 30 T/A/yr and lower rates are set as soil limitations increase. The application of this approach is illustrated by comparing ratings for two broad soil groups common to the two states. In New York, soils with fragipan and skeletal soils (table 3) receive a higher rating (class 1 = 30 T/A/yr) than do similar soils in Pennsylvania (class 2 = 24 T/A/yr). Similarly, soils with moderately good drainage in New York (table 4) are rated higher (class 1) than are similar soils in Pennsylvania (class 2). Criteria for recognizing soil classes within each state appear to be applied uniformly. Poorly drained and very poorly drained soils in Wisconsin, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania have uniformly received the lowest rating for accepting animal manure. Similar soils in the Pacific Northwest are considered the best soils for manure disposal. Recommendation: 1. Comparisons of ratings assigned common soil in adjoining states indicate that soil guidelines are useful and can be applied consistently within states in the humid region. A similar assessment of selected soils of arid regions is needed. Work Group II. Animal Manure In arid regions (moisture deficit and moisture tension regimes), feedlots tend to be centered around production areas of feed and forage crops. Irrigation is an essential component of crop production. Disposition of feedlot waste on irrigated land in places has resulted in high N03-N levels in ground water. Presence of substratum N03-N of geologic origin accentuates hazards from excess NOs-N in water. Leaching salts from manure with irrigation is essential to seedling establishment and minimization of salt damage of soils. 165

In humid regions (moisture sufficient regime), animal manure has historically been viewed and utilized as plant nutrient sources, and revision of loading rates has been made to mj.nimize environmental pollution, principally streams. Recommendations: Cation exchange capacity and soil texture be added as addi1. tional criteria to rate soils. Work Group III. Assess guidelines for land application of sewage slildge (ref. Advisory Evt.-11, dated April 30, 1976) The attention of this work group was directed to assess concentrations of Cd, Zn, and Zn/Cd ratio in plants grown on sludge-treated soils under field conditions. Data from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland, and Alabama were available for this purpose. Attention was directed primarily to results from these five states because data were available on a common plant - corn. Cadmium loading rates (kg/ha) were calculated from Cd concentrations in sludge and sludge application rates to provide a common base between studies. Cadmium concentration varied with sludge source and rates of sludge applied by the different investigators. The Zn data in sludge-treated soils were reduced to a common Zn loading rate (kg/ha) in a similar manner. Analytical methods and their application to evaluating heavy metal data of soils and sewage sludge were assessed. Principal findings: Cadmium concentration in corn tended to increase with Cd load1. ing rate. The Cd concentration ranged from about 0.2 ppm to more than 22 ppm. Corn grown on soils with the highest rate of sludge applied had the most Cd. Effects of soil differences were most evident between Cd loading rates of 1 to 10 kg/ha. 2. Zinc concentration in corn also increased with Zn loading rates. The Zn concentration ranged from about 70 ppm to nearly 400 ppm. Soil differences were reflected in plant Zn concentrations at comparable Zn loading rates. Zinc/Cd ratios tended to be lower in corn grown in Maryland 3. and Alabama than in corn grown in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Higher concentrations of Cd in corn grown on Ultisols than in Argiboralls of Wisconsin appeared to influence how Zn/Cd ratios changed.


General observations indicate that soil systems tend to be 4. overloaded with high sludge applications so that the specific role of CEC becomes masked out. Critical Cd levels have not been defined but corn will have more than 5 ppn of Cd if Cd loading rates exceed 10 kg/ha. Presence of calcareous subsoils and substratum appeared to be as effective as increasing CEC to minimize Cd movement from sludge-treated Soils through a food and feed chain. Total analysis (carbonate fusion or HF treatment), acid eXtraC5. tion (0.1 g HCl) and chelates have been used to assess heavy metal concentrations in sludges and sludge-treated soils. No one analytical approach has been found to meet all needs for making assessments of sludge loading rates on soils and their impact on environmental quality and quality of foods and feeds (appendix - G. Holmgren). Recommendations: 1. The work group recommends that soil pH and presence of calcareous horizons be considered as additional criteria for use when soils are rated for sludge disposal. High soil pH and carbonates while interrelated, probably will decrease levels of Cd in plants grown on sludgetreated soils. Lime application rates to enhance plant growth may not coincide exactly with rates that would decrease plant cadmium concentrations. Presence of naturally occurring carbonate horizons should be beneficial, especially where trenching techniques are employed. 2. Conclusions based on short-term studies should be confirmed from a few long-term studies to assess the role of mineralization with time. The role of CEC of soils probably will increase as sludge undergoes mineralization with time.

Joe Kubota, Chairman 0. F. Bailey C. R. Berdanier B. L. Carlile C. E. Fogg R. F. Harner D. E. 'Hill G. S. Holmgren A. J. Klingelhoets G. J. Latshaw L. J. Lund M. L. Markeley I?. B. Parsons J. E. Witty


Table 1.

Soil groups of Wisconsin and Michigan given common ratings for accepting animal manure


Soil Family




fl, m, m

Typic Hapludalfs




s, m, m

Psamentic Hapludalfs


s/l, In, f

Alfic Haplorthods


col, in, m

Aquollic Hapludalfs


fl, m, m

Aquollic Xapludalfs


m, m

Typic Udipsamments

Oakville, Plainfield

s, m, f s, m, m

Entic Haplaquods


Typic Haplaquolls


Cd, m, m

Typic Haplaquolls


fl, m, m

Typic Argiaquolls



euic, m

Typic Medisaprists



s or s skel, m, m

Terric Medisaprists


m, el2ic

Limnic Medisaprists






Table 2.

Soil groups of Wisconsin and Michigan differing by one class

in soil rating for accepting comparable manure application

Rating* Series

Soil family





m, m

Alfic Udipsamments




s, m, f

Entic Haplorthods




col, m, f

Alfic Haplorthods




fl over s skel

Ty-pic Hapludalfs




Typic Hapludalfs




Aeric Ochraqualfs

Del Ray



Typic Hapludalfs




m, m Fine

f, illitic, m

*S - slight;


moderate; Se - severe.


Table 3.

Soil ratings for manure application as reflected by fragipan and skeletal soils

Number of


Soil family series



col, m, m

Typic Fragiochrepts




col, m, f

Typic Fragiorthods




co s i , m, m

Typic Fragiochrepts




1 skel, m, m

Typic Dystrochrepts




Glossoboric Hapludalfs




1 skel, m, m

Dystric Eutrochrepts




~011s or s skel, m, m

Fluventic Dystrochrepts




*Application rate of 30 T/A/yr - New York. 'Application rate of 24 T/A/yr - Pennsylvania.


Table 4.

Soil ratings for manure application as reflected by

soil family characteristics:

New York and Pennsylvania

Number of


Soil family series



col, m, f

Aquic Fragiorthods




cd, m, m

Aqueptic Fragiudalfs




Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts




Fluvaquentic Eutrochrepts




cosi, m, m

Aquic Dystrochrepts




fl, In, m

Aquic Fragiudalfs




Aqueptic Fragiudalfs




Aquic Hapludults




Glossaquic Hapludslfs







fl,s or s skel, m, m

*Application rate of 30 T/A/yr - New York. i Application rate of 24 T/A/yr - Pennsylvania.



Report of Committee 3 - Work Group I This report consists of two parts. Part I summarizes the responses received from state soil scientists and committee members concerning guidelines used in the various states to determine the limitations of soils for land application of wastes and the ratings given to individual soil series. Part II is the body of a memo from Mr. Fogg concerning"principles for developing soil potential ratings for local areas." Part I - Responses were received from 43 states and are divided into three groups based on the amount of information the individual state was able to provide. The following is a discussion of each of the three groups and, especially for Group 3, comparisons are made of ratings for common soil series between states with an attempt to highlight the source of variance when the same soil series is rated different by two states. Group 1. Thirty-three state responses are in this group. The responses, for the most part, consisted of a few brief statements. Twenty-one states indicated that they had not rated any of their soil series for land application of wastes. A few of.these states, however, indicated they had evaluated the soils at a few sites on an individual request basis but apparently did not use any published guidelines. The remaining twelve states of this group have either rated some or all of their series either using the guidelines in Advisory SOILS-14 or guidelines developed by a state agency. Neither the state guidelines nor lists of series rated and their ratings was included with the response, however. Nearly all of the states that have not rated their soils felt there would be a need to do so in the near future. or at least rate the soils near the more densely populated areas: Group 2. Five states (California, Hawaii, Minnesota. South Dakota, and Washington) are in this group and consists of those states that have developed state guidelines and included an information copy with their response or included their list of soil ratings. These are discussed by state: California has developed a Technical Note (TN-EVT-7, dated 2/74), concerning "Application of Animal Manures to Land." The portion of the Technical Note dealing with soil limitations was taken from Advisory SOILS-14, dated May 8, 1973. Tables 1 and 2 from this Advisory are included in the Technical Note, hence the criteria used for rating the soil limitations are the unmodified national guidelines. To provide a quantitative basis for applying soil limitation Tables 1 and 2 to their livestock.waste management problems, maximum soil loading rates were suggested depending on the degree of soil limitqtion. A copy of this table (Table 3) follows.


Report of Committee 3 - Work Group I TABLE 3 Degree of soil limitation to nontoxic biodegradable waste application:

Annual per acre manure application will not exceed the manure produced per annum by: 6.000 pounds of cattle, sheep, horses 4,500 pounds of swine 3,000 pounds of poultry 4,000 pounds of cattle, sheep, horses 3,000 pounds of swine 2,000 pounds of poultrv 2,000 pounds of cattle, sheep, horses 1,500 pounds of swine 1,000 pounds of poultry




Even though the Technical Note is more than two years old it was not known whether anyone had rated the soils in California for disposal of wastes using the published criteria. It was believed, however, the soils in California should be rated. Hawaii rated all the soils on the island of Oahu using Advisory SOILS-14. It appears that the groupings obtained was satisfactory except many of the soils were rated as having moderate limitations because they have AWC of less than 7.8 inches. It was felt this was too harsh on the soils and a better break between slight and moderate limitation concerning AWC would be 6 inches.


Minnesota prepared a Technical Note concerning "Agricultural Waste Management." The Technical Note was used in the state as a trial. This note is now being revised and is in draft form dated May 7, 1976 as Agronomy No. 16 (Rev. 1). The information contained in Advisory SOILS-14 dated May 8, 1973 was the basis for the Technical Note. Tables 1 and 2 of the Advisory were combined into one table basically unchanged except soil slope was added as a criteria with 0 to 2 percent slopes having slight limitation, 2 to 6 percent slopes having moderate limitation and over 6 percent slopes having severe limitation. The soils of Minnesota have not yet been rated, however. South Dakota has prepared a Technical Note (ENVIRONMENT NO. 5 dated g/3/74) concerning "Guide for Land Application of Animal Wastes." Each of the soil series used in South Dakota are rated for optimal manure application rates based on crop yield on that soil and nitrogen requirements for the crop. As such all the soils are treated equal concerning their limitations for disposal of waste in this guide.


Report of Committee 3 - Work Group I Washington is using "Guidelines for Manure Application in the Pacific Northwest" (EM 4009, Feb. 1976, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington). These guides provide instructions for calculating manure application rates based on nitrogen content of the manure and nitrogen requirements of the crop. The only soil property considered is soil drainage which is used as an aid in estimating a "denitrification coefficient." That is, as the degree of wetness increases the possibility for denitrification is estimated to increase, i.e., higher application rates are made on very poorly drained soils as compared to well drained soils. The ratio in this case is about 1.7:1. This guide also treats all soils as equal concerning their limitation for disposal of waste except it does list "some basic requirements of field application." Some of the statements in this list that involve soil properties are: "There must be no deleterious effects on soil properties. Runoff must be controlled so that there is no pollution of surface waters. Water percolating through the soil profile must not carry excessive nitrate-nitrogen concentrations into ground water aquifiers." Group.3. Five states (Maine, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) are in this group. It consists of states that have rated their soil serles with many of the soil series being common to two or more states, hence comparisons can be made directly between these states. Three sets of comparisons will be made; first, ratings given to soil series that are common between Michigan and Wisconsin ; second, ratings given to soil series that are comon between New York and Pennsylvania; and third, ratings given to soil series that are common between Maine and New York. An attemp will be made to highlight sources of variances when the same soil is rated differently by the two states. In the following comparison between Michigan and Wisconsin several sets of ratings are listed. In the first column of ratings is that given by !qisconsin based on a slightly modified version of Table 2 in Advisory SOILS-14. The second column is Michigan's ratings for soils based on Table 2 of Advisory SOILS-14. The third and fourth columns are Michigan's ratings for soils based on Table 1 of Advisory SOILS-14 with Column 3 for temporary installations and column 4 for permanent installations. Columns 5 and 6 represent "Hydrologic Limitations" taken from Research Report 195, Soil Limitations for Disposal of Municipal Waste Waters, Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with Michigan Water Resources Commission.

Repxt of Ccxmittee 3 - WorkGroup I



*xichigan ’ s

Limitation Patings

Limitation &kings for Solid Wastes

:Yichigans Linitation Ratixgs for Liquid Wastes (Pti.SOILS-141


Tanp.Ins2.d . . Se-D Se-7W.D Se-P,D Se-D,P N-D,P,AW Se-P Se-D IM-Aw M-AN Se-D Se-D Se-D N-D M-P S Se-? Se-P S Se-D Y-.Ui,P IY-‘w,P M-A!J,D

Sprinklet VSe-D Se-D VSe-D,P VSe-D,P 5: VSe-D,?

Hydrolcgic Liw~tation Patisgs fran Research Report 195

(Mv. SOILS-1 Q


Au Gres e1ount



Del Ray

Edwards ITiTmet Fox Gilford Granby Houghton Kikbie pe INkmu A%rley Cakvil.le Wley Plainfield R&icon S@inks p!asepi

*Se-D,P Se-D,P M-D,P Se-D,F Se-P X-D,P Se-D,F S S S-D,F Se-F,P Se-D,F N-D N-P S M-P Se-P S Se-P Se-P M-P M-P

Se-D Se-AW,D Se-D,P Se-D,P ?+D,P,AW Se-P se-0 M-AW M-W

Se-D Se-D Se-D M-D Y-P S Se-? Se-P S Se-D M-P ,.w bl-P,Aw M-D,PJJ

Perm.Insti Se-D Se-AW,D Se-P,D Se-D,P >l-D,P,AW Se-P Se-D S S Se-D Se-D Se-D M-D ‘Y-P S Se-? Se-? Se-P Se-D M-P N-P iY-D


,Y-P 2.1-P VSe-D We-D VSe-D Se-D,P N-P Se-? vse-P S Se-P S S S Se

l l%e abbreviations for degree andkind of limitations are as follows: S M Se VSe

= Slight = Wderate =Severe = Very severe

Aw D F P


=Availsblewatez =&ainage =Flccdirq = Pwmeability


VSe-D Se-D We-D,P VSe-D,P S We-D,P VSe-D M-P M-P We-D 'Se-D

: Se-P ; vse-P / :




S S Se-D


Report of Ccmr&tee 3 -I&ckGroup I

first four rating mlunns tbeoveralldifferences are soall. Blountand~rxley soils areratedas hatignoderate Limitations inwismnsin and severe limitations inMichigan. The reason for this difference is that these tin series are defined as havingmderately slew ti slow permeability. The guides defines soils with mderately slew ~i~~~ox$ngmzd~atelimitations and slcwps~+~&ilityas having . PFparentry the Blount and Nxely soils, as they inWismnsin,aremnsideredtohavemstlylroderately slowpenneability whereas theyarerated inMich.iganonthebasis of having slowpermeability. In Wismnsin's guide soils with rapid wility are considered to have severe limitations whereas Mvisory SOILS-14 (used um-cdified by Michigan) includes soilswithrapidpermeabilityas havingmcderatelim.itations. This differenceresults in the aboverating differences for Chelseaaxd R&icon soils. Wisconsin's guide also sets the limits between slight and rcderate limitations for availablewater cqacityatsix inches rather than 7.8 inchss used intichigantichresults Fntheratizgdiffsxences for EmretandFox soils. The 0fficialCelRay series description states that these soils have slow pzxaM.ity. Wisconsin's guid.e rates soils with slow psrnxability as having severe limitations; therefore, themzderatelimitation listed for Eel PayproDablyshouldhavebeen severe. when aIqx.ring the

When aqaring the ftistfourrat.&g mlmwith thelast&u the principal difference is the result of how permeability is assessed concerning its role. In the SC3 ratings, pxnx2abilityi.s assessed on the basis of its possible affectsonsoilaerationandresidence tieof solublewaste opponents; thflefore, soils that have eitherhighor lcwpermeabilityrates are penalized. P.eseKch Pqxxrt 195 assesses pxxeability on the basis of its possible affects on soil aeratinonly; therefore, thehigher the penreabilityrate the higher smre it is given. A canparison of the ratings for Chelsea, Elntuzt, Fox, hIi&., Cakville, Cckley, Plainfield, Rubimn,ard Spinks soils denanstrates this. Cnelsea, Oakvllle, Plsinfield, Eubimn, and Spinks soils all have rapid or very rapid perreability and havenrderate or severe limitations based on the SCS guides ti slight limitations bssedoncriteriaused inResearchRep3rt195. Maine, New York, 4 Pennsylvania's ratings are in ~~LTVS of application rates of-ure a& x&directly interms of soillimitxtions. In the following aqerisons,however, it is ass~~~&thatapplicationrateis inversely mrrelated to soil limitation, i.e., the lower t!!~a@ication rate the greater is the soil Unit&ion. &nsidering only the level sxd nqrly level soil phases, Maine used five application rates whtxeas NZQ~ York and Pennsylvania used only four. BecauseMaine considered a zero applicationrate and New York and Pennsylvania did not, to make canparison easier, Maine's application rates are reduced to four by grouping the lowest two rates. The rates of application can th~12 be axpared as follows:


Repsrtof Cbtmittee 3 -wOrkGroup I

Limitation No.















10 & 0



New York


A "Ihnitation Nurhr" (1 through 4) is assigned to each of the four application rates as shown above to sirrplifythe follmirg canparisons. cTalPARIsoN BlLmEENMAINEANQNEwYORK

Soil Series

Maine Ld.mitationNo.

New York Limitation No.


43 :

1 1




; 4 4

: 3 2



: 4 2 :



: 1 1 1 1 3


13 1

: 1


: 4 4

3' 2 3


Repxt of Camittee 3 - bbrk Group I CCMPWSON BE~I%EN IM?OXE AN3 NEW YOPX - Cmtinued

Soil Series


Maine LiinitationNo. 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 3 1 2 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4

New York Limitation No. 3



: 2 4


: 2 2

. ;


Report of Cam&tee 3 - Work Group I Maine did not publish the soil criteria used in rating their soils, however, the following is New York's criteria: SUGGESIEDMAX~IPA!TBS OE'APPLICATIONF'OF7E?FSHDAIRYMANURE Tcnsperacreperyear Drainage class

Depth to Bedrock 20"-40"+


Excessively drained



Well drained and mderately well drained



%mswhatpccrlydrained, pcorlyd.rained,andvety lxcrly drained



In reviewing scm of the series ccmmntobth states it appears that Maine did not group drainage classes the same as New York, for exmple, canpare the Well drained Charltcn and Paxton soils with the tierately ~~11 drained Sutton and Rxxlbridge soils. Shallow depth tc bedrock is rated dif-

ferentlv between the two states: comoare the "Limitation MO." for the shallow Canaan and Bollis soils. It appears also that&&e considered soil

permeability or available water capacity and flmding as criteria which muld result in different groupings as compared to New York's. CCMPARISON

Soil Series


New York Limitation No.


13 3 1 3 2 1



Pennsylvania Limitation No. : 4 '2 4 3 4 2 2 2 3 4 3

2 3 1 179



Soil Series

New York Limitation No.

Pennsylvania Limitation No.






1 1 1 3 : 3 : 1



Pennsylvania Limitation No.

New York Limitation No. 1 1 3 :

1 1 3 3 3 4 4 2

3 1 1 1


The criteria used for grouping New York's soils Was given above. The follawing is the criteria Pennsylvania used, however, when Pennsylvania developed the four application rates, they ccmbined soil groups 2 ti 3 and soul groups 4 and 5. -GUIDE DESCRIPTIONCF SOILGR~SFoRMANUREAPPLIcATION Soil

Group Number 1.


Well-drained soils. Deep or very deep. Can hold large anounts of Water without excessive runoff or drainage through the subsoil. Pdapted to nest crops. High crop yields.

2. Moderately Well-drained soils. Deep or very deep. Rave soil layers that restrict downward wement of Water. Mapted crops yield ~11. 3.

Well-drained soils. Variable. Usenayhelimitedbecauseofrcderate depth, excessive wexent of Water through the subsoil or soil layers restricting water-t. MaPtea crops With good aenagmt vield well.


Hard pans of soil layers restrict Water sanewhat poorly drained soils. movmt through the subsoil. Mapted to mt-tolerant crops. Gccd managenent is required for satisfactory crop yields.


Reim-t of Cannittee 3 - Work Group



Pest adapted to shallow-rooted, Crop yields are usually lm.


drought-tolerant crops. 6.


Pccrly and vex-1 poorly drained soils. Usually not suited for cultivated crops without artificial drainage. May b& difficult or notpracticalto drain, Crop yields arencderate to low.

Technical Guide Section III-S

Pennsylvania- Revised February 1976

wasteManagemant systeal

Xxm amparing New York's criteria with Pennsylvania's, one can see that each state did not consider the sarre drainage contributed the sam degree oflir&ation. For example, New York did not corsider the rmlerately well drained class to be a limitation tiersas Pennsylvania downrated mcderately wall drained soils. Also, soil depth classes are handled differently, for example, the well drained moderately deep Gilpin soils received a "Limitation No." oflin New York and 2 in Pennsylvania and the shallowPenson soils received a "Limitation No." of2inNewYorkand3inPennsylvania. &cause New Yorkdid not consider restrictive layers as a limitation and Pennsylvania did, resulted in Pennsylvania dcxngradirq all soils with restrictive layers. Haine, Michigan, Uew York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin considered soil slope as a possible limitation as it influenced runoff and erosion. Maine's guidelines rated soils with slopes beWeen 0 and 25 percent&s sums but indicated thatmanure should rot be appliedon soilswith slopes greater than 25 percent. Michigan (in Research Report195) used slope breaks of 0 to 2 percent, ard 6 to 12 percent. Thedegree oflimitationthattheyconsideredeach slope class exhibited depended on the soil (infiltration rate) but most of the soils with slopes greater than 6 percent were considered unsuited (at least for application of liquid wastes). Ned York considered TV slope classes, 0 to 8 percent ad 8to 15 percent,with soils having slopes greaterthan percent notrated. Pennsylvania considered three slope classes, 0 to 8 percent, 8 to 15 percent, and 15 to 25 percent. Because New York's ard Pennsylvania's guides concerned application rates, the rates were decreased as gradient increased. Wisconsin also considered three slope classes with slopes 0 to 6 percent presenting slight limitations, slopes 6 to12 @rcentpresenting Ircderate limitations ard Slopes greati than 12 p?ESIIt p?XSmting Severe limitation. Part II. The following is a discussion on "principles for developing soil potential ratings for local areas" prepared by Mr. C. E. Fcgg:


Report of

ccmittee 3 -WorkGroup I

"Advisory SOILS - 14, May 8, 1973, is a useful guide for planning waste management systems incormrating lard utilization (or disposal). Its section Wajor Interacti&s Be- Waste Materials aml Soils" as wall as tables 1 and 2 are excellent national guides. Tables 3, 4, 5 and 7 also present reasonable broad guidelines but could be refined locally to represent local conditions. "Advisory EVF11, April 30, 1976, (incorrectly distributed as Advisory EVT-30 to - recipients) is a first attempt to relate soil CEC to its potential for safely accepting Zn, Gu, Ni, Cd, and Pb. To be of use at the field level the CE of local soils must be knmm. Further refinement at the local level could relate named soils to potential quantities of phosphorus and the various heavy metals they can safely assimilate without adversely affecting crops or being a threat in the food chain. "Application of waste to land is site specific. A well pi&n4 system is the result of inputs fran many disciplines including soil scientists. It mist be based on quantitative data about wastes, soils, plants, and climate. Even data fran local guides needs to bz verified or refined as it relates to a specific site. "Soil potential ratings for local areas should be the result of input from all involved disciplines. They should contain as much quantitative data as passible to enhance their usefulness to system planners and minimize the amount of site specific investigations required.. Ur&rnocircm&ances can they ' be a substitute for interdisciplinary planning and design of alternative ccnrplete lamd application systems including rates, tties, and total volumes 0 of wastes to be applied at specific sites. "As a first step it would bs desirable to have the CEC of naned soils developed for local areas."

Committee 3 - Work Group I 0. C. R. A. G. M. J.

F. E. F. J. J. L. E.

Bailey Fogg Harner Klingelhoets Latshaw Markley Witty, Chairman


S o i l SurJey c o m m i t t e e 3

Animal Wapte (Work Group II) Introduction Animal wastes are substances which have high chemical oxygen demand and accumulate during animal raising, holding, or finishing operations. These commonly include excrement, dead animals, and other substances such as feathers or hair. >lajor problems related to animal waste include potential food contamination, surface and ground water alteration, and odor. The impact of these problems increases with human population density. Waste production can be divided into climatic regions as follows: 1.

Moisture sufficient regions (those areas where percolation of soils or unsheltered piles occurs during prolonged periods of most years). a. Dairy, poultry, and swine operations are common in this region.


Moisture tension regines (those areas where percola:icc and evapcration are about balanced during most years). a. Feedlots for beef cattle finishing are common in this region.


Moisture deficit regions (those areas where evaporation is the dominant moisture factor during most years). a. Peedlots for beef and dairy cattle and poultry operations are cossson in this region. b. Grazing with low animal density is common in this region.

Waste handling systems commonly utilize soil loading as a final step. be applied to soil for nutrient utilization Liquid or solid waste can by crops (11). Waste handling systems may utilize lagoons prior to spreading on soil. Systems for handling non-spreadable material such as dead animals include landfill, incineration, and rendering. Potential problems related to loading soil vith animal waste include: 1.

Microbial utilization of all available nitrogen


Biological activity varies regionally with both temperature and moisture (14).


Nutrient balance and excess nutrient leaching. Nitrification, the conversion of nitrogen from reduced fones to nitrate, requires adequate phosphorus (a), an aerobic environment (5.and 14), and temperature greater than 5" C. (14). Nitrogen will move with percolating water if it is in the nitrate form (1, 3, 14 and l55). Nitrate moves through soils In moisture tension and moisture deficit regions primarily with irrigation water (1, 3, 7, and 14). In some places nitrate has accumulated below the root zones of native vegetation and becomes a hazard to ground water quality when irrigation water or waste in liquid form is applied to the soil (2 and 14). Water from tile drains, however, commonly has nitrate in higher concentration than that in the base flow (13). Nitrate which percolates below the


if C:N is too

small (14)

Soil Survey Committee 3 root zone w i l l p r o b a b l y p e r s i s t u n l e s s d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n o c c u r s (1, 2 and 0 14); denitrification occurs in anaerobic zones and is enhanced by addition of energy sources such as glucose (12). An alternate anaerobic pathway for nitrate loss is reduction to ammonia (12). Fine-textured soils will deaitrify m o r e e f f i c i e n t l y t h a n c o a r s e - t e x t u r e d o n e s ( 3 a n d 6 ) . Roots of plants are the primary absorbers of mobile nutrients: many studies have shown that nutrient application within the regioQa1 recommendations for the crop allow roots to absorb nearly all the mobile plant nutrients (4, 6, and 10). In a few places nitrate has been ab, sorbed by plants in sufficient concentrations that grazing animals have a d v e r s e m e t a b o l i c r e a c t i o n s ( 1 4 ) . Vegetation from recently abandoned feedlots or from grasslands which have received excess applications of manure should be analyzed prior to grazing.4. Animal waste that has not been leeched commonly contains sluble salt ( 1 4 ) . When applied to soil in the moisture tension or moisture deficit regions, salts can accu;oulate i n s u f f i c i e n t q u a n t i t y t o d e c r e a s e c r o p y i e l d (15). In soils where soluble salts have accumulated, percolating water will carry these in solution (1). Soluble salt is also present in ground water of moisture sufficient regions; however, the concentration is commonly lo” (4 and 5). When little water is percolating through s o i l s o f m o i s t u r e s u f f i c i e n t r e g i o n s , the groundwater salt concentration m e a s u r e m e n t s o f tile effluent can give values five or more times greater than those found in the non-tile flow (13). Recommendations of W&k Group II:


A n y f u t u r e n a t i o n a l g u i d e d e s i g n e d t o r a t e s o i l s u i t a b i l i t y o r limitations for assimilating applied animal waste should direct the individual s t a t e s t o d e s i g n a s i m i l a r g u i d e . The individual state guides can be m o r e l i m i t e d in s c o p e o f s o i l s a n d t h e r e f o r e o f f e r m o r e s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a .


A category for rating cation exchange capacity should be added to the p r e s e n t g u i d e ( 1 1 ) . This would provide a means for rating nutrient detention time prior to plant uptake.


A category for rating soil texture should be added to the present guide (11). This would provide a means for rating trafficability where needed.


Xaximum 1oadir.g rate should be a functios of nitrogen content and C:N as The maximum rate should be changed from in the present guide (11). 1% times the nitrogen required for the ctop to a rate determined by s o m e formula w i t h v a r i a b l e s f o r t h e n i t r o g e n r e l e a s e f a c t o r s . A n example used by D. L. Reddell (9) f o l l o w s :

Manure Application Rates The amount of ~can~~re which should be added can be calculated from f o l l o w i n g foLTUlas: SIHN -

+ ClfE (l-L)185

SWX = SoiL-In;szo:lce.? :::>,A=? :;is. :::2:re, FG!l - Fer;il;~e:‘&,i~& !:i:r:2,sr., 1:s. >;,=cre, A - Availability coefficient of closure, nitrogen, a fracticn of t’ne soil-iz;or3orzcad :orai r.iirs;*.:. trz_x<2rred to c::e


inorgaaic fo-;-_; - Deolfrificatisa coefficient, a fraction of the available inorganic r.itrogen, - Leaching coefficient, a fraction of the available inorganic nitroge? stored Ln the soil.

To calculate the quanitg of solid manure applied on a dry-weight basis: FCX 20 C A(l-3) (1-L)


tc?.s,?.cre oc dry bisis, 0 Concentration of nitrogen in waste, percent on dry basis.

SIX - Soil 1nccrpcra:ed xailure,


To calculate the quantity of solid manure applfed on a wet weight basis: PC3


(1-e) 20CA(l-D) (1-L) SIN - Soil Incorporated ?!nure, tons/acre on wet weight basis, e - Zloisture content of sanure on wet basis. To calculate the quantity of a Uqufd waste applied: 100 Fcx


8.33 (TS) CA(l-D) (1-L) S1I.H = Soil Incorporated Liquid Xmure, gal/acre, = Total Solids in liquid waste, fraction of TS total weight. Manure Nitrogen Availabili:y Coefficients for the Firs: 29 A?plicicioa Years in Warm ClFmates ;Ihen a Constant Pace of Manure is Applied Sach Year. ._ Nitrogen in'

Availability Coefficient for the year of application


(X dry basis) 1

1 1.5 2.5 3.5 Poultry ?!aure Anaerobic Lzsoon Treated Fresh Dafr~

0.20 0.35 0.40 0.75 0.90


0.28 0.45 0.55 0.79 0.91


0.32 0.50 0.58 0.81 0.91


0.35' 0.53 0.60 0.82 0.92


0.38 0.55 0.63 0.53 0.92




0.52 0.65 0.73 0.37 0.94

0.63 0.73 0.80 0.90 c1.35

0.71 0.79 0.85 0.92 0.96

soi Survey Committee 3 Denitrification Coefficients. Degree of Soil Drainage

Denitrification Coefficient

Excessive or somewhat excessive swell Moderately well Somewhat poorly

0 0.10 0.20 0.30

Leaching Coefficients. Climate

Precipitation only

Dry wet

0.05 0.15


Precipitation Sprinkler Irrigation 0.10 0.20

Precipitation 6 Furrow Irrigation 0.25 0.30



Binghaa, F. T., S. Davis, and E. Shade. 1971. Water relations, salt balance, and nitrate leaching losses of a 960~acre citrus watershed. Soil Science 112:6:410-418.


Boyce, .I. S., J. Muir, A. P. Edwards, E. C. Seim, and R. A. Olson. 1976. Geologic nitrogen in Pleistocene loess of Nebraska. J. Env. Qual. 5:1:93-96.


Devitt, D., J. Letey, L. J. Lund, and J. W. Blair. 1976. Nitratenitrogen movement through soil as affected by soil profile characteristics. J. Env. Qual. 5:3:283-288.


Gilliam, T. W., R. B. Daniels, and J. F. Lutz. 1974. Nitrogen content of shallow groundwater in the North Carolina coastal plain. J. Env. Qual. 3:2:147-151.


Hortanstine, C. C. 1976. Chemical changes in soil solution from a Spodosol irrigated with secondary-treated sewage effluent. J. Env. Qual. 5:3:335-338.


Rissel, D. E., S. J. Smith, and D. W. Dillow. 1976. Disposition of fertilizer nitrate appiied to a swelling clay soil in the field. J. Env. Qual.,5:1:66-71.


Muir, J., J. S. Boyce, E. C. Seim, P. N. Mosher, E. J. Deibert, and R. A. Olson. 1976. Influence of crop management practices on nutrient movement below the root zone in Nebraska soils. J. Env. Qual. 5:3:255-259.


Soil survey committee 3 8.

Purchase, B. S. 1974. The influence of phosphate deficiency on nitrification. Plant & Soil 41:3:541-547.


Reddell, D. L. 1976. Station, Texas.

Unpublished data.

Texas A&M Univ., College


Schuman, G. E., T. M. McCalla, K. E. Saxton, and H. T. Knox. 1975. Nitrate movement and its distribution in the soil profile of differentially fertilized watersheds. S S S A Proc. 39:6:1192-1197.


Soil Conservation Service. 1973.~ Guide for rating limitations of soils for disposal of waste.


Stanford, G., J. 0. Legg, D. Stanislaw, and E. C. Simpson, Jr. 1975. Denitriflcation and kssociated nitrogen transformations in soils. Soil Science 120:2:147-152.


Thomas, W. G. and B. J. Barfield. 1974. The unreliability of tile effluent for monitoring subsurface nitrate-nitrogen losses from soil. J. Env. Qual. 3:2:183-185.


Vie&. Jr., F. G. and R. H. Hageman. 1971. Factors affecting the accumulation of nitrate in soil, water, and plants. Agr. Handbook 413. 63 pages.

15., Wallingford, G. W., L. S. Murphy, W. L. Powers, and H. L. Manges. 1975. Disposal of beef-feedlot manure: Effects of residual and yearly applications on corn and soil chemical properties. J. Env. Qual. 4:4:526-531.



Sewage Sludge

This work group focused its attention on Cd and its relation to Zn and Zn/Cd ratio because of their importance in assessment of sludge application on agricultural lands. Cadmium is an element that accumulates in the body of man and animals and is more likely to enter in the food and feed chain than an element like Pb. Lead is largely fixed in soils and is not readily available to plants grown on sludge-treated soils. Zinc is important because it has a detoxifying effect on body Cd, as does Se. While critical levels of Cd remain to be defined, use has been made of Cd levels in plants and Zn/Cd ratios to assess the biological movement from sludge-treated soils to plants grown on the soils. General guidelines for maximum loading Cd rates are defined in Adv. Evt.-11, April 1.976. The effect of sludge-loading rates on different kinds of soils was assessed using plants as a bioassay tool of Cd activity. Application of Adv. Evt.-11 is field-oriented and publications of field studies were used as primary sources of information. A summary of the publications used, soils and other pertinent information is presented in Table 1. All were from journal articles, except the Wisconsin study. This report (Kelling, Keeney, Walsh and Ryan) has been submitted for publication. Except for Colorado, the reports are from the eastern U.S. Pertinent data have been selected from these reports. Data for corn were used because this plant provided observations over a wide range of soils. Data for field corn and sweet corn have been combined. Cadmium and Zn loading rates were calculated from concentrations in sludge and application rates to provide a common basis to assess the role of sludge application, soils and their interaction. Cadmium: A general increase in Cd concentration with Cd loading rates is evident in leaves of corn grown on sludge-treated soils (Fig. 1). Between Cd loading rates of 0.1 to 10 ppm, corn grown on the Sassafras soils (Maryland) tended to have the most Cd, and corn from Hubbard coarse sand (Minnesota) the least. The CEC of the Hubbard soil probably is about the same as that of the Sassafras soil. The Hubbard soil has free carbonates, typically between 60 to 80 inches with extremes'of 50 to 100 inches (series description). Maximum lifetime site application rates of 5 kg/ha for soils with CEC between O-5 meq/lOO g, 10 kg/ha for soils with 5-15 meq/lOO g, and 20 kg/ha for soils with more than 15 meq/lOO g have been suggested (Adv. Evt.-11). The information presented in Fig. 1 suggests that concentrations in corn leaf may exceed 5 ppm of Cd if loading rates exceed 10 kg/ha of Cd. Higher Cd concentrations might be expe&ed if heavy Cd feeder plants are grown on the same soils. Sorghum-sudangrass appears to be a better feeder of Cd than corn under Wisconsin conditions. 189


The Zn concentration in corn leaves and corn stower (leaves Zinc and stalks) increases with Zn loading rates (Fig. 2). For Wisconsin (X), the top series of points are data for corn &over produced on a Warsaw sandy loam, and the bottom series, from a Piano silt loam. The Piano soil has nearly twice the cation exchange capacity (22 meq/lOO g) as does the Warsaw soil (13 meq/lOO g). Specific responses of corn to four soils are illustrated in Fig. 3. While the increases in Zn concentration with Zn loading rate are parallel, differences between soils may be important if means are sought to increase the Zn/Cd ratio or if an existing wide ratio is to be maintained. Zinc/Cd Ratios: The Zn/Cd ratio tends to decrease from south to north in corn leaves and corn stover (Table 2). Differing sludge application rates and soils are confounded in the median concentrations presented. Averages reported by the investigators were used and include values from at least three replicated plots. The trend appears to result principally from higher Cd concentrations in the southern samples. The Zn concentrations (median) in corn from Minnesota (123 ppm), Illinois (146 ppm), and Maryland (139 ppm) are nearly the same. In general, data from control plots (without sludge application! showed higher Cd concentrations in plants grown on southern than on northern soils. Zinc/Cd ratios of plants may be useful if they are used in conjunction with measured Cd and Zn concentrations. The universal application of plant Zn/Cd ratios over unlimited concentration ranges of Cd does not seem reasonable. Changes With Successive Crops: The Piano soil (fine silty, mixed, mesic) and the Warsaw soil (fine, loamy over sand, mixed, mesic) are both Typic Argiudolls. Cadmium concentrations in corn stover, with one exception, decreases with successive corn crops produced on a sludge-treated Piano soil (Fig. 4). Cadmium concentrations, on the other hand, tend to increase from the second to third corn crop produced on the Warsaw soil. Trends in Zn concentration (Fig. 5) parallel those of Cd (Fig. 4). These observations seem applicable to maximum lifetime loading rates defined in Adv. Evt.-11. The two are morphologically similar and differ primarily in texture and in CEC. Whether the changes in successive corn crops can all be attributed to CEC alone is not known. The median Zn/Cd ratio is essentially the same (210) when the ratios for the two soils are compared. The Zn/Cd ratio ranged from 159 to 343 for the corn crop grown on the Plano soil, and from 141 to 275 for that grown on the Warsaw soil.


General: activity:

Some general observations seem evident from Work Group III

1. A plant like corn appears to have the capacity to absorb relatively large mounts of Cd and Zn in the absence of phytotoxicity. Plant tolerance to Cd appears to exceed tolerance levels for man and animals.

2. Greater use can be made of soil characteristics other than CEC alone to establish maximum lifetime loading rates. Plant uptake of Cd can be lowered with increasing soil pH. Application of lime is emphasized when sludge is applied to land and good advantage can be taken of the natural occurrence of subsoil carbonates, especially with trenching operations. While low loading rates were applied in the Minnesota and Wisconsin studies, the fact remains that these soils have calcareous subsoil and substratum. The increase in plant Cd with Cd loading rates suggests that 3. Cd concentration in sludge should be monitored and sludge application rates be modified to reflect Cd concentration in the sludge applied. The relationship of N in sludge to sludge loading rate and 4. Cd concentration in plants remains to be examined critically. Defining soils and conditions when N or Cd first becomes the limiting factor on sludge application rates should enhance the usefulness of guidelines for waste disposal on named kinds of soils. Joe Kubota, Chairman B. L. Carlile D. E. Hill G. J. Holmgren L. J. Lund


REFERENCES Municipal sewage sludge and selected element Effect on soil and fescue. J. Environ.


Boswell, F. C. 1975. applications to soil: Qual. 4:267-273.


Chancy, R. L., M. C. White, and P. W. Simon. Plant uptake of heavy metals from sewage sludge applied to land. Proc. Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluent on Land. Champaign, IL. PP. 169-177.


Dowdy, Fi. H. and W. E. Larson. 1975. The availability of sludgeborne metals to various vegetable crops. J. Environ. Qual. 4:278282.


Giordano, P. M., J. J. Mortvedt, and D. A. Mays. 1975. Effect of municipal wastes on crop yields and uptake of heavy metals. J. Environ. Qual. 4:394-399.


Jones, R. L., T. D. Hinesly, E. L. Ziegler, and J. J. Tyler. 1975. Cadmium and zinc contents of corn leaf and grain produced by sludgeamended soil. J. Environ. Qual. 4:509-514.


Kelling, W. A., D. R. Keeney, L. M. Walsh, and J. A. Ryan. A field study of the agricultural use of sewage sludge. III. Effect on uptake and extractability of sludge-borne metals (submitted for publication).


Sabey, B. R. and W. E. Hart. 1975. Land application of sewage sludge: I. Effect on growth and chemical composition of plants. J. Environ. Qual. 4:252-256.


Table 1.

Sources of information used to assess sewage sludge disposal on named kinds of soils

State and

Properties Series

Kind of soil and family reference




cosi, sil,

th; Glossic Fragiudult

Sang0 sil



Trxkt,on 15






( cola,


(c, kao, th; Rhodic Paleudult, oxidic)

Davidson cl




(f, ill, m; Aeric Ochraqualf)

Blount sil




(fl, sil,

m; Aquic Hapludult.)

Woodstom sil




(fl, sil,

m; Typic Hapludalf)

Sassafras sil






n; Udic Argiilstoll)+

(caic) __ (subsoil)


s, m; Udorthentic Haploboroll

Hubbard cos



fsi, m, m; Typic Argiudoll

Plan0 sil




fl/s, m, m; Typic Argiudoll

Warsaw sl





*Reference number. t


Parentheses gives information from sources other than original publication.


Table 2.

Zinc/Cd ratios for corn leaves and forage in relation to sludge loading rates (maximum) and plant concentration (median) of Zn and Cd



Observations Source

Zn/Cd Loading rate


Loading rate



ratio (maximum)






:mediarr )


MI - corn leaves














IL - c0rn leaves







MD - c0rn cleaves














WI - ccrn

AL - corn

FIGURE CAPTIONS Fig. 1. Relationship of Cd concentration in corn leaf to Cd loading rate. Fig. 2. Relationship of Zn concentration in corn leaf and corn stover to Zn loading rate. Fig. 3. Relationship of Zn leaf concentration to Zn loading rate of corn grown on three soils of Minnesota, Maryland and Illinois. Fig. 4. Cadmium concentration in successive crops of corn (stover) following sewage sludge application on two Wisconsin soils. Fig. 5. Zinc concentration in successive crops of corn (stover) following sewage sludge application on two Wisconsin soils.


4 t


196 .

a 197

Sludge oppllhd MT/HA 0 3.75 - 1J.O -~,30.0 ----


Methods of Analysis for Heavy Metals in Sewage Sludge

Soils and sludges may be characterized for heavy metals by total or extract analysis. Total analysis of sludges usually involves ashing at 450' C or wet digestion in oxidizing acids (5). Total analysis of soils requires prior dissolution in sodium carbonate or hydrofluoric acid. Cadmium may be volatilized during dry ashing and should be released by wet digestion or acid extraction (5). Bradford et al. (1, 2) have used prolonged digestion in 4 l nitric acid to approximate total metals in both soils and sludges. Wear and Sumner (8) used 0.1 g HCl as a heavy metal extractant for soils. This extract has been used to characterize soils and sludges with good results (3, 7). This extract approximates total analysis for sludges but yields a lesser fraction for soils. A third general class of extractants includes various chelating agents. These are presumed to be more selective for the readily available forms of the metals. Of these chelating agents, EDTA (6) and DTPA (4) have proven the most popular. No one analytical approach can satisfactorily characterize soils and sludges for all purposes. Total analysis is the most conservative basis for calculating recommended loading rates on land. Strong acid (4 3 HMO,) or weak acid (0.1 x HCl) extracts closely approximate total analysis of sludge for many elements and should be satisfactory for most purposes. The various chelate extracts may be useful for plant uptake correlation studies but should not be used to calculate loading rates. Specific recommendations for analysis of the various elements are included in Kansas State Research Publication 170 (5).



Bradford, G. R., R. J. Arkley, P. F. Pratt, and F. L. Bair. 1967. Total content of nine mineral elements in fifty selected benchmark soil profiles of California. Hilgardia 38(43:541-556.


Bradford, G. Pi., A. L. Page, L. J. Lund, and W. Olinstead. 1975. Trace element concentrations of sewage treatment plant effluents and sludges; their interaction with soils and uptake by plants. J. Environ. Qual. 4:123-127.


Jones, R. L., T. D. Hinesly, E. L. Ziegler. 1973. Cadmium content of soybeans grown in sewage-sludge amended soil. J. Environ. Qual. 2:351-353.


Lindsay, W. L. 1972. Agron. 24:14-f-186.


Kansas State University. 1975. Sampling and analysis of soils, plants, waste waters, and sludge. NE-118 Technical Subcommittee, Kansas State Univ. Res. Pub. 170.


Trierweiler, J. F. and W. L. Lindsay. 1969. EDTA-ammonium carbonate soil test for zinc. Soil sci. sot. Amer. Proc. 3:49-54.


Walsh, L. M., W. H. Earhardt, and H. D. Serbel. 1972. Copper toxicity in snapbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris). J. Environ. Qual. 1:197-200.


Weir, 3. I. and A. L. Sumner. 1948. Acid extractable zinc of soils in relation to the occurrence of zinc deficiency symptoms of corn: A method of analysis. Soil Sci. Sot. Amer. Proc. 12:143-144.

Zinc in soils and plant nutrition.



NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK-PLANNING CONFERENCE OF THE COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY January 31-February 4, 1977 Orlando, Florida Report of Committee 4 - Water Movement in the Soils Landscape CHARGES 1.

Review models for water budgets of soil pedons and soil landscapes as they relate to pollution by sediments, pesticides, and fertilizer elements.


Establish how soil information is used in these models, whether the information presently provided for named kinds of soils is adequate, and what soil parameters must be better identified.


Consider the possible use of AMS and remote sensing techniques in interfacing soil survey information with models of waste movement in soils.

Hydrologic modeling was reviewed in considerable detail by soil moisture committees of the Western and North Central Soil Survey Work Planning Conferences of 1976. It was also treated by the 1975 report of this national committee, which was the basis for the above charges. For greater detail, particularly regarding the USDAHL-74 model, the reader is referred to those reports and to attachments to this report. This report explores current and potential uses of Soil Survey information in hydrologic models. The models are intended to predict and describe moisture movement in soils and across landscapes. This is a growing need basic to many aspects of land use, soil and water conservation. Many models utilize little soil survey or other basic soils information. In some cases the modelers lack knowledge of available information. In other cases the available information is difficult to put into mathematical form. Because soils maps and attendant Soil Survey interpretations put information into a detailed geographic format. the potential use in hydrologic modeling is great. Evaluation of fbrm and content for applicability to modeling requirements was divided in two parts. One part, consideration of analytical techniques relating to infiltration and water movement was evaluated in detail. The second part, consideration of mapping unit and landscape descriptions, and other topographic information was deferred to a later committee. Recommendations of this committee specifically refer to models, but when implemented they will also help with other water related use and management concerns including solid and liquid waste disposal, soil water storage, runoff and erosion, and movement of potential pollutants.


Hydrologic Models Five models reviewed were: USDAHL-74, ACTMO, USBR Model, HYNO, and ARM. Their use is summarized in the main body and is discussed in more detail in attachments to this report. USDAHL-74 is a" A.RS model for surface runoff, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge prediction based on a moisture accounting scheme. It has no capability for sediment yield, erosion, or chemical transport. ACTMO, also being developed by the ARS, incorporates USDAHL-74 and the USLE (universal soil loss equation) in a chemical transport model. This model calculates surface runoff, evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, sediment yield, erosion, deposition, chemical transformations, and loss of chemicals through runoff and leaching. The USBR model simulates evapotranspiration, unsaturated flow, saturated flow, precipitation of slightly soluble salts, ion exchange, ion pairing, nitrogen transformations, crop uptake of nitrogen, movement and redistributions of salts and nutrients and predicts the concentration of Ca, Mg, Na, NH4, HC03, C03, Cl, SO4, N03-N, Urea-N, in the soil, the aquifer, and in drainage waters. This physical model has no provisions for surface runoff or erosion, or chemical losses through these processes. HYMO is a model developed by the ARS to estimate surface runoff and sediment yield from watersheds. It has no provisions for chemical transport or evapotranspiration or drainage. It is based on curve numbers available in the SCS National Engineering Handbook. ARM is a model developed by Hydrocomp Corporation for EPA. It simulates runoff, snow accumulation and melt, sediment loss, pesticide-soil interactions, and soil nutrient transformations and predicts sediment, pesticide, and nutrient content of runoff from small agricultural watersheds. It must be calibrated to a particular location as the hydrologic processes are largely empirical. The models vary widely in their need for soil data. HYMO requires only soil erodibility factor (from USLE) values and rainfall-runoff curves found in the SCS National Engineering Handbook. On the other hand, the USBR model requires very detailed soils information including bulk density, unsaturated hydraulic conductivity as a function of water content, saturated hydraulic conductivity, moisture retention curves, soil temperature as a function of depth and time, cations, anions, pH, CEC, gypsum, carbonates, and carbon nitrogen ratio. Most models require bulk density, l/3 and 15 bar water contents, and some estimate of infiltration. Some models require an estimate of cracking and/or surface conditions. The reason for the wide variation in the amount of soils data needed for the various models lies in the nature of the model. The USBR model requires extensive soils data because it is a physical model using equations describing physical processes actually occurring. Conversely ARM requires only limited soils data (bulk density and an estimate of mea" infiltration rate), because it is an empirical model which must be calibrated with observations in any area where it is to be used. On the other hand, USDAHL-74 is a deterministic model which attempts to model soil processes by relating them to soil properties which have some degree of influence on them (e.g. most soil-water processes are represented as exhaustion functions of "available water capacity").


The soils information now provided is adequate for some models. The most needed additional values are infiltration rate, complete moisture retention curves, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivities.


AMS (Advanced Mapping System) Computer storage of soils maps could be of obvious value for predictions of water movement in landscapes when tied into models such as the USDAHL-74. However, the full potential will require another generation of models designed to take advantage of more topographic detail. We should remain abreast of developments as this system progresses. Remote Sensing of Soil Moisture The greatest apparent usefulness of remote sensing to waste movement models is the potential for accurate determination of soil moisture content. With the present technology, it is possible to obtain a reasonable estimate of soil moisture in the surface 15 cm (6 in.). The effective depth is influenced by both surface roughness and soil moisture content. This is not deep enough to be of any direct benefit to models unless correlated to other soil moisture and climatic information. The existence of valid correlations remains to be demonstrated. However, a surface measurement of soil moisture could be useful in monitoring spatial distribution of rainfall, thus improving the accuracy and utility of models incorporating weather data in water balance type equations. For this purpose, the present 18-day data collection interval would have to be shortened considerably. No one knows how long it will take to develop the technology to determine 0 soil moisture at greater depths or even if it will be possible using remote sensing techniques. It is presently possible to determine plant stress, which is an indication of water availability in the root zone. It might be wise to encourage researchers to explore the possibilities of determining soil water using plant stress data. Advantages of this method are that the technology is available now and that it would give water content in the root zone where it is most important. Before this method can be used routinely, further research is needed to correlate remote sensing data on plant stress with soil moisture. Information on rooting patterns of specific plants in various soils is also needed for this method. The obvious disadvantage of this technique is the inability to determine soil moisture when the soil is bare or the vegetation dormant. Consideration also must be given to several factors such as the dependence of plant stress upon time of day and weather conditions, and the variation in root distribution over the growing season. This determination, unlike surface soil moisture determinations, is affected by cloud cover. No doubt, it will be desirable to use both methods together to obtain a more complete picture of soil water distribution. Remote sensing is a potentially useful tool which we should continue to watch, but which is not sufficiently developed for "se within the scope of this report.


Summary and Comment The mathematical description of water movement in soil landscapes widely used to predict runoff, infiltration and soil water storage agricultural uses and other water management purposes. It is used predict erosion, stream pollution, aquifer pollution and potential of alternate land uses.

is for to impacts

A detailed model is limited in its usefulness if needed soils data are not available. Currently, soil survey data pertinent to models are available in one of two forms. One is the interpretive tables, pedon descriptions, and mapping unit descriptions and maps of soil surveys. The other is the published analytical data such as Soil Survey Investigations Reports. S o i l surveys contain information regarding the distribution of soils in the landscape, horizontal and vertical variability of soils, and estimates of permeability, available water capacity, and runoff. Soil Survey Investigations Reports contain detailed data on bulk density, l/3- and 15-bar moisture, water retention difference (WRD), and coefficient of linear extensibility (COLE) and non-numerical estimates of relative permeability and runoff . The estimates of permeability and runoff are of limited value to model users who need numerical values. The more thorough mathematical statements require information that is not available through the soil survey program. There is a growing body of needed information accumulating in nonuniform and unorganized fashion. To take advantage of this existing information and to accumulate more in consistent and pertinent format will require us to cooperate closely with the people now working in hydrology and soil moisture fields. The effort is too complex for a single discipline, and too important to delay. The amount of water entering the soil in a given situation is one of the most critical factors. The actual entry into the soil is controlled by surface and internal conditions that are very difficult to treat theor e t i c a l l y . Soils do not wet uniformly by saturated flow. Normally only the surface connected cracks and channels and a small proportion of the pores conduct water by saturated flow and these are often irregularly distributed when viewed in small sampling units. Therefore, soil moisture measurements on laboratory-sized samples are inadequate as bases for statements of infiltration rates. Field measurements of pedon size and larger are needed, along with shrink-swell information, and dry and moist descriptions of structure. Soil moisture and soil surface conditions are transient. Any given soil will have a range of infiltration rates which change with moisture content and with immediate physical history of the given site. Field measurements of infiltration must be designed to give meaningful estimates of those ranges. As a minimum, infiltration should be measured at a dominant physcial condition with low initial moisture, and after prolonged heavy rain. Description of the surface morphology at infiltration measurement sites and as part of standard soil descriptions would assist in extending information.


Much soil water movement above water tables is by unsaturated flow at the wet end of the moisture range. This flow is through finer pores than is saturated flow, and can be adequately sampled in large cores (lo-20 inch diameter) taken to the laboratory. The relationship between water content and rate of water movement is needed down to about the rate water moves at field capacity, which is roughly 0.01 cm per day. The data are needed for major horizons and for possible restrictive horizons even though the latter may be quite thin.

(1) The Soil Survey program incorporate methods to more thoroughly characterize soil water movement and water retention on a select range of important soils, including: (a) data to create curves of hydraulic conductivities vs. water content from saturation to conductivities of roughly 0.01 cm/day, on the surface horizon, the first restricting horizon and the most limiting horizon within the depth to which our maps apply, (b) infiltration measurements to establish the dominant range plus a minimum rate under poor surface physical conditions, (2) Incorporate into standard pedon desciiptions the observed surface conditions including cracks, crusts, structural differences from the remainder of the surface horizon, porosity, ranges and proportions of surface features across the pedon. Remind soil scientists through technical notes that careful descriptions of root distributions are important and are integral parts of detailed pedon descriptions. (3) Add to pedon descriptions of benchmark soils, (a) description of wettest condition and season(s) of occurrence, (b) description of driest condition and season(s) of occurrence, (4) Initiate a program to consolidate existing ARS and Experiment Station data pertaining to Item 1 above. This should be limited to information that is identified by kind of soil, (5) Initially restrict the recommended soil characterization and consolidation of data to key soils. The goal is to characterize an array of key soils by the more thorough methods, and extrapolate through correlations with more widely available data, (6) Present the recommended data in special reports and publications such as Soil Survey Investigations Reports, (7) Elicit assistance from the Agricultural Research Service in designing a standard set of procedures.. Explore ways to develop an integrated national program with participation by cooperating agencies and the Agricultural Research Service, a 205

(8) For the next conference charge this committee with (a)

reviewing progress and determining whether and how to incorporate the added information into standard interpretive tables,

(b) reviewing Progress in remote sensing and AMS for possible application to definition of water movement and soil moisture regimes across landscapes, and (c)

evaluating mapping unit descriptions and other Soil Survey information about distributions, shapes of soil bodies, slope lengths, positions and other topographic information for use in viewing and modeling soil water movement on a landscape-wide basis. Particularly, we should arrange our descriptive information to center attention on the mapping units and maps rather than on taxonomic units,

(9) Continue this committee.


DisCussiOn Peters

- The Bureau of Reclamation has a committee reviewing the USBR model and will soon have a report discussing it.


- This committee should consider landscape relationships, distributions, and interactions of adjacent features.


- This is one thing lacking in this report.


- On this we agree. The committee purposely concentrated on a range of subject matter it could treat effectively at this conference. One of our recommendations is to look at the mapping units and landscape information for the next conference.


- Did you consider hysteresis and cracking in soils that shrink and swell?


- I don't believe the current models handle cracking adequately. The hysteresis effects are very difficult to treat mathematically. Until the models get to that stage they should at least have information to tag these as soils with very slow infiltration when wet and very fast infiltration when dry.


- We can best influence models and concepts by working with the Agricultural Research Service and others who are doing developmental work.


- This was begun in the cooperative effort with the Hydrograph Laboratory, ARS, Beltsville. That project hit a lot of snags, but the idea of such joint work should be pursued. This committee's proposals are based on the hope of active interagency participation including ARS and Experiment Stations.


- Perhaps infiltration studies should be done mostly to test working hypotheses.


- It may not necessarily require that much limitation. We should take advantage of existing facilities to make infiltration measurements.


- We should also use existing data.


- Sometimes it is not too valuable to gather data accumulated by different methods. We have to be careful to allocate our time in ways that will give us useable information.


__I,, /




Experiment Stations and ARS facilities don't always have the soils of interest.


ARS watershed selection was quite an objective effort.


There are still gaps.


Nevertheless the ARS watersheds are where you get runoff information and can interface with ARS people.


ARS is willing to work with us.


We should consider roots in the information we provide.


We recommend more consistent attention to this in standard pedon descriptions.


We need more observations about root distributions. Does the Forest Service have these observations?


Tie pay attention to drainage patterns, dissection, slope, hydrology and drainage net.


Walter Lyford's studies showed that roots go beyond pedons.


The Forest Service has some such studies, but not integrated into hydrology.


Rooting patterns are often the single most connotative factor relative to saturated flow in woodlands.


There are some University of Wisconsin studies that are detailed and useful to look at.


This has influenced much current thinking.


We have to be careful in recommendations that refer to "named kinds of soils." Phases are sometimes as important as series.

Question (unidentified participant) Holzhey

who would do the work you propose?

- There is equipment at many AR.5 and Experiment Station locations. We will encourage a program to get infiltration data by cooperative efforts with these institutions. The National Soil Survey Laboratory can do unsaturated hydraulic conductivity measurements with equipment developed by Grossman and Amennan.


Cormnittee Members C. Steven Holzhey - Chairman J. N. Holeman F. S. Newhall R. F. Paetzold David S. Ralston A. S. Rogowski E. H. Sautter M. E. Shaffer D. E. Snyder M. Stout, Jr. B. A. Touchet

R. Boyce F. J. Carlisle, Jr. Wayne Chapman George H. Comer J. M. Davidson Erling Gamble R. B. Grossman J. W. Hawley A. R. Hidlebaugh R. D. Heil


Selected Xeferences 1.

K., J. R. Wight and F. H. Siddoway. 1973. Estimating soil water content on native rangeland. Agri. Meteorology 12:185-1Yl.

Aase, J.

2. APS. 1975. Present and prospective technology for predicting sediment yields and sources. Proceedings Sediment-Yield Workshop. USDA Sed. Lab., Oxford, Miss., Nov. 28-30, 1972. USDA+&. ARS-S-40. 3.

Batlivala, P. P. and F. T. Ulaby. 1976. Remotely sensing soil moisture with radar. P.SL Tech. Report 264-8, Univ. of Kansas Center for Research.


Batlivala, P. P. and C. Dobson. 1976. Soil moisture experiment (Kansas): Documentation of radar backscatter and ground truth data. KSL Tech. Keport 264-7, Univ. of Kansas Center for Research.


Boast, C. W. lY73. Modeling the movement of chemicals in soils by water. Soil Sci. 115:224-230.


Donigian, Jr., A. S. and N. H. Crawford. 1976. Modeling pesticides and nutrients on agricultural lands. USEPA. EPA-60012-76-043.


Eagleman, J. R., E. C. Pogge and R. K. Moore. 1975. Detection of soil moisture and Snow characteristics from Skylab. center for Research, Univ. of Kansas. EREP No. 540-A2.


England, C. B. 1975. Soil moisture accounting component of Lhc USDAHL-74 model of watershed hydrology. Wat. Res. Bul. lI:559-567.


Engman. E. T. and A. S. Kogowski. 1~974. Selection of soil moisturf parameters for synthesizing storm hydrograplls. AStU Elwtinj; w Wat. Res. Eng. Preprint 2127.

10. 11.

Frere, M. H. 1?73. Adsorption and transport of agricultural chemicals in watersheds. Trans. ASAE 16:569-577. Frere, M. H., C. A. Onstad, and H. N. Holtan. 1975. USDA-Am.

An agricultural chemical transport model.



Gardner, W. R. 1965. Movement of nitrogen in soil. &W. v. Bartholomew and Francis E. Clark (ed.) Soil nitrogen. Agronomy 10: 550-572. Amer. Sot. Agron., Madison, Wis.


Henninger, D. L., G. W. Petersen and E. T. Engman. 1976. Surface soil moisture within a watershed--variattons, factors influencing, and relationship to surface runoff. Soil Sci. Sot. Amer. Journal 40:773-776.



Holtan, H. N., G. J. Stiltner. W. H. tlenson, and N. C. Lopez. 1975. USDAHL-74. Revised model of watershed hydrology. USDA-A%. Tech. Bul. No. 1518.


James, L. D. lY72. Hydrologic modeling, parameter estimation and watershed characteristic&. J. Hydrology 17:283-307.


Jensen, M. E., .I. L. Wright, and B. J. Pratt. 1971. Estimating soil moisture dcplvtion from cliwte, crop and soil data. Trans. Amr. Sot. A g r i . Lng. 9 5 4 - 9 5 9 .


Kurtz, L. T. and S. 14. Melsted. 1973. Movement of chemicals in soils by water. Soil Sci. 115:231-239.


Leistra, M. 1973. Computation models for the transport of pesticides in soil. Residue Rev. 49:87-130.


Reginato, R. J., S. B. Idso, and R. D. Jackson. 1975. Assessing soil moisture remotely. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. Proceed. 1975 Meetings Ariz. Sec. Amer. Water Kes. hssn. and Hydrology Sec. Ariz. Acad. of Sci. 5:191-198.


Ribbens, R. W. and XI. .I. Shaffer. 1976. Irrigation return flow modeling for the Souris loop. Spec. Conf. "Environ. Aspects of It-rig. and Drain." Amer. Sot. Civil Eng.


Klchnrdson, C. W. and J. T. Kitchie. 1973. Soil water balance [or small watersheds. Trans. AShE 16:72-77.


Saxton, K. E., H. P. Johnson, and R. H. Shaw. 1974. Watershed evapotranspiration estimated by the combination method. Trans. ASAE 17: 668-672.


Saxton, K. E., H. P. Johnson, and R. H. Shaw. 1974. Modeling evapotranspiration and soil moisture. Trans. AS.& 17~673-677.


Shaffer, M. .I., R. W. Ribbens, and C. W. Huntley. 1975. Detailed return flow salinity and nutrient simulation model. Vol. v. Prediction of mineral quality of irrigation return flow. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. EPA-IAG-D4-0371.


Shaffer, M. J. 1976. Detailed return flow salinity and nutrient simulation model. Proc. ht. Conf. Managing saline water for irrigation: Planning for the future. Lubbock, Texas.


Shawcroft, R. W., E. R. Lemon, L. B. Allen, Jr., D. W. Stewart and S. E. Jensen. 1974. The soil-plant-atmosphere model and some of its predictions. Agri. Meteorology 14:287-307.


27. Silva, I.. F., t'. V. Schultz. and J. T. Zalusky. 1974. Electrical methods of determining soil moisture content. LAFS Info Note 112174. Purdue University. 28. vanKeulen, H. and C.G.E.M. vanReek. 1971. Water movement in layered soils--A simulation model. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 19:138-153. 29. Williams, J. R. and R. W. Harm, Jr. 1973. computer language for hydrologic modeling. ARS-S-9. 30.

HYMO: Problem-oriented Users Manual. USDA-ARS.

Woolhiser, D. A. 1973. Hydrologic and watershed modeling--state of the art. Trans. ASAE 16:553-559.


Attachments Attachment 1~ consists of some additional notes on the five hydrologic models studied in this report. These models were chosen because they are among the most used models and they represent a diversity of types, i.e. large scale, small scale, highly detailed and general. Attachment 2 illustrates the range in unsaturated hydraulic conductivity values of various materials. Unsaturated conditions persist in most soils and most water movement occurs under these conditions. Most water movement that is of importance occurs under conditions of water contents greater than about l/3 bar. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is importnnt in n few special situations such as during irrigation, disposal of waste water, and in soils with high water tables. Differences between hydraulic conductivity at saturation and at a water content a few percent lower are commonly 1000 fold or more. Evaluation of moisture movement in soils requires both saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Excerpts from the North Central Regional Soil Survey Work Planning Conference are in attachment 3. Much of the groundwork for the recommendations contained in this report was laid by the North Central Committee.


l/3 bar moisture and WRD o r 1 5 b a r m o i s t u r e f o r s u r f a c e and subsurface layers “a” factor (index of surface connected porosity) for infiltration Constant rate of infiltration after prolonged wetting (from SCS National Engineering Handbook) ACTHO ( A g r i c u l t u r a l C h e m i c a l T r a n s p o r t M o d e l ) Accounting model incorporating USDAHL-74 for watershed hydrology Computes a n d U n i v e r s a l S o i l L o s s E q u a t i o n (l!SI.E! T?r e r o s i o n . e r o s i o n , f a t e o f c h e m i c a l s (primari;) p e s t i c i d e s a n d f e r t i l i z e r s ) , and watershed hydrology. Soils Input - Same as USDAHL-74 plus Soil erodibility factor Texture U . S . I:ureau of R e c l a m a t i o n Ilodel M o d e l s pl.ant-soil-aquifer s y s t e m f r o m s o i l surf‘ace to a tile Does not compute runoff or erosion. or open drain. Soils Input - Saturated hydraulic conductivities Bulk density and total porosity Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity as a function of soil water content (calculated from Millington and Quirk equation using moisture release curve if unsaturated h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y .curve n o t a v a i l a b l e ) Moisture release curve Soil temperature as a function of depth and time Chemical data Cations Anions PH CEC Gypsum Carbon/nitrogen ratio HYMO (Hydrologic Model) Models surface runoff and sediment yield from watersheds using USLE Soils Input - Soil erodibility factor Rainfall-runoff relationships from numbered curves in SCS National Engineering Handbook


ARM (Agricultural RunolT Model) Developed from PTR, Pesticide Transport and Runoff Model for US-EPA BY Hydrocomp. Simulates runoff, snow accumulation and melt, sediment loss, pesticide-soil interactions, and soil nutrient transformations (sediment, pesticide, and nutrient content of runoff from small agricultural watersheds). Model must be calibrated to each specific watershed. Soils Input - Bulk density Mean infiltration rate


Boumn and Ardnron

-:--_._ : .~,;.>.: 2-c-,

From Bouma and Anderson Soil Structure and Hydraulic Conductivity in Field Soil Water Regime ASA Special Pub. No. 5 p 96 Reproduced with permission of senior author.







Traverse City, Michigan May 3-7, 1976

REPORT OF COMMITTEE 4 - WATER RELATIONS IN SOILS Committee Charge: Consider the question, "How can the soil survey contribute to. and benefit by, hydrologic modelling?" It was.recommencled by Committee 4 of the 1975 National Soil Survey Conference that regional conferences give major emphasis to the application of hydrologic models. (See Page 207 of the Proceedings) Committee Approach: It appeared to the Committee that the future quality of the understanding and the interpretation of soils might be determined by how well the soil survey foresees the kinds of soils information that will be required for accurate hydrologic models. The need appeared to be that members of Committee 4 become more familiar with hydrologic models and with soils inputs. With that need in mind, a seminar type approach was arranged for the Traverse City meeting. The outline for the seminar was as follows: Part I.

Quantitative-Input Needs for Hydrologic Modelling. Keith Saxton, Research Hydraulic Engineer, A.R.S. Columbia, Missouri

Part II.

A Review of the USDAHL-74 Model of Watershed Hydrology. This review was accomplished in four parts, each centered around kinds of input parameters and each having a discussion leader. Each discussion leader led discussion of~5 general questions: (1) What parameters are in the model? (2) What soils information is required? (3) How does one obtain the needed soils information using current procedures? (4) If information is not available, how can procedures be modified? (5) Do other models require different input data?


Watershed Parameters - D.D. Malo - South Dakota State Univ. 217

Part 11 - (Continued) B.

Soil Parameters - R.B. Grossman - University of Missouri


Crop Parameters - Don Franzmeier - Purdue University


Ilydroqraphs and Coefficients of Routing - Keith Saxton

Part III.

Suggested Courses of Action - Dick Rust - University of Minnesota. The report which follows does not contain the entirety of discussions and presentations. It focuses upon those points that appeared to be most pertinent to ths committee charge.

Part I.

Quantitative Input Needs for Hydrologic Modellinp.

The question "Why model?" was asked. Two important reasons are: (1) soil survey has new needs for determining where agricultural water is going and what is in the water; and (2) the rapid development of computer technol~ogy has released the new capabilities for modellinq which permits the inteqration of a large number of processes. The soil survey should use modelling in order to take advantage of the wealth of information that has accumulated. Keith Saxton differentiated between hydraulic models and hydrologic models. llydraulic models are concerned with the flow of water after it reaches streams. Hydrologic models are concerned with the manner in which water interacts with the soilplant system in order to generate stream flow, or, in some cases, to result in no flow. Hydrology is the main focus and interest of the soil survey. The ARS program is focused upon hydrology. Part IIA - Watershed Parameters. In order to subdivide a watershed into some landscape units that groups soils, the USDAHL model identifies hydrologic response zones. The zones are essentially land capability units. This approach is questionable and it appears that the soil survey should explore the extent to which soil mapping units would be a better way to subdivide a watershed. It was thought that in some instances this approach would be fruitful. In other cases this would not be so because current mapping units were designed with a different objective in mind. In order to improve our descriptions of watersheds or of mapping units, the soil survey should explore the possibility of identifying geomorphic surfaces or perhaps the hillslope model of Ruhe could be used to describe landscape position. 218

Part IIB - Soil Parameters. Infiltration is the primary process that must be quantitatively described for soils for the USDAHL model or any other hydrologic model. Soil layers in two positions appear to merit special consideration by the soil survey; First, the description of the immediate surface and its expected effect upon infiltration is needed. Crusting is an example. Plant cover affects this part of the soil. The "a" value of the USDAHL model is an initial step. The soil survey should be able to provide the modeller with improved "a".values or substitutes for it. The second kind of positional layer meriting attention is below the solum in landscapes where the particular layer restricts water movement to a greater degree than do overlying layers in the solum. This second-listed need will be particularly evident in those models of the future that will predict two-dimensional and three-dimensional flow patterns based upon the Darcy flow equation. Part IIC - Crop Parameters. Crop parameters are based upon GI (growth index) which describes the seasonal development of the plant canopy. To a large extent this index is based upon temperature. The estimate of ET (evapotranspiration) is based upon pan evaporation. If pan evapotranspiration is to be used, it may be necessary to arrive at estimates of pan evapotranspiration as influenced by topography, landscape position or by slope aspect.


Rooting depth and rooting volumes need better descriptors. Part IID - Routing Coefficients. The USDAHL model requires an observed hydrograph from which streamflow contributions can be apportioned to overland flow, interflow and base flow. Such hydrographs are rare for small watersheds. Overland flow is predicted from precipitation excess. Predicted precipitation excess is strongly influenced by an "a" value whicn is a number describing surface conditions. This "a" value appears to encompass a large number of surface characteristics and it is felt that the soil survey should be able to improve upon this parameter. Rydrographs and the resulting routing coefficients appear to be influenced by the stratification of materials below the solum. The soil survey may be able, from knowledge of climatic settings


and stratigraphy of materials to estimate for the hydrologist the relative magnitudes of overland flow, interflow and base flow. Keith Saxton presented his view, as a hydrologist of the soils information that would be needed for modelling of agricultural hydrology: Desired Soil Information for Agricultural Hydrology (1) Mapped soil units (soil map) (2) Profile descriptions (3) Water char. for major horizons W.P.; F.C. Sat. vol. of water Pressure vs. vol. of water Conductivity vs. vol. of water (4) Performance characteristics crusting, cracking, drainage root penetration, lateral seepage (5) Geomorphic setting surficial geology (6) Erosion characteristics (7) Chemical characteristics The list suggested by Keith Saxton provided the basis for final discussion and for suggested courses of action. The terms, wilting point (W.P.), field capacity (F.C.) and available water were recognized as needing description in terms of water contents at stated water pressures. Part III. Suggested Courses of Action. As a result of Committee 4's discussions, several courses of action were suggested. The list of suggestions that follow is not arrayed in an order of importance. The list is divided into two categories: (1) those suggestions for actions that can be taker. rather quickly from our base of knowledge and (2) those courses of action that will require some additional effort in the direction of improved or changed procedures. This second category will be those areas in which the soil survey must move from qualitative to quantitative descriptions.


Courses of Action That Can Be Taken Rather Quickly. (1) The soil survey can provide the hydrologist with map unit descriptions that will be useful in the delineation of hydrologic response zones. (2) The soil survey can provide the hydrologist with profile descriptions that will enable him to decide upon a minimal number of soil horizons or depth increments that will be required for a reasonable analysis of infiltration. (3) The soil survey can provide the hydrologist with estimated values of soil water characteristics (a) available water by water retention dif,ference (b) J set of curves t-elating (1) water pressure and water volume: (2) water conductivity and water volume; with a first guess as to which curve is characteristic for any horizon. (4) Bulk density estimates can be made so that the modeller can ccnvert other estimates to volumes. The modeller can also use such estimates of bulk density to improve predictions of root penetration. 0 Courses of Action Requirinq Additional Effort Toward Quantification. (1) Performance characteristics of the soil, particularly the surface soil need to be described according to their changes with time, seasons, or particular use. (2) Seasonal moisture conditions or states need to be quantitatively described by soil horizons. '(3) Root penetration needs to be related to morphological variability. (4) Soils and geomorphology descriptions are needed on the 50 small watersheds that have the instrumentation required by hydrologists. (5) The soil survey should encourage persons to try the USDAHL model to see if it works for them and to attempt our suggested modifications.

End of excerpt from North Central Work Planning Conference Committee 4.


NATIONAL TECHNICAL WORK-PLANNING CONFERENCE OF THE COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY January 31 to February 4, 1977 Orlando, Florida Committee No. 5 - Soil Surveys in Woodland, Rangeland, and Wildland CHARGES : 1.

Identify means for making useful interpretations of multi-taxa soil mapping units in Orders 3, 4, and 5 soil surveys, Prepare models.


Study the relationships between interpretive groupings such as range site, woodland site, ecological site, and soil mapping unit.

The committee was divided into three subcommittees to handle the charges as follows: Subcommittee SA Rangeland, Subcommittee SB Woodland, and Subcommittee SC Wildland. The subcommittee reports are included in Attachments 2 and 3. Reports for Committees 7 and 8 of the Western Regional Work-Planning Conference are Attachments 4 and 5. Wildlife Task Force report for the Western Region is .i\ttachment 6. SUMMARY

Charge 1.

The subcommittees agreed on the following:


It is absolutely necessary to have clear, concise, accurate, and complete descriptions of the mapping units. As outlined in the draft of Agricultural Handbook 18, this includes for soil association (a) principal and minor components, (b) the mapping inclusions, (c) relative proportions of each and their range among delineation, and (d) their geographic distribution or pattern.


The interpretations of soil associations require rating the individual kinds of soil and assessing the interaction of each one on the use, management, and performance of the others and on the association as a whole. The final interpretation should be for the association as a whole.


The design of the mapping units is multidisciplinary work requiring inputs from technical people in all fields concerned in the interpretation, use, and management of soils. Survey objectives will determine the survey order and the interpretive groupings are developed to meet these objectives.



Charge 2.

Ecological sites and soil mapping units can be correlated.


The committee be retained.


The “Soil-Natural Vegetation Interpretations and Display” (Attachment 1) developed by E. Naphan, State Soil Scientist, Nevada, be given field trials. Regional Committees should again be urged to develop methods of display for interpretations of multi-taxa mapping units in Orders 3, 4, and 5 soil surveys.


The draft Chapters 6 and 11 of Soil Survey Manual Handbook 18, and Section 302, National Range Handbook be used in developing interpretations of multi-taxa mapping units.


The National and Regional Committees should be charged early and meet at least once before the scheduled planning conference.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE. MEETING IN ORLANDO The committee report was reviewed on Tuesday, February 1, 1977, by members of the committee attending the meeting and some members of the conference. The following recommendations were made to the conference on Wednesday, February 2, 1977: 1.

Charge 1. a.

Agreed to the subcommittee’s recommendation (1) for mapping unit descriptions. These must be more carefully written concerning components, inclusions, and geographic distribution and pattern. Guidelines for these descriptions to include interaction between components will be developed (E. A. Naphan, State Soil Scientist, Nevada, to take leadership in developing the outline).


Interpretations for both components of the mapping unit and the mapping units as a whole can be made. Flexibility will be allowed regionally and interpretations may be either in tables or narrative or both; for example:


Rate mapping unit in a table and describe the components in the mapping unit description.


Rate both the components and the mapping unit in one table.


Rate mapping unit on one table and components on a separate table in appendix.


Ratings can be made by: (a) Averaging; i.e., yields (b) Cropland, rangeland, woodland (c) Community development rather than for houses, septic tanks, roads, etc.


Attachment 1, Subcommittee 5A, “Soil-Natural Vegetation Interpretations and Display,” should be sent to state offices for trial.



Charge 2. Change charge to read “Rate woodland, rangeland, and wildland for soil potential .I’ a. Soil potential is an additional summary of soil capabilities beyond those used for rangeland sites and woodland sites, and land capability. It is not intended that soil potential replace other groupings or ratings. b.

Soil potential ratings will array the soils in a survey area. They will not be correlated area to area.

c. Soil potential ratings should be given trials in all states with rangeland and woodland. 3.

The regions should consider setting up committees to test the recommendations and to develop models.


The committee should be continued.

There was more discussion from the floor, but it did not alter the recommendations of the committee. It was moved and seconded that the report be accepted; motion carried. It was also moved and seconded that the committee be continued; motion carried. Committee Members Richard C. Huff, Chairman, SCS, Honolulu, Hawaii Kermit Larson, Co-chairman, FS. Arlington, Virginia B. L. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas L. L. Buller . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCS, Lincoln, Nebraska 0. R. Carter . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCS, Hyattsville, Maryland J. A. Ferwerda . . . . . . . . . . . SCS. Univ. of Maine, Orono, Maine R. C. Carter . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCS. Jackson, Mississippi J. A. DeMent . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCS, Fort Worth, Texas L. D. Giese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington V. K. Hugie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCS, Portland, Oregon W. J. Lloyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCS, Washington, D. C. R. Meurisse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FS. Portland. Oreeon Portland, Oregon L. D. Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . E. A. Naphan . . . . . . . . . . . . . scs. Reno, Nevada J. Newman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . scs, Lincoln, Nebraska F. E. Otte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . scs. Casper, Wyoming D. T. Pendleton . . . . . . . . . . scs, Washington, D. C. W. J. Sauerwein . . . . . . . . . . scs, Portland, Oregon C. M. Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . scs, Temple, Texas



Attachment 2 SUBCOMMITTEE 5A - RANGEL,AND Charge 1. We have about agreed on how to develop the interpretations for the different orders, who the users will be, and the degree of detail to be included. The next step is to work with actual mapping examples of each order to develop example interpretations. This will help firm up degree of detail, problems, etc. Order 5: This order will have little, if any, use in the United States for rangeland mapping. If it is used, an interpretation for rangeland could be developed, but would be limited to a general statement on the potential for rangeland and type of vegetation. For example, “The natural potential plant community in this unit is predominantly native grass, but varies from grassland interspersed with islands of brush and trees to a very sparse cover of short brush interspersed with pockets of grass. Potential uses are water production, wildlife habitat, and esthetics. Only limited areas are suitable for livestock grazing. Primary limitations are the lack of ground cover, limited forage production, and excessive variations in soil, plant communities, and topography within an area of practical management size.” Users of this type of information would have to be interested in the first overview of the general development potential of a region. Order 4: Limited use is anticipated. Nevada has used it in some areas. Alaska may have the most potential for use at this time. Interpretations could be more specific. For example, “This unit will support natural herbaceous and/or browse vegetation which are suitable for wildlife habitat ‘if populations are controlled and other appropriate management practices are applied. Livestock use of the unit should be limited because of the limited forage production, excessive fluctuation of annual forage production, the competition with the natural wildlife populations and the potential soil erosion problems resulting from overgrazing.” (The above examples are just a rough discourse to show degree of detail, they are not to be misconstrued as example interpretations.) This type of survey could be utilized by regional planners, land use planners, state planners, and others concerned with the general use of the area. From a range management viewpoint, it would be most valuable for wildlife, esthetics, water yield, and watershed protection. It would have only limited use for livestock management. Order 3: This is the intensity of soil surveying that corresponds very well with range sites (or ecological sites). Therefore, the users of interpretations in this order are the rangeland users and managers. Considerably more use and management detail could be included in the rangeland interpretations.


Attachment 2 Although we have not reached a consensus on any model, a summary chart developed by a member is attached (Attachment 1). We agreed that if multi-taxa mapping units (Order 3) contain more than one range site, each component part should be interpreted as well as how one complements (positive or negative) the other if managed together. Also, prior to Order 3 mapping on rangeland, an interdisciplinary team should plan the mapping unit to satisfy the planning and management intensity related to the potential use. Naphan suggests that orders of mapping could be intermixed within a mapping area if the confidence level is clearly explained in the report. Charge 2. The Western States have vast areas of native vegetation that have use potentials that are limited to wildlife and recreation because of severe aridity and soil characteristics. They tend to favor use of ecological sites in lieu of range sites. The basic reasoning is that it eliminates implications associated with grazing use by livestock, and covers all natural vegetation in plant communities. In connection with considerations which might possibly lead to adoption of ecological sites in lieu of range sites, we would also urge that these be identified by naming the major dominant plants which characterize the potential plant community. Furthermore, identification of seral plant communities which are departures from the potential plant community would be useful. Subcommittee SA - Rangeland P. L. Allen 0. R. Carter V. K. Hugie

E. A. Naphan J. Newman, Chairman D. T. Pendleton



Attachment 3

This is a report of the Woodland Subcommittee of Committee 5. I have attempted to synthesize and integrate the comments of the three members, who responded, with my own comments. I am not satisfied that we have been able to provide adequate responses to the charges. Nor do I believe there is any one way to respond to these charges. It is my opinion that we may be trying too intensely to arrive at one simple approach to these lower order surveys when there are a number of ways that interpretations can be made. This applies to higher orders as well as Orders 3 through 5. The most difficult concept for many of our field soil scientists to grasp is one of variability. To adequately describe the variability is difficult. The concept of variability becomes increasingly important with the lower orders. However, it is important at any order. (These statements assume a constant taxonomic level. That is, at higher taxonomic levels, the number of taxa may not increase with lower survey orders. Rather, ranges in characteristics of the soils and interpretive variability increase.) With this as background, our response to the charges is as follows: Charge 1. Identify means for making useful interpretations of multitaxa soil mapping units for Order 3, 4, and 5 soil surveys. The best way to make useful interpretations is to have clear, concise, and complete descriptions of the mapping unit. This includes percentage composition of the components and location or arrangement of the components on the landscape, in addition to a brief description of landform, climate, lithology, and plant association. These elements are also important in formation of the mapping unit, particularly in upland and forest and rangeland areas. Interpretations must be developed for each of the important taxa within the mapping unit. Again, the interpretations must provide for measures of variability. These interpretations should be in two forms, as follows : (1) basic numerical data (i.e., site index, growth basal area, periodic annual increments, biomass, etc.) with standard deviations or coefficients of variation; and (2) qualitative ratings for utilitarian purposes (i.e., good, fair, poor or high, medium, low). The former is primarily for use by other scientists and preservation of basic data. The latter is for the other users of soil surveys. Perhaps the most important part of providing good qualitative ratings is to choose welldefined criteria for the variables and for interpretative groupings after ratings of the taxa have been made. These criteria should be made part of the report. The above statements are pertinent for any survey order, not just Orders 3, 4, and 5. In other words, it is 229


Attachment 3 important to recognize the variability and the exceptions to the generalities. If the percentage composition is given for each of the major taxa, and others, to total 100 percent, the user can readily determine the percent that is of a particular capability or potential. Charge 2. Study the relationships between interpretive groupings and soil mapping units. Since interpretive groupings are developed for utilitarian purposes, the objectives of the specific survey will influence the basis for groupings. Survey objectives will determine the survey order, not the reverse. Therefore, interpretive groupings can be readily developed to meet the objectives. Carefully developed groupings normally are valid for a multiple of purposes. Generally, there will be more groupings for higher order surveys than for lower orders. Groupings based on sound, ecological considerations and with a consideration of local management and cultural practices should serve a variety of needs. Regardless of the survey order, mapping units must be designed with survey objectives in mind, together with consideration of heterogeneity of the survey area. If these ingredients are thoroughly evaluated, groupings of like soils will follow rather easily. General. It is my opinion that these charges have been discussed in sufficient detail to implement guidelines for conducting the various orders of survey, even though we do not have all the answers now. The key is that flexibility be maintained so that various approaches can be utilized depending on local conditions. Thus, the importance of establishing clearly defined objectives for the survey must be emphasized. Once this has been done, it will be much easier to develop appropriate mapping units and useful interpretations. Subcommittee 5B - Woodland J. A. DeMent J. Ferwerda L. Il. Giese

W. J. Lloyd R. Meurisse, Chairman W. J. Sauerwein


SYNOPSIS or CHARGES TC THE COELMITTEE and Comictee recommendations co the Conference

Charge 1. Prepare model* of soil interpretations that can be made for order 3, 4 and 5 soil rurveys. me committee and the discussion groups agree that adequate models and examples of the

use of these models of soil interpretation* are available. There seem8 to be general concern about misunderstanding on the part of our customers es to the reliability of interpretations made for order 3, 4 and 5 *oil eurveys. 1. The committee recommends that e more detailed "HOW the soil survey ves made" section be prepered, more thoroughly describing field procedures. being more specific about sampling r*te*. snd speaking specifically to the "statisticsl reliability' of soil maps and interpretation*. 2. The committee reconvnends that more specific guidelines be prepared on the fabrication of interpretive maps for multi-tan mapping units: or permit *tetes wide latitude in the preparation of *aid maps, being subject to no review nor criticism et TSC or W.O. level.



Expand the



one committee recommends tnet soil suitability. soil capability end soil potential be defined to be mutu*lLy exclusive.


The committee recommends that the model for and example of a map unit description for order 3, 4, and 5 soil survey* be accepted. This recommendation speaks adequately to Charge 3. Committee 2, pertaining to map unit description*.


The committee aqeee to emend the *c*tement in the pm-conference report pertaining to soil potential co read as follows: "SDIL POTENTIRL is related to the suitability of e soil for a specified use after the limitations that affect said use have been overcome.'

interpretation wides for organic soils using a* an example the guides prepared in the northcentral and norkheastern stefes.

Cnarye 3. Prepare

The committee recommends that *r;bject guides presented et end printed in the proceedings of the 1975 National Soil S'arvey Conference be field tested. Charge 4.

Evaluate procedure now "red for obtaining crop yield potential.

The corrrmittee recommends that the con:erence request prompt delivery of guides to be prepared by a task force that we* recently appointed to study procedure* used for obtaining crop yield potential. The report of the co,!mitcee =;a* approved and accepted by the conference membership. T. iiolder, Chairman F. PeterSO”

G. Ke”ne;ly 8. Se?+ L. I.anqar.

D. .lone*

P. J. M. M.

Singleton o0ug1as* Openshav

Miller 0. Harju J. Anderson

R. Huff 0. Bai?ey




Prepare models

of soil interpretations that cd" be made for order 3, 4 and 5

soi1 surveys. The committee beg* to be confused at the charge. The question was interpreted by most to ask for methods of display of interpretive data.

The kinds of interpretations that can be made depends 0": 1. The "umber and distribution of the points of reference; or the reliability of ground truth collected. 2. The Scale of base map - limiting the size of area that can be show". 3. Kind (single or multiple features) of ioterpretive maps, and complexity of other display materials, e.g., tables, charts, narrative, etc. TO insure our agreement as to the level of detail. a portion of the table "Criteria For Identifying Kinds of Soil Surveys" from the 1975 NCSS conference was reproduced and prssente3 to conference members. At these levels of generalization can we 30 more or less than make general ra:i"qs as to S"ITRSILITY or POTENTIAL for "*es as follows: AGRlC”LT”PAL

Cropland - "onirrigated and/or irrigated Grazing Land - native (range) and pasture Forest - wood prOdUcts Housing - Subdivision Development and Single (Isolated) Dvellinqs Industrial Trafficways Recreation Watershed There are "umerous possible models of ways to display the interpretations, prabtibly the mosr. comprehensive, and perhaps confusing is the SCS-Form 5 that ca" be used for any kind of soil mapping unit, and further used to ultimately generate a tabular presentation to enable the comparison of "umerous nap u"it*. The maveer of how much descriptive information to present e&cut the map ucits is subject to concinuinq debate. as i* the matter of giving rdaso"s for specific ratings for variox uses.

The committee feels that adequate models are available - the problem. which will differ with each set of circa~~stances. is to choose one. modify it where necessary and proceed. Development cf criteria for interpretations for the subject kinds of soil surveys seems to the connittee to warrant no more than a restatene"t.of the criteria currently used and currently being revised for making all kinds of soil survey interpretations. Sriefly listed a* follows these are: SOlL FEATURES: Dapth. textile. consistency. drainage, permeability, volume Of coarse fragments, slope, aspect. and toxic amounts of elements, or deficiencies of elements.

CLiELRTIC FACTURS: Preslpitatio" - anount and distribution, length of growing season. win.2 velocity, etc. SOCIO-E;SNOMIC FACT0P.S:

Cost, relative desirability, nuisance factors, etc.

Cnarge 2. Expand concept

of soil potential.

Some Ob*ervation* on Soil Pocenrial

Some confusion exists. or persists, concerning the difference between SOIL POTENTIAL .3m some individuals who do not hesitate to mdke ratings of soils that SOIL S”ITABILITY. speak to suitability are hesitant to rate soils in terms of potential. Others feel that we should not rate in terms of either SUlTABlLITy or POTENTIkLr but should record the facts about soil characteristics and qualities as they are observed, and 16~ the user* (decision makers) draw their own conclusions. R pertinent question to the conference at this point might be "Will we continue to rate soils for various uses?" Presuming an affirmative answer. will the conference accept the following: SOIL PMEWTRL is related to the suitability of a soil for a specified use after the limitations that affect said use have been overcome. This will inevitably lead to the discussion of the "pro and con" of our becoming involved in "standards and specifications" or design. Further objections will be raised concerning our becoming involved in economic evaluations in which mat of us profess, or confess, to having no expertise. TO the specific items in this charge the following are offered: a. Develop a list of kinds of soil ootential needed. Ratings of the SOIL POTENTIAL can be and should be made for all land uses for which we presently make soil suitability ratings. i.e., Sanitary Facilities: Community Development; jlater Management; Recreation Development; Crop end Pasture Production; Woodland Production. wildlife urea Development; and Range Production. b.

Improvement needed to achieve potential. Several examples of approaches to reaching the potential are: Range Production Potential: 1) installation of fences and livestock watering facilities to get distribution of grazing animals; 21 establish rotational grazing systems to allow vegetation to recover from grazing; 3) reseed areas where desirable species listed as potential vegetation have been destroyed.

Crop Production Potentiar: The erosion hazard limiting the crop production potential can be overcome by 1) construction cf diversion terraces to reduce control damaging inflow of water; 21 construction of level. parallel terraces to reduce to steepness and length of slopes; and construction of grassed wareways to function as emergency spillways for terrace systems. Community Development Potential: The area will have gwd potential for community development by installation of intercepting dikes and tile drainage systems to reduce wetness. c.

Made1 for Ma Unit Descri iion* On the following pages are: 1) a model for Hap Unit Descriptions for Order 3, 4 and 5 Soil Survey~i and 21 an example of such a map unit description.



Prepare interpretation guides for organic sails using a* an exanple the guides 3. prepare3 in the northncentral and northeastern states.


The committee recommends the adoption of the aforenentioned guides, presented at and printed in the proceedings of the 1975 National Soil Survey Conference, as interim guides far field testing.

Charge 4.

Evaluate procedure now used for obtaining crop yield potential.

Committee response ranged from none to the expression of satisfaction with the present system in some state*. There seems to be little uniformity in the method of collection or expression of reliance on yield data. Many gatherers of data experience great difficulty in the collection process. "any voice frustration with the method of display of yield data and the lack of timeliness of its display in published soil surveys. Collection of data wee the life span of "project-type" soil surveys would in many cases present a "skewed" picture of the normal range of yields of many crops. Less frustration has been expressed concerning collection or display of yield data on native (range) vegetation and forest products than on crop yields.



Paragraph 1.

General statement Location in *tat= Topographic statement Slope classes and landform from which soils developed


Paragraph 2.

Setting Elevation - rounded t.0 500 feet Percent Of slopes (range) rounded to 5 or 10 percent Mea" annual precipitation rounded to 5 inches Mea" annual tempnperature rounded to 50 f. Frost Free season rounded to 25 days Total acreage in 10,000's and total square miles rounded to hundreds

Par,graph 3.

Percentage of named map units and inclusions rounded to 5 percent

Paragraph 4. Description of each named nap unit Soil depth - shallow, mod. deep, deep Soil color - dark, light Soil drainage - poorly. somewhat poorly. well Soil texture (sandy, loamy, clayey) Soil coarse fragments - kinds and amount Slope (descriptive and percent) Physiographic position (alluvial fans. hills, etc.1 Depth to bedrock - less than 20". 20 to 40", rare the" 60" Depth to seasonal high water table - range in feet Flooding potential (if applicable - frequency and duration classes) Shrink-swell potential Frost action potential Reaction of soil - range of classes Paragraph 5.

(Forestry. recreation, cropland, etc.) Ownership - Federal, State. Private. India") Native vegetation (Trees - grass) Major species

Paragraph 6. Major limitations in u*e (Cold. dry, rocks) Potential of development


Elevations range from 6,500 to 7,500 feet. Slopes range from 0 to 25 percent but are commonly less than 15 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 20 inches. The mean annual soil tenperature is about 45' F. and the frost free season is about 100 to 125 days. This map unit covers abollt 190,000 acres. (300 square miles) Psawentic Eutrobaralfs milke up about 35 percent of this map unit, and Aridic Haploborolls about 25 percent. Included in this map unit are other snilar soils, and small area* Of soi which are less than 20 inches to bedrock. Psamrrentic Eucraboralfs: These deep, light colored, well drained soils have sandy surface layers and loamy subsoils and are on genrly sloping to sloping areas of alluvial fans, and 0" sideslopes and cre*fs of hills. Slopes range from 5 to 25 percent. Depth to bedrock is more than 65 inches and depth to seaso"a1 high water table is more than 6 feet. They have rapid permeability. and a low shrink-swell and frost action potential. They are strongly acid to neutral in reactio". Aridic Haploborolls: These deep. dark colored, well drained soils have sandy or loamy surface layers. loamy subsoils and are an gently to moderately sloping areas. They formed in arkosic sandy loam sediments on uplands. Slopes range from 0 to 10 3ercent. Depth to bedrock is more th?," 60 inches and seasonal high water table is greater than 6 feet. They have moderately rapid permeability and a low shrink-swell and frost action potential. They are typically neutral in reaction. This map unit is used principally for range land, and home site development. There is some The native vegetation is woodland harvest, recreation development and non-irrigated cropland. predominantly Ponderosa pine with open areas of grasses cxnposed mainly of bluestems, prairie sandreed, mountain muhle, blue gram?., Ju"egrass and wheatgrasses. The cold climate and limited rainfall are the major limitations to the use of these soils for cropland. The potential for development of homesites and recreation areas is good. factors limiting the potential of these areas for developnext of home sites are limited rainfall, moderately sloping to hilly topography and sandy surface layers that result in moderate to high erosion hazards and moderate constraints on placenent of septic tank absorption fields. these limitations can be overcome by: 1) construction of wade as nearly as possible on the contour, and reseeding disturbed areas; 21 restrict the size of graded areas to the minimum required; 31 select nearly level areas , or grade areas to nearly level foe placement of absorption fields; reseed or sad disturbed areas with drout3-tolerant species of grasses and shrubs.



Attachment 5




Committee Members: F. Peterson (UNR, Nevada), Chmn. G. Otte (SCS, Portland) Y. Fosberg (UI, Idaho) B. Meurisse (FS, Ore) G. Kennedy (SCS, Calif.) B. Seay (SCS, II. Mex.) T. Collins (FS, Alaska) V. Hugie (SCS, Portland)

R. Parsons (SCS, Portland) D. Richmond (SCS, Ariz.) J. Allen (SCS. Ore.) H. Havens (SCS, Ariz.) A. Southard (USU. Utah) J. Stroehlein (UA. Ariz.) H. llaugh (BIA, ft. Mex.)

Charges to Committee No. 8


"Study relationship between interpretive groupings such as range sites and ecological sites, woodland sites and ecolo9ical sites and mapping units.


"Identify the ..[requirements for] designing a mapping unit to be interpreted for range sites, woodland sites, ecological sites, etc. Develop a model that can be used for all."


"Identify means of making useful interpretations of multitaxa soil mapping units."


"Prepare ways of using ADP techniques to analyze soil surveys for use in resource planning." Questions Discussed by the Committee

The committee was asked to reply to the following questions based on the charges to the committee. The term "habitat type" was used as a preferred term for "potential vegetation" or other vegetation identification. &mtions


In your experience, do soil consociations identified at some proper taxonomic level always correctly predict the geographic location and kind of habitat type? That is, can we say that if a soil delineation is not wholly included within, or coincident with a habitat type delineation there is either an error in interpretation, an inCluSiOn of contrasting soil, or that some environmental factor other than soil hasn't been recoqnized by phasing?


00 soil associations and complexes give vegetative delineations which are useful? (a) Is there some limiting small map scale, i.e., minimum size delineation and maximum size contrasting inclusion? (b) Is there some limiting level of taxonomic generalization (including phasing) for the soil components?


Can soil Series consistently predict habitat types? 00 they usually have to be phased, or is phasing necessary only for utilitarian purposes such as site index?


Can soil Families. or phases of Families consistently predict habitat types?


Can soil Families, or phases of Families be used for utilitarian interpretations, e.g.. herbage yield, forest site index? 00 you have examples?


Can soil Subgroups, or phases of then be used to predict habitat types and utilitarian interpretations? 00 you have examples?




Could soil Subgroups, Great Groups, Suborders, or Orders be used to predict vegetative potential by classes in Categories more generalized than the habitat type?


Do You have examples of v.getation classification hierarchies which might be used as alternatives to the habitat type-level for interpreting 3rd, 4th. or 5th Order soil surveys?


Would it be useful to test higher-level Vegetation classes for interpreting 3rd. and 4th Order soil surveys? Who should do this testing, how?

Nhen you make vegetation interpretations do you work from soil properties (e.g., soil depth, water holding capacity, base saturation, etc.) through site requirements of plants to habitat type, yield, etc? Or. when you make vegetation interpretations do you use geographic coincidence of certain habitat types with polypedons or larger soil areas identified by (phases of) soil Series or higher taxa? Is it reasonable that some one kind of map unit design (e.g., consaciations of phases of soil Series) should be, or could be advocated as a panacea for vegetation interpretations?

In your experience, can soil complexes or associations be interpreted usefully for vegetation potential? (a) ",;;,;;g soil component identification be above the level of phases of soil (b) Are landform units (i.e., those defined primarily by other than p:oportions and pattern of constituent soils) interpretable? Should interpretive vegetation maps made from, and having some or all delineation boundaries coinciding with Soil complex or association delineation boundaries show only one dominant vegetation unit per delineation, or should they indicate proportions of component vegetation units? ?2Zat,i,w

to Chm*ge

NO. *:

vlould ADP input effort be profitable in the current situation where vegetation units are identified by ad hoc, uncorrelated names of only local and temporal significance? Is there a large enough, general enough body of knwledge on relations of soil properties to habitat types, single species occurrence, yield. etc.; to justify efforts at ADP analysis for soil property to vegetation interpretation results?

Committee Replies and Discussion A number of committee members made extensive replies to the above leading questions posed by the chairman. They agreed on some points, diverged on others, and considered a few questions to be inconsequential. In summary, the committee correspondence suggested that there is a need for more effective interpretive techniques for Order 3, 4, and 5 soil surveys (or analopous generalized soil maps, or interpretively generated vegetation maps). More elaborate--perhaps more consistent--definition and description of nultitaxa mapping units seems a precondition to better interpretations. Renewed informal and formal research on Some members considered rationalivegetation-soil relations is another apparent precondition. ration of vegetation nomenclature, hierarchical classification, and mapping concepts a desirable goal to be encouraged. Several members stressed that utilitarian interpretations (e.g.. productivity, management technique, reseedinq, etc.) are much more important to users than maps of potential vegetation. The problems ofcomparabilityof various resource inventory of interpretive maos was introduced, but not pursued. 238

Recommendations from the Conference k working draft report, summaries of canmittee correspondence replies to leading questions and a set of tentative recorrflendatiws were presented to the entire conference. They encouraged vigorous discussion on several points. The conference members showed particular interest in soil moisture regime - natural vegetation relations. The conference approved the following recommendations from Committee 8: (1)

Vegetation units, or landscape areas with an ecological potential to support a particular vegetation (e.g., habitat type) should be named after their identifying plant communities. in addition to cornnon names, and should be at least regionally correlated before they are used for soil-vegetation interpretations.


The basis for making soil-vegetation interoretations (e.g., habitat types for various soils) should be identified in soil survey reports, as should the basis for any other soil interpretation. (Soil properties and geographic correlation are two broad categories for soil-vegetation interpretation criteria.)


Vegetation specialists should be encouraged to provide one or several heirarchical veqetation-landscape classifications for use with order 3. 4, and 5 soil surveys.


The SCS Soil Survey Investigations unit should be encouraged to give priority to field studies of soil moisture and temperature regimes and related vegetation patterns and management responses.


Regional efforts at routine ADP analysis of soils-vegetation interpretations are not warranted at the present time. I\nalyses of sele&d data for research purposes should be encouraged.


Vegetation specialists should be encouraged to describe the techniques and concepts by which they map vegetation and define mapping units. so that definitive analyses of soil map-vegetation mapcomparability can be made.


Attachment 6 SUBCO!.~lITIEE 5C - WILDLAND No report received, but subcommittee chairman will submit the report of the findings of the task force on Soil-Wildlife Interpretations for the Western States. Committee Members L. Dean Marriage, Chairman L. L. Buller R. C. Carter

G. E. Otte C. M. Thompson

AREA TASK FORCE ON SOIL-WILDLIFE INTERPRETATION ‘Ihe Program Report of the Task Force has under review: 1. A Wyoming State Office draft of key wildlife plants for selected wildlife suecies in an effort to develonI a more comnlete list of I key habitat elements and rating tables than is now contained in SCS Soils Memorandum-74 and related SCS Soils Form-5. 2. Suggestions for improving the key habitat element rating tables by incorporating soil moisture regime and soil temperature into the criteria. 3.

Definitions of “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “very poor” in SCS Soils Memorandum-74 for rating habitat elements.

Responses from the Task Force members on Wyoming’s proposal have been received and are being analyzed and summarized by the co-chairmen. There is substance and practicality in the concept of a better and more complete grouping of key habitat elements and habitat kinds. These will be used to modify the wildlife section of SCS Soils Form-5 to accommodate additional key habitat elements and habitat kinds. Increasing the choice of key habitat elements and habitat kinds will give the rater greater flexibility in the rating process. The definitions of “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “very poor” remain unchanged at this writing. There is general support for interpreting soil mapping units, composed of two or more elements, for wildlife habitat components. This is in addition to interpreting soil taxonomic units. L. Langan/L. D. Marriage, Co-chairmen l/21/77




Requests for reqxxses to the charges to Camrittee 6 were r&ailed to all the states and to several other countries. Mailings were directed first to the Bead of theAgroncxnyDeparWenti.n eachIandGrant College, then (for states not responding) to the Director of the Soil Sxvey Operations for the Land Grant College, then (for states still not responding) to the State Soil Scientist, and finally to selected individuals. All of the states were contacted and all of them ultimtely responded. Many of the workers responded in detail and with an enthusiasm and effort beyond our greatest expectations. Selected examples of scse of the responses from Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, ~ntana, Ohio, Puerto Rico, SCS-Lincoln, and South Dakota were included in pages of correspondence attached to the preliminary reports. The wxkers in each state can best express their local situation, opportunities, and challenges; the chairmen, advisors, and members of Ccmnittee 6 are extrefnely appreciative for the responses of all of the workers. All of the responses have been published as Cornell Agronany Mirrw 77-2 of about two hundred pages , so that this excellentnationalperspective of work on interactions between soils and fertilizer responses can be available at cost of reprccluction to all xho are interested in a it. 'Ihe.subject setter of the charges is massive, but of extrerre national wrtance if the uses of soils are to be *roved. In general, fertilizer trials in the past have been conducted without much regard for the soils (as described in the soil survey); increasingly, however, geographic variabilities of soils are being investigated both between and within delineated soil map units. The reason that soil nap unit variability and yield correlations have not been much studied in the past is siqly that detailed soil naps were not previously published for large areas of the country; the new accelerated soil report publishing program will surely stimulate r!any investigations of soil rep unit variabilities in the future. Most quick test labs in the Us make sane use of soil series names, but few use soil nip units to their full potential in making fertilizer recamendations. In a number of cases chemical tests alone have actually been misrepresentative of the present or potential productivity of the soils; Cornell Bulletin 513 in Mime0 77-2 excellently illustrates this fact. Recent trends tcward ~terization of soil test results' and recarmendations are certain to *rove the relating of data to soils---especially as soils of m3re areas are nkapped and the reports are published. Generally, the progress in correlating data to soil nap units will be limited by the rate of soil ntap publication and by the funding of data-gathering and of ca0pute.r and statistical studies. Acceleration of soil survey interpretation activities wxld be a gocd investment to tie soil surveys rnxe useful in the future.


CB&FXSESTOC@!&U'lTEE6 ON IVI'ERACTIONS BETWEEN SOILS AND FERTILIZER RESPONSES 1. Collect and evaluate data on the responses of crops to fertilizers

by named kinds of soils. Consider interactions between such responses, mmagmt practices and weather conditions, aad explore techniques for defining optimal practices by kinds of soils. 2. Review the use of soil survey information by soil testing latmatories. Study whether and how the interpretation of soil test results could be irqxoved if soil survey infomation were used more effectively. 3. Explore possibilities for considering critical constituents (high Al, low ~a, trace elements) in soil classification and for incorporating information on fertilizer responses (including trace elemants) in soil survey interpretations. Gerald W. Olson cham: Vice-Chaim: lhrold &ens

Wders : F. Allgcafi S. W. Buol

F. H. BeinrOth D. G. Q-ice R. L. Guthrie Pdvisor:

T. T. L. J. J.

J. B. N. H. 0.

Bolder mtchings Iangan Lee Nichols

K. W. Flach


G. J. Post

D. W. Hanson R. I. Turner R. D. Yeck

WTIONSFORIMPmING IWcriSW SxLsANDFTKr.ILIzERRESP0NSBs as formulated by Ccmaittee 6 of the 1977 Work Planuing Conference 1. Analyze available relevant data and gather hew data specifically to correlate crop yields to detailed soil map units. Workers at experinent stations should lay out plots or exparimntal crop strips in a sequential pattern across contrasting soils to supplement the traditional more obsolete plot layout which assumes perfectly uniform soil conditions. 2. Improve recordings of soil map units at locations where soil fertility samples are collected and enter soil names into computer fonmt for statistical correlations. 3. Initiate research into soil map unit variability to enable batter probability statmmts to be made about predicted yields of landscape areas. 4. Evaluate soil properties to determine soil potential under different -gement systems designed for at least several alternative econcmic and cropping situations in each local area. 5. %bmit pedological soil horizon samples also to soil fertility laboratories for characterization of horizon soil fertility as well as soil genesis. 6. Start systematic ix&rnla_rge scale soilsurveyingaad sampling of experiment stations, beginning with those of the greatest importance to the most productive agricultural areas. 7. Organize a syqmsium between soil fertility mrkers ard psdologists for upxming meetings of the Amsricah Society of Agronany-R. B. Grossnan will handle this. 8. Achieve cmrdinations of the soil survey with the soil testing laboratories--H. I. CMens will i.nVeStigate these procedures. 9. Set up regional projects to relate soil fertility data to detailed soil map units--E. Miller will identify these prccedures and ancourage proposals that will be funded. 10. Establish priorities to achieve the funding to carry out the retcmendations to met the needs--on local, state, regional, and national levels.




as formulated by Ccmmittee 6 of the 1977 LWrk Planning Conference 1. Saed correlations of crop yields to soil mp units--for isproving soil survey interpretations for crop production. 2. Need correlations of soil tests to soil mp units--for -roving soil manageswant retions. 3. Need studies of soil map unit variability--to define crop response variations of soil map landscape units. 4. Need evaluations of soil potential--to specify alternative cropping systems and feasibility of those systems. 5. Need quick test data on all soil horizons--to characterize the fertility status of subsoils ard substrata as well as topsoils. 6. Need first order (large scale, high intensity) soil IMPS, deep soil profile samplings, and analyses of soils in map units in experimental stations--to enable correlations of crop data to mapped soils outside of the stations. 7. Need additional dialogue between soil fertility mrkers and pedologists--to start and expand cooperative efforts. 8. Need ccordinations of the soil surrey with national soil testing associations--to bring about ccoperations and ccordinations between soil test laboratories and soil mappers. 9. Need regional research projects on correlations between soil fertility work and soil survey efforts--to improve uses of soils for agriculture in the VS.. 10. Need funds for the above listed efforts to met the needs.


STATUS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOIL FERTILITY AND PEDOLOGY The future of soil science in the United States depends to a large extent upon the relationships between the subdisciplines of soil fertility Responses on the status of these relationand soil survey (pedology). ships have been received from all the fifty states and some other areas as part of the work of Committee 6 for the 1977 Work Planning Conference of the Cooperative Soil Survey. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the charges to the committee and to the states were to: 1.

Collect and evaluate data on the responses of crops to fertilizers by named kinds of soils. Consider interactions between such responses, management practices and weather conditions, and explore techniques for defining optimal practices by kinds of soils.


Review the use of soil survey information by soil testing laboratories. Study whether and how the interpretation of soil test results could be improved if soil survey information were used more effectively.


Explore possibilities for considering critical constituents (high Al, low.Ca, trace elements) in soil classification and for incorporating information on fertilizer responses (including trace elements) in soil survey interpretations.

The responses from the states constitute an amazing collection of reports, indicating excellently the problems and potentials for improving these If one reads between the lines in the reports, one can see 0 relationships. in the different states the devastations caused to research programs by budget cuts, the deficiencies in lack of initial appropriations, and, (in contrast) the constructive accumulations of valuable data through sustained fundings. Research and extension philosophies are clearly pointed out. Complications of nutrient variability of soil map units are outlined. Selected references are listed. Along with the reports from all of the states are included needs and recommendations of Committee 6 for future actions to mutually benefit both soil fertility and pedology. Copies of these materials have been reproduced as Cornell Agronomy Mimeo 77-2 (about 200 pages), and are available from the chairman of Committee 6 at cost of reproduction. The Mimeo 77-2 should be of considerable value to administrators of national and state research programs and to research and extension workers planning programs in both soil fertility and pedology. The reference is: Soil Survey Staff Committee. 1977. Status of Evaluations of Interactions Between Soils and Fertilizer Responses in the States of the United States and Some Other Areas: Report on Responses to the Charges to Committee 6 (Interactions Between Soils and Fertilizer Responses) for the Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey in Orlando, Florida, 30 January-4 February 1977. Cornell Agronomy Mimeo 77-2, Department of Agronomy (Soils), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853---Gerald W. Olson (Chairman of Committee 6), 707 Bradfield Hall, Cornell University.


NATIONAL SOIL SURVEY CONFERENCE Orlando, Florida January 30 - February 4, 1977 Cozmnittee No. 7 - O r g a n i c s o i l s Review comments and make recommendations on the proposals on the Charge : classification and interpretation of organic soils and associated mineral Committee of the 1975 National wetland soils developed by the Organic Soils Soil Survey Conference. Summary of Previous Work Renewed efforts toward interpretations of organic soils began with the formation of the National Task Force on Organic Soils in June 1972. The Task Force met and prepared a report that was considered by the Organic S o i l C o m m i t t e e a t t h e N a t i o n a l W o r k P l a n n i n g C o n f e r e n c e (1973). A f t e r further owrk and testing the interpretations were again considered by the c o m m i t t e e i n 1 9 7 5 a n d p r e s e n t e d i n t h e r e p o r t o f t h a t c o n f e r e n c e . As a result a number of guides have been developed (Table 1) with recommendations f o r r e g i o n a l t e s t i n g . Land uses and methods of interpretation are as follows: For Cropland A.

Management Suitability (General) A system of rating both organic and mineral soils has been developed, based upon penalty points for unfavorable soil features, to rate soils for “management suitability for cropland”. Management suitability is defined as an interpretive classification to assess the limitations for management of individual soils and the production of crops in general. The system illustrated applies to the North C e n t r a l and Northeast states. A w i d e a r r a y o f v a l u e s i s p o s s i b l e (0 to more than 1201, h o w e v e r , p l a c e Separate guides are suggested for land ment in 8 groups is illustrated. resource areas or other geographic areas. The end result of the ratings, as illustrated, resembles somewhat a g r o u p i n g b y l a n d c a p a b i l i t i e s , at least in the number of classes. They are however more precisely defined and more nearly reflect production potential if used for cropland. Since management suitability is based on different assumptions, the classes that result cannot be equated to land capability classes. Although penalty points are assigned to unfavorable soil properties an e x p l a n a t i o n o f theeffect o f t h e p r o p e r t y u p o n p e r f o r m a n c e i s n o t i n c l u d e d .






Hanagenent Suitability (Specific Crops) Management suitability for specified crops is presented for the North Central and Northeast states and is based upon the same soil features as general management suitability for cropland; however, the features may be given different weight for each crop. The penalties resulting from unfavorable soil features are summed with a possible range of 0 to more than 120. The intention of the committee is not clear as to whether the suitabilities are presented by groups or numerical indices. Yield potential is not a part of the rating.


Development Difficulty for Areas of Organic Soils (For Cropland) Development difficulty is a rating for use in conjunction with management suitability. It is a method of establishing a rank that indicates relative ease (cost ?I of land clearing and drainage. As a result, soils having equal management suitability but bastly different development costs can be distinguished. Vegetative cover, surface roughness, and establishment of adequate water control are three of the criteria, none of which are used in soil classification; although, they may be characteristics of mapping units. Kinds of underlying materials and coarse fragments within 51 inches are the other criteria, and these are used in soil classification. The sum of possible indices ranges from 0 to more than 100 with placement in three groups proposed.

Forestry Use potential groups are developed on the basis of 7 soil features significant to tree growth, to which penalty factors are assigned. On the basis of the penalty factors a 5-class ranking, from best to poorest, of each soil feature has been devised as a basis for use potential groups. The soil is rated by the class in which its most limiting feature is placed in a similar manner to use of guides for engineering interpretations. The effects of adverse features are not additive. None of the properties used as rating criteria are unique to organic soils. As an illustration of use, soil series are placed in use potential groups and site index given for selected tree species. Ranges of site index for soil series within Use Potential Group 3 for the seven species are as follows: 20-35 (black spruce), 40-55 (tamarack), 30-40 (II. white cedar), 45-55 (balsam fir), 55 (black ash), 60-80 (red maple) and 90 (silver +z~ple). The committee makes the followinp. significant statements in regard to penalty factors and Use Potential Groups; 1. Penalty factors give a basis for a general rating for forestry and a basis for analyzing soil potential for individual species. SollIe indicator soil properties are more critical for one species than another.




Use Potential Groups are for general evaluation of organic soils for forestry uses over broad areas.


Interpretations for organic soils need to tie in with those of mineral soils since both types of soils are likely to occur on the same property. A rating system that will reflect the needed interpretations for both types of soil is desirable.


Where soil surveys are available the interpretations should be geared to the mapping units or soil series (although not stated as such, the implication is that site index by species is intended). Where soil surveys are not available the key indicator properties need to be rated to help analyze the production potential of key species. (This implies use by nonsoil scientists on the basis of onsite examinations or evaluatin by soil scientists where site data for the soil encountered is not available.)

Interpretive Guides for Planning Purposes Early work of the conrmittee and the National Task Force dealt with rating criteria for dwellings with basements. Subsequent efforts were aimed at less costly developments and more general ratings for planning purposes. A.

Floating Light Loads on Organic Soils This guide is intended to rate organic soils with respect to their suitability for farm access roads, small buildings other than dwellings, and cattle walkways where completely firm and solid foundations are not warranted. The system is based upon penalty points for 7 unfavorable soil features. The effect of soil preperties on the use are explained.


Excavation and Removal of Organic Materials (Including displacement of soft materials below a depth of 12 to 15 feet) This rating is an effort to show the magnitude of problems associated with removal of organic soil material and/or displacement by surcharge. Criteria are based upon soil properties much deeper than the normal depth of observation or classification. Two soil factors are rated as affecting excavation and three properties for displacement. Penalty points are assigned to the adverse factors. Background material prepared by the committee on use of this rating is inadequate.


Discussion of Previous Uork As a result of the committee’s effort, rating guides have been prepared for selected uses. Many soil properties have been considered and their significance to interpretations evaluated. Discussion or explanation of the effect of the property on the use is only given for interpretive guides for planning purposes. Useful guides have been developed for a systematic analysis of soil properties as a basis for interpretations. A two-year test of the guides by regional committees is underway and will not be fully evaluated until the regional committees meet in 1978. Nevertheless, regional committees did respond to varying degrees to proposals set forth ss the 1975 National Soil Survey Conference. There are differences among the guides as to levels of generalization of land use, applicability to both organic and n~ineral soils, number and kinds of classes and whether ratings may be made for series or require onsite investigations. Some of these differences are listed as follows: 1.

The cropland rating system provides for a general guide to suitability for cropland as well as crop specific ratings (as for soybeans).


The cropland system applies to both organic and mineral soils but others are limited to organic soils.


Both discrete classes and numerical array are suggested for woodland and cropland but only numerical array for structures.


Onsite investigations are required for 4 of the 7 ratings proposed.

5. None of the guides suggest treatments to overcome the limiting factors. The features unique only to organic soils, other than folists, or of special concerns in interpretations of organic soils have been abstracted from the rating guides or divisions and are listed as follows: Kind of soil materials Fibric Hemic Sapric Limnic Coprogenous earth Diatomaceous earth Marl Origin of soil materials Woody (needs definition) Herbaceous Sphagnum Thickness of organic soil materials Resistance to rewetting after dehydration of limnic soil material Lateral hydraulic conductivity Susceptability of crops to frost i



Mineral stratification Wood fragments (coarse) Kind of underlying soil material (w/in 51 inches) Soil Temperature Growing degree days Aluminum Trace elements (Cu, MO, B, Ca:Mg balance) Sulphidic soil material Sulphurous horizons Subsidence initial annual Surface densification Bearing strength Erodibility

Committee Action The comittee chairman summarized the work to date and asked that committee members respond not only to the regional committees reports but to queries designed to identify the needs to be met by the rating systems, the potential users, and methods of application. Seven of the 17 members responded. There were few exceptions to reports pr,epared by the regional committees. The following is a summary of response to the queries : 1.

The Land Capability Classification, Woodland Ordination Groups, Range Sites, yield estimates, site index and soil limitation ratings for various uses provide some interpretations for organic soils. When implemented, the ratings for soil potential will provide an additional interpretation. Prior work of the committee more nearly equates to the soil potential concept than to the other systems. Needs for rating systems and purposes to be served by ratings were identified by the committee as (a) identification of properties of organic soils that are important to classification or phase dist i n c t i o n ; (b) inventories of “suitability” at local, regional, state or national levels; (c) land use planning and selection of alternatives; (d) identification of management needs; and (e) a guide for on site investigations including site conditions and properties below the series control section which may or may not be characteristic of soil mapping units. The committee strongly favored reference guides for on site examination with latitude for local deviations from the standards. In addition to the foregoing, the committee felt that ratings systems should apply to general land uses such as cropland, woodland, etch as well as specific uses such as for potatoes, red maple, etc. Guides to meet the needs and uses identified by the committee represent and undertaking of considerable magnitude and duplicate the results of those working on the ratings of soil potential.

2. The committee is equally divided as to whether ratings developed should apply only to organic soils to facilitate comparison of one organic soil to another or whether ratings should apply to both mineral and organic soils to facilitate comparison of all soils on a given tract of land or other geographic area. Gu’ides f o r cropland submitted by the national committee in 1975 applied to both mineral and organic soil, however guides for woodland and structures were only applicable to organic soils. Any guide must consider properties of mineral soil layers because these are an important feature of many organic soils.


For uses or crops unique only to organic soils, rating systems need only apply to organic soils. When a choice must be made between use of a mineral soil and use of an organic soil for the same purpose it is fairly obvious that interpretations prepared from the same scale of values will be much easier to use. It would be help&l to the committee if this conflict in views was resolved. 3.

Adequate testing and evaluation of the guides is essential before they are recommended for use. Committee members responding to this issue felt that guides need to be tested by users. This is interpreted to mean woodland managers, farmers, extension workers, and soil conservationists in addition to soil scientists who prepare the guides.


Some important uses of organic soils for which the relationship between properties and performance need to be established are as follows: Cropland shallow rooted (vegetable, etc) deep rooted (corn, etc) fruit crops Pastureland Rangeland Sod production

Small structures (floating) Foundations (stable) Waste disposal Commercial use peat moss (sphagnum) peat humus Fuel Drainage

Recommendations 1. That the list of features unique only to organic soils or of special concern in interpretations of organic soils be reviewed and amended as needed. 2.

That material be prepared in appropriate format whereby the unique properties of organic soils that are significant to each major use are listed and the effects briefly discussed. This would summarize Present knowledge, be a useful guide for interim use, identify research needs, and provide needed background for evaluation by way of the soil potential concept.


That the committee expand its efforts to include work on horizon designations and conventions for description of organic soil horizons.


That regional committees compile estimates of acreages of organic soils by soil families.


That regional cormnittees continue testing of the interpretive guides, evaluate their usefulness and report to the national committees at the conclusion of the two year testing period.



That the committee be continued. D. J. H. L. K. R.

L. Bannister E. Brown J. Byrd P. Dunnigan R. Everett S. Farnham (V-Ch)

H. R. K. R. R. S.

R. Finnery F. Former C. Hinkley W. Kover E. Lucas Rieger

W. C. L y n n J. E. McClelland (Advisor) E. W. Neumann J. J. Rasmussen 0. W. Rice D. F. Slusher (Chairman)

Discussion Daniels - Mapping the underlying mineral material is extremely difficult in raised bogs. Slusher - Difficulty in mapping is not sufficient reason for excluding underlying material, especially that within 51 inches, from consideration in interpretations. Farnham - We need to know what the mineral soil will be like if the organic soil material is removed for fuel or is oxidized through farming operations. Grossman - What are the arguments for rating systems that apply to o r g a n i c s o i l s bu; n o t m i n e r a l ? _ Slusher - Some view organic soils as unique and a standard for comparing one with another is useful. Others are of the opinion that users of the soil survey will want to compare all soils on a given tract of land--both mined and organic. The need to be met could not be agreed upon by this committee.


SOIL SURVEYS FOR CHANCING NEEDS It is a pleasure to participate in the work-planning conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, and to see representatives from so many agricultural experiment stations, other agencies, and even other countries. This kind of interest should result in better soil surveys. and wider use of them. In the United States, the demand for soil survey information keeps growing. Funds for soil survey activities keep growing--but not fast enough. The Soil Conservation Service has about 1,140 soil scientists directly engaged in making soil surveys. This number has remained constant over the past several years while the overall number of soil scientist employed by our cooperators has increased In 1977, about 58 million acres of soil from 190 in 1969 to 475 in 1977. surveys are planned, compared with 50 million acres surveyed in 1969. We intend to maintain our efforts to reduce the time required to publish soil surveys. We never could afford to let 4 to 8 years elapse after field work is completed! We plan to cut the average time span required for publication to 40 months in FY 1978, to 31 months the following year. h’e can’t stop there. We now know that it is possible to publish within 12 months after mapping is completed; we did so for the soil survey of Washington, D. C. All surveys will be published within a year after mapping as our current backlog is reduced. Comprehensive information about the . properties and condition of soil For example : resources is needed quickly as America faces many vital issues. 1.

- Energy needs in agriculture are related to soils. We need to study closely the tillage practices required to minimize energy use and still obtain good stands and yields. These practices vary by kinds of soil.


- Proper reclamation of surface mined land requires soil survey data. We insist that soil reconstruction is necessary so that the productive capacity of the soils after mining is not diminished.


- To minimize the use of and hazards from fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals in farming, we must tailor their use to soil properties.


- Delineation and management of wetlands require soil survey data.

Speech by R. M. Davis, Administrator, USDA Soil Conservation Service, At the work-planning conference of the National Coopertive Soil Survey, Orlando, Florida, February 4, 1977.



- Specifications for safe disposal or re-use of waste products


- Proper use of irrigation waters to minimize salinity in soil and water must be base~d on soils information.


- Extensive efforts are being directed to meeting the water quality standards of PL 92-500. Soil surveys will be required. We also are making an erosion survey of the soils that are the major sources of nonpoint pollution.


- Land use is another national concern. Every year, about 3 million acres of privately owned land in the United States are converted to urban uses or covered with water. This includes 670,000 acres of cropland. We cannot afford to let this erosion of our soil resource continue indefinitely. State and local planning agencies need to know where important croplands are to slow their conversion to other uses. We are using soil surveys to identify these lands as part of our important farmlands inventory.

depend on soil characteristics.

To meet all these needs, the National Cooperative Soil Survey must intensify its efforts to collect the necessary relate it to recognized kinds of soils... to convert it into a form that can be used by people who are not soil scientists... and to make it readily accessible in a resource information system. To collect this information we have to improve research capabilities supporting the soil survey and work closely with research agencies. I am pleased with the strong representation of federal research agencies at this conference, particularly the Agricultural Research Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. Our challenge is to relate their findings to identified kinds of soil and, in turn, help research agencies plan their work to provide valid information for the whole spectrum of soils that we Research can be planned to fill in gaps in our knowledge. Our recognize. challenge is to coordinate our activities so that each individual can make the most effective contribution. SCS has strengthened its soil investigations program through the creation of a national soil survey laboratory and through soil survey investigations specialists at the technical service centers. As Dr. Eno stressed at the beginning of this conference, we have to take full advantage of the unique contributions that our cooperators at the land-grant colleges make to this effort. They contribute through their own research and through their close working relations with disciplines in the earth and other environmental sciences. We also need to strengthen our efforts to convert technical information into In the a format that can be used by people who are not soil scientists. past we have stressed interpretations related to the limitations of soils for specific uses. We are now taking a more positive approach to interpretations by developing potential ratings for specific soils.



Soil potential ratings and other interpretations require inputs from many disciplines. These ratings are intended 8s planning tools--not design criteria or specifications or final site selection. They should reflect the comparative quality of soils--in terms that do not require translation. The ratings recognize soil quality in terms of performance possible after limitations are overcome through economicaliy feasible practices. Thus, the ratings may be simple but the logic behind them mey be complex. The soil potential activity will be expanded greatly--and will require major contributions from other disciplines. The right information, in the right format, still has to get to the person who needs it. SCS is working on a comprehensive system for collecting, updating, and evaluating data in an information system. It will include an advanced mapping system that will help us in preparing maps and in developing advanced methods for their use. Ultimately, we hope to include all of our published soil surveys. From this data bank the location and extent of each mapping unit can be determined. Interpretive maps of many kinds can be prepared from stored interpretations. As we complete and publish soil surveys at a faster rate, workloads at all levels in SCS are growing. We have been shifting responsibility from our national office to field and state staffs for completing soil surveys, especially for classifying and correlating soils. This would not have been possible without 8 comprehensive system of soil c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Since this conference met two years ago, Soil Taxonomy has been published. I want ~to acknowledge the extensive help and close cooperation of soil scientists in the United States and many other parts of the world in bringing the work to this stage. It is not the “final word.” It already use some changes. As new knowledge is obtained about soil classification we will make changes. Our mutual aim must be to relate soil facts to land uses and management techniques in ways that people can understand and use these facts. The people who use our information are as varied 8s the soils they manage. Soil surveys must be flexible enough to fit their needs. Many users also require professional help to get full value from soil surveys. Land use and the environment will not improve simply by placing soil surveys in the proper federal repository. I challenge all of you to contribute the same enthusiasm and innovation to survey distribution, use, and technical assistance 8s you continue to give to data gathering and interpretation and to furthering soil science.


We believe that the new administration will strongly support our efforts related to land use and the environment. Jimmy Carter said in 1975, “This is no time for those of us who love God’s earth and the beauty of it, the purity of the air and water, to compromise or to retreat or to yield in any possible measure to the devastation or deterioration of the quality of our lives or our e n v i r o n m e n t . ” Soil science is making its own profound contribution to “visible conservation” in America and throughout the world--let us step up the pace.


Recommendations of the committee to provide guidelines for the 1979 Work Planning Conference of the NCSS, John E. McClelland, Chairman, Kermit Larson, John D. Rourke, Maurice Stout, Jr., and Eugene P. Whiteside. The committee received many suggestions from conference participants and these were appreciated. ‘In general the suggestions were to narrow the charges given to committees so that specific assignments can be completed wherever possible. In addition some response should be provided to regional committees where comparable national committees are not established. The committee has the following recommendations: 1.

A steering committee for the 1979 conference should be named as soon as possible after the 1977 conference. It will consist of 11 members as follows: a.

Chairman, Assistant Administrator for Soil Survey, SCS;


A representative from the Washington Office Staff of the SCS, to handle administrative details and to be contact member for other federal agencies except the Forest Service,


The Forest Service soil leader;


A member selected by the agricultural experiment station soil survey leaders for each region;


The four principal soil correlators.


By May 1, the steering committee will provide subjects and a list of changes for the 1979 National Work Planning Conference Committees and recommend committee chairmen. They will gain approval for the participation of the committee chairmen from appropriate authorities.


By July 1, 1977, committee chairmen will review the charges and submit to the steering committee:



Proposals, if any, for further refinement or clarification of the charges;


A list of suggested committee members.

By September 1, 1977, committee members and approval for participation should be completed.



As soon as regional work planning conference proceedings are available the chairman of the steering committee will ensure that chairmen of each national committee receive copies of the regional reports.


By Nov&ber 1, 1978, each national committee chairman will submit 90 copies of a draft of his report to the chairman of the steering committee.


Prior to December 1, 1978, the chairman of the steering committee will provide conference participants with copies of the drafts.


The 1979 National Work Planning Conference is tentatively scheduled for the week of January 24, 1979. The place will be determined by the national steering committee by May 1, 1977.


The chairman of the national steering committee will ensure that all recommendations of regional committees are provided some response at the national meetings.

The committee believes the format of the 1977 meetings should be followed although the reports given ttx first day could be scheduled for 2 morning sessions providing meeting rooms can be scheduled to accommodate this change.



1. -Introduction The conrmittee was established in March 1975, by the SCS; participating in the committee's work are 25 members and correspondents from 11 countries who are or have been actively engaged in soil survey and classification in the inter-tropical region.

The work of the committee is mainly

conducted by correspondence; information and discussions are communicated by way of circular letters from the chairman.

No official plenary counnittee

meetings are held, but members of the committee meet on occasion of various internationdevents.

Apart from the Orlando meeting, two more work sessions

are being arranged for 1977, i.e. during an EHBRAPA - U Jf Puerto Rico workshop in Brazil in June-July, and during the ISSS meetings in Malaysia, in


Mandate and iustification The committee is charged to recommend changes in SOIL TAXONOMY, leading to .

the upgrading of Alfisols and Ultisols, in which the argillic horizon is dominated by low activity clays, mainly kaolfnitic. These are the present "oxic" subgroups, but will include a considerable additional number of low activity clay taxa in Alfisols and Ultisols, in which oxic subgroups have as yet not been recognized in SOIL TAXONOMY.


* International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, PMB 532.0, Ibadan, NIGERIA. 260

The “upgrading” of oxic subgroups can be justified on various grounds: geographically they are very widespread;

the present level is too low

to permit meaningful further subdivision at the higher categorical levels and, in terms of properties related to soil management and crop production, they stand well apart from soils, dominated by high activity clays. 3.

Cateno:ical level. nomenclature and diagnostic characteristics The categorical level, reconrmended to accamnodate the “low activity clay soils” is that of the great group.

A higher level is technically unadvisa-

ble, and would probably entail too many and too far reaching structural changes in Taxonomy.

For the great groups, to be created, the prefix “kandi”

was chosen out of many; kandi being derived from the general term for kaolinitic clays, i.e. kandites. The tentative diagnostic criteria for the “‘kandi” great groups would be the following: i.


A CEC of less than 24 meg per 100 g clay (

NH4OAC) in the upper

50 cm of the argillic horizon. ii.


less than 10 percent weatherable minerals in the 20-200 micron fraction of the upper 50 cm of the argillic horizon ur.less present in saprolitic material.

iii. -

no fragipan or ‘!continuous-phase” plinthite.

Under debate is a value ~sub(i) for cation retention by “$1. which


feel should Deb replaced-by~a hiagnostic.‘;aiue of ECEC per 100 g clay ~(s&n of catlons plus 1N KC1 extractable Al at the soil DH). It is reconrmended that 'kndi' great groups be keyed out early,i.e.



after fragi-and plinth-eat groups, if present. While most of the “kandi” taxa have their widest disttibution in the inter0 261

tropical zone, they do occur in non-iso soil temperature regimes as in the US and Europe.

This is a consequence of the committee's decision

not to reconrmend a soil temperature regime limitation parallel to the "Trap" suborder and great groups. Various points are still under discussion, one of the main ones being the admittance of a thin oxic horizon (more than 30 cm, less than a value still to be determined), overlaying the argillic horizon. A draft-key for Kandiudults was established, which is now being tested. It is intended to submit more complete recommendations to SCS, early in 1978. 4.

Repercussions for SOIL TAXONOMY, as applied to the US and Puerto Rico Upon presentation in ORIANDO, various points of the interim - reporting of the work of the committee came under discussion.

Of importance are

following points: _

The diagnostic values for CEC, base saturation, etc. require further scrutiny, especially in view of analytical methods.

In low activity

clays, small errors in such data may have a relatively large effect, e.g. as regards pH dependency of CEC values. The classification of soils with plinthite may require a complete new approach. _

The classification of soils from basic and ultra bas‘ic rocks, with a high content of finely divided "active" iron oxides does not fit well in the "kandi" concept, and requires further study.

In view of

this, the "rhod" great groups and subgroups merit to be reviewed. _

Introduction of "kandi" great groups fn the continental US is possible, according to J. Nichols, without too many drastic changes.


to a report of the conrmittee on the amendments to the Soil Taxonomysouthern states, the break of 24 meg/lOO g. clay for the CEC(NlU+OAc) 262


of the Bt horizon would bring all analyzed and tested soils of the Piedmont and Mountains, and most of the Upper Coastal Plain soils into the “kandi” great group, while the Udults of the Pamlico and Talbot terraces would fall outside of the “kandi” great groups. From Tennessee west to Arkansas and Oklahoma, the occurrence of “kandi” great groups diminishes; tested pedons in the latter two states have more than 24 m&100 g. clay.



of Comnents by- J. Vernon Martin


I am pleased to see so many other agencies and other countries represented at the conference.


The closing out or reorganization of committees for changing conditions is a step in the right direction.

3. I would like to see more participation of other disciplines from TSC’s.


Conference Summary My closing remarks will be brief. This is the first national conference I have chaired, I enjoyed it. We have had a” excellent conference. I appreciate the outstanding contriI would like to give special butions from so many of you. thanks to William Austin; to Fred Merrill and Jerry Joiner, who did such a great job in guiding the field trip; and for the wonderful hospitality. If I have any criticisms they are directed toward committee charges. Many of them were too broad and required a” excessive amount of work. Committees tend to breed new committees to take Committees should not act like rabbits. New care of c h a r g e s . committees do not necessarily resolve anything. I believe, though, that the procedures recommended by Dr. McClelland’s committee should resolve the difficulties. Finally, I say thanks for the fine spirit of cooperation and for your support. I look forward to continued progress in soil survey and to seeing all of you again in two years. Thank you.

Klaus W. Flach Assistant Administrator for soil Survey


NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY Soil Survey Conference Proceedings Orlando, Florida January 26-31, 1975

Table of Contents ................................................................................. Introduction. ........................................................................................


Participants.. .......................................................................................


Agenda.. ............................................................................................. 7 Message from Bill Johnson, Deputy Administrator for Soil Survey.. .......... 15 Soil Resource Investigations in Canada.. ................................................


Hydraulic Resources Secretary General Department of Investigation.. ....... 19 Soil Survey Administration Division British Soil Survey Overseas .................................................................


Land Resource Analysis Programs of the U.S. Geological Survey.. ............ 4 0 Northeast Region Report.. ....................................................................


Report of the Land Grant College Representative.. .................................. of the Southern Region


Report from North-Central Region Land-Grant Universities .......................


Report from Western Region Land Grant Universities ..............................


Use of Soil Surveys by the Agricultural Research Service ........................


Presentation of Wesley R. Booker, Bureau of Indian Affairs.. .................... 7 5 Bureau of Land Management (Statement) ..............................................


USDI Bureau of Reclamation Activities ..................................................


Soil Survey Research in the State Experiment Stations.. ..........................


Extension Soil Survey Educational Programs.. .......................................


Forest Service, USDA.. ...................................................................... 107

Soil Survey Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 1

Soil Survey Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Land Inventory and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 O r t h o p h o t o g r a p h y a n d t h e N a t i o n a l C o o p e r a t i v e S o i l S u r v e y 125 Status of the Revised Soil Survey Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


NACD and the Soil Survey Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Soil Surveys for Use After Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 3 Conference Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Committee 1 Modernizing Soil Survey Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Committee 2 - Improving Soil Survey Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Committee 3 - Waste Disposal on Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Committee 4 W a t e r Relations in Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 7 Committee 5 Techniques for Measuring Source and Yield of Sediment 241 Committee on Classification of Soils Resulting from Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operations and the Interpretations


Committee on Classification of Organic Soils and Interpretations............ 317 Guide for the Preparation of Management Suitability Groupings.............. 321 and Ratings for Specific Crops for Organic and Associated Mineral Soils Interpretive Guides for Organic Soils for Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Interpretive Guides for Organic Soils for Planning Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



w Introduction .................................................


Conference Participants ......................................


Agenda .......................................................


Conference Presentations Regrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

William L. Vaught . . . . . . . .

Soil Survey - FAO (Co y for Proceedings NotAvai P able) Soil Resource Investigations in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rudy Dudal . . . ..*...a.....


John H. Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Soil Survey Administration Division Activities in Mexico .,.................

Gaudencio Flores Mata . . . .


British Soil Survey Overseas

Anthony J. Smyth . . . . . . . . .


Land Resource Analysis Programs of the U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . .

J. R. Balsley ............


Northeast Region Report . . . .

R. V. Rourke .............


Report of the Land-Grant College Representative of the Southern Region . . . . . .

H. B. Vanderford . . . . . . . . .


Report from North-Central Region Land-Grant Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T. E. Fenton .............


Report from Western Region Land-Grant Universities . .

G. A. Nielsen ............


Use of Soil Surveys by the Agricultural Research Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

H. L. Barrows ............


Bureau of Indian Affairs . . .

Wesley R. Booker . . . . . . . . .


Bureau of Land Management . .

James S. Hagihara ........



USDI Bureau of Reclamation Activities . . . ..a.........

William B. Peters .......


Soil Survey Research in the State Experiment Stations.

Eilif V. Miller .........


Extension Soil Survey Educational Programs . . . . .

Harold I. Owens . ..*.....


Forest Service, USDA . . . . . . .

W. A. Wertz . . . . . . . ...*..


Soil Survey Operations . . . . .

John E. McClelland ..*...


Soil Survey Interpretations A Look Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . ..~

Linda .I. Bartellf ..,....


Soil Survey Investigations .

Klaus W. Flach . . . . . . . . . .


Land Inventory and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

R. I. Dideriksen . . . . . . . .


Orthophotography and the National Cooperative Soil Survey ,..........a.......

Jerome A. Cockowski . . . . .


Status of the Revised Soil Survey Manual . . . . . . ...*..

Morris E. Austin . . . . , . . ,


National Association of Conservation Districts and the Soil Survey Program . .

George R. Bagley . . . . . . . .


Soil Surveys for Use After Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kenneth E. Grant . . . ...*.


Conference Summary . . . . . . . . .

William M. Johnson *.....


Technical Committee Reports . . . . . 1. 2. 3.


Modernizing Soil Survey Publications ..a......

Keith K. Young ..........


Improving Soil Survey Techniques . . . . . . . . . . .

V. G. Link ..............


Waste Disposal on Land .

John D. Rourke ..........



w 4.

Water Relations in Soils.

Robert B. Grossman . . . .



Techniques for Measuring source and Yield of Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Allen R. Hidlebaugh ..+


Classification of Soils Resulting from Mining Operations and Interpretations . . . . . . . . ..+e

Frank J. Carlisle . . . . .



Kinds of Soil Surveys . . .

J. Melvin Williams . . . .




William E. McKinzie . . .




of Organic and the Interpre-

tations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION The theme of the 1975 National Soil Survey Conference was “Better Soil Surveys for Improving Production and the Environment.” These conferences are designed to provide a forum for discussion of scientific and technical questions on soil classification, description, genesis, morphology, interpretations, and use. Reports of these conferences after trials and tests in the field become the basis for revising our technical manuals and procedures. The conference is made up of representatives from the National, Technical Service Center, and State Offices of the Soil Conservation Service, other federal agencies having an interest in the soil survey program, as well as representatives from the Land-Grant Universities. In addition, Canada, England, Mexico, and the FAO had observers at our conference this year. These proceedings contain the following: 1.

Addresses to the Conference of Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service, and George R. Bagley, President of the National Association of Conservation Districts.


Formal presentations to the conference of the representatives and observers of the organizations and agencies present at the conference.


The reports of the eight technical committees and the recommendations of the conference resulting from the discussions of these reports at the confernce.

These proceedings have no official status in their present form and should not be given widespread distribution. The information, ideas, and data in these proceedings simply represent trends in thinking and progress of work. Thus they do not necessarily represent official views although many of the methods ultimately may be adopted officially.


NATIONAL SOIL SURVEY CONFERENCE January 26-31, 1975 Participants (See explanation of abbreviations used at end.) Name



Anderson, James R.


Reston, VA

Arnold, Richard W.

Cornell U.


Bagley, George R.


St. Joseph, LA

Balsley, James R.


Reston, VA

Bailey, Harry Hudson

U. of Kentucky

Lexington, XV

Bailey, Oran F.


Honolulu, HI

Barrows, Harold L.


Beltsville, MD

Bartelli, Lindo J.



Booker, Wesley R.



Can&no Leo'n, Alejandro

Sociedad National de Agricultura



Carlisle, Frank .J.,Jr.



Carter, Richard C.


Jackson, MS

Coover, James R.


Ft. Worth, TX

Daniels, Raymond B.


Raleigh, NC

Day, John H.

Soil Research Institute

Ottawa, ON, Canada

Dideriksen. Raymond I.



Dudal, Rudy


Rome, Italy

Fenton, Thomas E.

Iowa State Il.

Ames, IA

Ferwerda. John A.






Flach, Klaus W.

Organization scs

Location wo

Flares Mata, Gaudencio Secretaria de Recursos Hidriulicos


Fuchs, Westal W.


Stillwater, OK

Gockoweki, Jerome A.



Grant, Kenneth E.



Grossman, Robert B.


Lincoln, NE

Hagihara, James s.


Denver, CO

Harrier, Rodney F.


E. Lansing, MI

Heil, Robert D.

Colorado State U.

Ft. Collins, CO

Hidlebaugh, Allen R.



Jim&es Ldpez, Jorge

Secretaria de Recursos Hidrdulicos


Johnson, Robert W.


Gainesville, FL

Johnson, William M.



Link, Victor G.



Lloyd, William J.



McClelland, John E.



McKinzie, William E.


Lincoln, NE

Miller, Eilif V.



Nielsen, Gerald A.

Montana State U.

Bozeman, MT

Nowland, J.

Soil Research Institute

Ottawa, ON, Canada

Owens, Harold I.



Peters, W. B.


Denver, CO

Post, Gerald J.


Columbus, OH




Rivera, Luis H.


Rodriguhz Gbmez, Rub& Secretarfa de Recursos Hidrdulicos

Location San Juan, PR MeXiCO

Rourke, John D.


Upper Darby, PA

Rourke, Robert V.

U. of Maine

Orono, ME

Ralston, David C.



Salinas Duarte, Miguel

Sociedad National de Agricultura


Smyth, Anthony .I.

Land Resources Division

Surrey, England

Stout, Maurice, Jr.


Lincoln, NE

Vanderford, Harold B.

Mississippi St. U.

State College, MS

k'illiams, J. Melvin


Portland, OR

Wertz, William A.



Young, Keith K.



Abbreviations Used ARS

Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture


Bureau of Indian Affairs. U.S. Department of the Interior


Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior


Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior


Cooperative State Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture


Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture


Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations


Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture


National Association of Conservation Districts


Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior


Washington Office 5

NATIONAL SOIL SURVEY CONFERENCE January 26-31, 1975 AGENDA Sunday January 26 3:00-6:00 p. m.


Lobby Robert W. Johnson

Monday January 27 7:45-8:30 a. m.


Grove Room

General Session - Grove Room William M. Johnson, Chairman 8:30 a. m.

Conference Opening Soil Survey - FAO

Rudy Dudal Chief, Soil Resources, Development, and Conservation Service, FAO, Rome, Italy

Soil Survey - Canada

John H. Day Senior Soil Correlator Soil Research Institute Ottawa, Canada

Soil Survey - Mexico

Ing. Gaudencio Flares Mata Directorpe Agrologia Secretaria d.e Recursos Hidrdulicos, Mexico




British Soil Surveys Overseas

Anthony J. Smyth Director Land Resources Division Ministry of Overseas Development England

Land Resource Analysis Programs - USGS

J. R. Balsley Assistant Director Research, USGS


Monday January 27 (continued) Northeast Region Report 11:45


12:45 p. m.

Southern Region Report

Robert V. Rourke university of Maine

Harold B. Vanderford Mississippi State University

North Central Region Report Thomas E. Fenton Iowa State University Western Region Report

Gerald A. Nielsen Montana State University

Soil Survey - Agricultural Research Service, USDA

Harold L. Barrows

Soil Survey - Bureau of Indian Affairs, USDI

Wesley R. Booker

Soil Survey - Bureau of Land Management, USDI

James Hagihara

Soil Survey - Bureau of Reclamation, USDI

W. B. Peters




Soil Survey - Cooperative State Research Service, USDA

Eilif V. Miller

Soil Survey - Extension Service, USDA

Harold I. Owens

Soil Survey - Forest Service, USDA

William A. Wertz

Soil Survey Operations Division, SCS

J. E. McClelland

Soil Survey Interpretations L. J. Bartelli Division, SCS Soil Survey Investigations Division, SCS

K. W. Flach

Land Inventory & Monitoring R. I. Dideriksen Division, SCS 8

Monday January 27 (continued) Cartographic Divlslon, SCS

J. A. Cockowskl

Soil Survey Manual

Morris E. Austin


5:15 Tuesday January 28

Discusston of Committee Report8 Committee



Modernizing Soil Survey Publications


Improving Soil Survey Techniques


Waste Disposal on Land


Water Relations in Soils


Techniques for Measuring Source and Yield of Sediment


Claaalflcation of Soils Resulting from Mining Operations and Interpretations


Kinds of Sol1 Survey8


Classification of Organic Soils and the Interpretations Dlscus8lon of Cossaittea Report8


Group A

Group B

Group C

Group D









Time S:15 a. 9:30




2 3 Break

1o:oo 10: 30

3 9

Tuesday January 28 (continued)


Group A

Group B

Group C

Group D













Time 11:15 12:oo


l:oo p. m.











2:45 3:15












Wednesday January 29 Continue Discussion of Committee Reports 8:15 a. m.












10:15 10:45

Break 2



Lunch Tour

l:oo p. m. 4:oo

Multimedia Shows "Underfoot" and "Circle of Life" Courtesy of Information Division, Soil Conservation Service


Return to Motel 10

Thursday January 30

Grove Room

Report of Committees 8:30 a. m.

Connaittee 1 Modernizing Soil Survey Publications Keith K. Young, Chairman Committee 2 Improving Soil Survey Techniques Victor G. Link, Chairman

10: 00

Recess Committee 3 Waste Disposal on Land John D. Rourke, Chairman


Committee 4 Water Relations in Soils Robert B. Grossman, Chairman 11:50 l:oo p. 111.

Lunch Committee 5 Techniques for Measuring Source and Yield of Sediment Allen R. Hidlebaugh, Chairman Committee 6 Classification of Soils Resulting from Mining Operations and the Interpretations Frank J. Carlisle, Jr., Chairman

2:30 Committee 7 Kinds of Soil Surveys J. Melvin Williams, Chairman Conrmittee 8 Classification of Organic Soils and the Interpretations William E. McKinzie, Chairman 4:20



Friday January 31

Grove Room

a:30 a. m.

National Association of Conservation Districts and the Soil Survey Program Address by George R. Bagley President NACD


Administrator’s Message Kenneth E. Grant Administrator scs



10: 20

Conference Summary William M. Johnson Deputy Administrator for Soil Survey scs



TO: BILL JOHNSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOIL SURV: SCS, WASHINGTON, D. C. Please accept my sincerest regrets for not being present this morning. Have looked forward to this for several months, but circumstances require my presence elsewhere. Your deliberations are indeed important to rational land use decision making in America. Planners need sound technical data from which to select best alternatives -- commencing with the very foundation of soils. Best way to express the seriousness and importance of your task is to quote the late Adlai Stevenson who said: “There is a new America every morning when we wake up. It is upon us whether we will it or not. This New America is made up of many small changes: a new school here, a new industry there, a new factory where yesterday there was vacant swampland. All of these changes add up to a broad transformation of our lives, Our task is to guide those changes, for though change is inevitable __ change for the better is a full time job.” Best wishes for a highly productive conference.

William L. Vaught, Field Represent9

Soil Resource Investigations in Canada John H, Day Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario I am very pleased to be here with my colleague Mr. John Nowland. Mr. Nowland is our correlator for the provinces of eastern Canada. I wish to thank you for extending to us the invitation to participate in this work planning meeting. And on behalf of my other colleagues I thank you for the opportunity to be involved in the work of the organic soil task force. During the last tw years we have, of course, continued with our standard reconnaissance soil survey program. In urbanizing areas where competing demands for land are pressing, we conduct detailed surveys. In remote area8 we conduct smaller scale, or exploratory, survey, e.g., the pipeline corridor in arctic, hydroelectric power development areas. In the field of soil classification the major development has been the proposal to classify soils that have permafrost within one meter of the surface in 8ome part of the pedon. They are the dominant soils in the zone of continuous permafrost, have their maximum development in organic and poorly-drained, fine-textured mineral soils, Three major kinds of Cryosolic soils are recognized at the Great Group level. These are: 1)

Mineral soils displaying marked cryoturbation and generally occurring on patterned ground.


Mineral soils without marked cryoturbation,


organic soils. Order

Great Group


9 Cryosolic 91 Turbic Cryoeol

9101 Brunisolic Turbic Cry0801 9102 Regosol ic Turbic Cry0801 9103 Gleysolic Turbic Cry0801

92 Static Cry0801

9201 Brunisolic Static Cry0801 9202 Regosolic Static Cry0801 9203 Gleysolic Static Cryosol

93 Organ0 Cryosol

9301 Fibric Organo Cry0601 9302 Mesic Organo Cry0801 9304 Humic Organo Cryosol 16

Subgroup modifier 5 Saline 9 Lithic

5 Saline 9 Lithic

9 Lithic 10 Glacic 11 Terric

The Brunisolic, Regosolic, Gleysolic, Fibric, Mcsic and llumic subgl~oups intergrade to the respective mineral and organic soils. The glacic subgroup modifier is used with layers that contain 95% or more of ice and are more than 30 cm thick within the 1 meter control section. The implication of the adoption of this order, after the completion of the testing period, is that adjustments of six order definitions will be required end cryic subgroups will be deleted. Another project in hand is the development of B landform classification system for use in conjunction with soil mapping. Schemes developed separately for mineral and organic landforms are in the later stages of evolution and will be merged. The mineral landform system can be used without expert knowledge of geomorphological processes, although the basis genetic types are used for a ninefold canpositional breakdown, e.g., morainal, lacustrine, fluvial rock. The surface form of each of these divisions is classified in terms of configuration (e,g., ridged, rolling, pitted) smoothness and inclination. Veneered forms and a variety of erosional modifiers are Versions of the system have been successfully integrated recognized, with soil marina notablv in the ox-winces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan. L.



The systematic approach to mapping organic soils in their landfonn setting was developed mostly in the province of Manitoba. Tt recognizes the close relationshkp between water chemistry and peatlend surface form, and is well sclited to surveys where ground checking is limited. Our attempts to develop a soil information system (CanSIS) arc succeeding. Seven computer files are concerned with soil profile descriptions, soil maps, soil management, soil degradation, etc. The soil data, soil cartographic and soil names files are now operational. Although much work remains to develop these files further, data can be input, manipulated and retrieved. Digitizing equipment is operative and soil maps are now digitized as a normal cartographic operation. This will greatly facilitate soil survey operations and analyses of data by producing acreages, legends and interpretive maps for land evaluation automatically on the computer. The scope of the CanSIS system is expanding; a number of provinces are establishing their own compatible hardware and software, National Parks vi11 be using CanSIS for resource inventories. An international Soil Data Exchange project has been initiated with french-speaking countries. know that the International Society of Soil Science Congress 1978 will be held in Edmonton, Alberta. The executive ccmmittee is alive and working. The soil tours committee is organizing to undertake tour route selection this spring, soil site and sample selection during the summer. YOU

0 17

Tours will cover the southern part of Canada from east and west coasts to Edmonton, and from Edmonton to the Arctic coast, There are to be eight precongress tours, four midcongress tours near Edmonton, and nine postco"gress tours. The longest trip of 15 days would canbine three tow-s in eastern Canada.




SUMMARY The directors of the Soil Survey Admj nistration Division of the Hydraulic Resources Secretary of Mexico want to sincerely acknowledge the kind invitation to assist to this National Soil Survey Conference, made by Dr. William M. Johnson, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Deputy Administrator for Soil Survey.

The Hydraulic Resources Secretary has as one of its objectives, the development of irrigation projects all over Mexico, for which the Soil Survey 0 Administration Department is carrying out soil investigations in the different categories such as: reconnaissance, semi-detailed, detailed and special. These investigations have well defined objectives within irrigational agriculture and are carried out with specified procedures.

This folder contains a brief description of Soil Surveys work done by the Soil Survey Administration Division in Mexico.


ANTECEDENTS The Comisibn National de Irrigaci6n (CNI) (National Irrigation Commi ssion) was founded on January 4, 1926. It was a branch of the Secretaria de Agricultura y Foment0 (SAF) (Agriculture Development Secretary) and was created at the same time as the Irrigation Act, that asigned the National Irrigation Commission to plan, construct, colonize and operate the national irrigation districts. The Departamento Agroecon6mico (Agricultural Economy Investigation Department) was created the same year, as part of the National Irrigation Commission. Its main purpose was to improve the utilization of soil in the irrigation projects. This Department has changed its name on several occasions, until it has become the Direcci6n de Agrologfa (Soil Survey Administration Division). The period that this report will cover, is between 19261974, that is, approximately 48 years. We shall divide this span into three stages: from 1926 to 1946, from 1947 to 1966 and from 1967 to 1974. First Stage (1926-1946). This stage includes the creation of the National Irrigation Commission andtakes us up to the founding of the present SecretarSa de Recursos Hidraulicos (SRH) (Hydraulic Resources Secretary). During this stage, the Agriculture Economy Department hired North American Technicians in order to train Mexicans in this field. This Department acquired valuable experience during this stage and carried out investigations in soil classification, in several different states of the country. At the same time, Regional Laboratories for Soil and Water Analysis were created, However, we would like to mention that, during this period, there were critical stages where the initial effort slowed down and this was reflected by low production in the irrigation districts. This also indicated the need for continuous basic soil surveys for all the irrigation projects. Second Stage (1947- 1966). This stage begins with the creation of the Hydraulic Resources Secretary. TIie Agricultural Economy Department changed its name to Departamento de Agrologfa (Soil Survey Department), Sixty technicians participated in the continuation of this work. Durditlg this period, the soil surveys made, of the requirements set by the Bancos Internacionales Credit Banks), These banks required the use of new surveys, and so, within the Soil Survey Department, Photo-interpretation Office was created, 21

were included as a part de Credit0 (International methods for making soil a Photogrammetry and

Third Stage (1967-1974). In order to carry out soil survey investigation syste matically, for large andsmall irrigation projects, the Hydraulic Resources Secretary created the Soil Survey Administration Division in May, 1967. In this way, the new Soil Survey Administration Dlvision has directed its objectives toward the systematic realization of soil survey investigation as a part of the basic studies made for irrigation projects, GOALS OF THE SOIL SURVEY ADMINISTRATION DIVISION Soil Survey investigation is part of a general program of activities carried out by the General Department of Investigation, They form part of other basic research that is necessary for the correct planning of the different irrigation projects that the Hydraulic Resources Secretary is making throughout the country. Soil studies are subdivided in: reconnaissance, semi-detailed, detailed and special. These technical documents are elaborated with well defined methods and objectives. These are made up of two equally important parts, the technical memorandum and their corresponding soil maps. The soil survey maps contain the localization and extention of the unites called series, types and phases as well as the kinds of soil to be used with irrigation, The information that is described in the technical memorandum, refers mainly to the general pedological and hydrodinamic characteristics of soils. This data is related to the taxonomic or interpretational units that are show on the land maps. The principal data that is provided by the soil survey is the following: 1.

Soil Classification maps in series, types and phases.


Classification of land to be used in agriculture with irrigation (6 categories).


Water quality in irrigation,


Irrigation methods, water depths, etc.


Cultivation programs. 22



Preventive measures against saline soils.


Agricultural drainage needs.


Preventive measures against erosion.


Soil management.

10. Bases for determining soil capacity use (8 categories). The investigation procedures used for soil surveys done by the Soil Survey Administration are the following: 1.

General specifications for the different kinds of soil investigations.


Field data instructions.


Methods for water and soil sample analysis.


Methods for making reconnaissance, semi-detailed, detailed and special soil surveys.


Climate calculation instructions.


Aerial photograph specifications.


Specifications for chart elaboration.


Instructions for determi~ning hydraulic conductivity (drill method).


Linear programming system for plannix crops.


10. Petrographic analysis, chromatographs and electronic microscopy The following are International work norms that are used as a basis for the elaboration of soil surveys: 1.

Soil Survey Manual, US Department of Agriculture.


Irrigation Suitability Classification Bureau of Reclamation Manual, US Department of the Interior.


Land Capability Classification, Soil Conservation Service US Department of Agriculture. 23


Diagnosis and improvement of Saline and Alcali Soils (Handbook 60) US Dept. Agr. Regional Salinity Lab. Riverside, Calif.


Salinity in Relation to Irrigation, Regional Salinity Laboratory Riverside, Calif. USA.


International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement Wageningen The Netherlands.


A Field Method for Measurement of Infiltration US Geological Survey.


The Auger Hole Method, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement. Wageningen The Netherlands,


US Coast and Geodetic Survey Special Publications, US Department of Commerce,

10. Manual of Photogrammetry and Photointerpretation. American Society of Photogrammetry. Organisms that are served by the Soil Survey Administration, The information that is contained in the soil surveys, is presented in technical publications that are requested mainly by government offices that are carrying on agricultural development projects within the country. At the same time there is also permanent public service available, THE ORGANLZATION OF THE SOIL SURVEY ADMINISTRATION DIVISION For carrying out the different jobs that are given to the Soil Survey Adminstration Division, we have the following organizations, Central Offices in Mexico City Direction Soil Department Special Investigation Department 24

Laboratories Department Agricultural Department Soil Chart Department Publication Department Administrative Department Photographic and Cinematographic Laboratory 11 Field Staff and installation units throughout Mexico 12 Laboratories for soil and water analysis throughout the country. 5 Mobile field staff and equipment units. 25 Experimental fields spread out in all parts of the country. 0 Technical and administrative staff of the Soil Survey Administration Division. Agronomists with different specializations


Chemical Engineers with different specializations


Civil Engineers



6 12

Economist and Geologist


Technical Librarians and Translators Qualified draftsmen


Administrative Personnel




06P LEL ‘[


618 PPI 1 091

‘izs IZE


L96 PL

L91 9TP T





30 ‘ON





sarpnls 30 ‘ON CL61




6 8

916 1’21


ZL8 S;bT







sagms 30 ‘ON

Z L 6 1



sarpms 30 ‘ON



uo@3pq ~pxuS UO~,E?%~l_II Brg


TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS During 1971-1974 the Soil Survey Admlnstration Division has made 978 Soil Survey studies in the four established categories (reconnaissance, semi -detailed, detailed and special) of which 17 have been published in a serie that is listed below with a total of 11 200 copies,







4 500






INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL EXCHANGE The Soil Survey Administration Division has made some investigations together with other international organisms, above all in the fields of geomorphology, classification, and soil genesis in the Mexican Republic. Some outstanding examples of these are: -

Soil Unities of Mexico - by FAO System,


Soil Classification of Chihuahua State (7th approximation),

- NASA-USA. - Regional Salinity Laboratory Riverside, Calif. USA. - ORSTOM, France. - Wageningen, The Netherlands. - The Soil Center International: Gante, Belgium. Postgraduate studies have been made by technicians of the Soil Survey Administrative Division in the following countries: USA








West Germany





BRITISH SOIL, SURVXY OV>:RSEAS by A J Sqfth Lend Resources Division, Surbiton, UK.

I regret that the title of my talk is doubly misleading. In the first place it suggests an intention to discuss all British soil survey work abroad whereas I plan to speak only about the work of the Land Resources Division of the UK Ministry of Overseas Development. Thus I will be ignoring the very considerable efforts and achievenwts of British soil surveyors working overseas for conlnercial firms, universities and other organisations, both in the present and in the past. Secondly, to many people especially perhaps to an Amerioon audience, the term 'soil survey' may have a rather different connotation from the activities of Land Resources Division which I am about to describe. History and Cbjectives of Land Resources Division (1) The Land Resources Division (LTO) was formed within the Directorate of Gversess Surveys in 1964 by cow.bining the UK Pool of soil Scientists with the For-estr-y and Land Use Section of the Directomte, but the roots of these formative units can be traced back about twenty years to the iwediate post morld '/far II period. In 1971 LRD became an independent scientific unit contributing to the British Overseas Aid Prograrxu:e. The primary objective of LRD is to assist Governments of developing countries to evaluate their land resources with the longer term view of accelereting rural development on a sound basis. The aim is to stwdy land in all its aspects - approachi~ng as closely as possible to a study of physicci.1 reality. Thus although the Divisir,n is not large its range of specialists is vrrried. Tile core staff comprises some sixty scientists I:!oost of when have extensive overseas experience in such fields as soil science, ecolom, geonorphology, forestry, hydrology and various aspects of agriculture including agronomy, animal production and agricultural economics. The largest single group is, in fact, the soil scientists. This core staff can be supplemented by specialists engaged on contract to carry out specific projects. LRD staff are currently working, or completing work in 15 countries of which 5 are in Africa, 5 in Central America and the Caribbean, 4 in Asia and the Far Dast and one in the Pacific. Not all of the projects involve a significant element of soil science for they inolude forest inventories and agronomic studies. Soil survey does play an essential part, however, Ian the Division's largest current projects in the Yemen Arab Republio and in Centrb.1 Nigeri~a. The Central Nigeria project employs five soil -., --.~---(1) Described in some detail by Baulkwill (1972) 29

calls for land resource survey of an area of more than go 000 square miles. ';/hen this project is completed toa.r& the end of 1377 LRD v:ill have surveyed over 200 000 square miles of Nigeria at roconnnissance love1 - more than half of the total area of the country (see Fi~g. 1).

surveyors and

LRD's Approach to Resource Assessment All of the areas studied by LRD lie outside the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it is convenient and economic to carry out sor?e stages of the work at our heodqwrters at Tolworth, son:e 15 miles south-west of London. A proccd~ure that makes this possible has been developed. Requests r;or assistance from oversets governments ore transmitted to London by our En:bassies or Xigh Commissions abroad. In London the requests are cons?.dcred by the relevant Geographical Departcents of the Mnistqy of Overseas Development and, if appropriate, LRD may be asked to undertake R xret apprnissl to determine the best way of providing assistance. A project appraisal usually involves a visit, to the cowtry by three or four specialists in different disciplines and, depen%ng on the size and coniplexity of the problen, may take a fen weeks or several months to complete. This ~/or> gives rise to specific project proposals and if thcsc are fevourably received by the overseas government a land rosouroc study is started~. Three principal stazes c&n be &.stinguiahed in a typical LRD project: 1. Project preparation in the UK 2. Overseas field work 3.

Data processing and in the UK

The preparatory work in Iiritein is concerned largely with air photo interpretation and a preliminary definition i s made of landscape units in the project area. Preliminary raps are made and stores and equipment are sent abroad. In addition special efforts are made by the LRD information service to obtain all relevant existing literature for study by the project teaIli. In recent years and for the larger projects this activity has led to the preparation of special bibliographies which have boon publj~shed on a limited scale. The nature of the field work abroad varies very greatly, of course, in

relation to the objectives and pbsical conditions of tie project. ~asioally, the Division follovro a method of landscnpo analysis pioneered by the CSIRO, Austrcli~a (described l!!ozt fully in Christian and Stcurart 1768).


Amongst resource survey organisations LRD is somewhat exceptional in pinning its faith 50 firmly to this method but we believe it offers a number of advantages, espeoially for rapid survey of large area5 with difficult 800855. Not least of these advantages is the extent to which the method encourage5 a team approaoh and, indeed, oompels a degree Of integration between scientific disaiplines in the assessment of land. The method leads to division of the surveyed region into land systems, which are fairly large unit5 of landscape having oharaoteristio patterns of relief, soils and vegetation. If the intensiw of study permit5 the land system5 are subdivided into land facets, units of the landscape having individual significance in relation to existing and potential land use. The land system5 and land faoets are described in terms of the various landscape component5 (Geomorphology, soils, vegetation end land use) which are examined in the field in varying detail depending on the overall intensity of the study. Table 1 illustrates the level of categorisation aimed atin LFlD surveys of differing intensity. Usually the boundaries beteeen the mapped units are determined by landform oriteria and only in very intensive studies or where soil changes of great practical consequence oocur (eg: between sandy Dntisols and Vertisols) would soil boundaries per se be traced. In several LRD projects, however, very intensive soil survey5 of sample areas have been oarried out to obtain a better understanding of the relationships between soils and of the diatri.bution of soils within the larger landsoape units. During the oourse of field work samples of 50115, vegetation and water are sent to the United Kingdom for analysis, the soil samples being handled by the Tropioal Soils Analysis Unit whioh is part of LRD. To an increasing extent so&o-economic, agricultural and forestry studies proceed in parallel with the survey of the landsoape to provide a basis for sound interpretation of the survey findings. On oompletion of the fieldwork an interim report on the findings of the study is sent to the recipient government but the projeot is by no means over. In the final stage, back in UK, the project team obtain5 a major aeaistanoe from supporting services at headquarters - information retrieval, oomputer, cartographic, laboratory and publishing servioes. Data processing by computer play5 an incrcaeingly important role in all aspects of landsoape and sooio-economic analysis. The Division oan also draw upon a fund of specialised overseas knowledge and experience not only within its own Ministry but also at many British universities and scientific institutions. LRD is particularly fortunate to be able to rely upon its erstwhile parent, the Direotorate of Overseas Surveys, for final map PrOduOtiOn end for almost day to day liaison with LRD's own Cartographio Unit in the initial compilation stages. The findings of the larger projects are published a5 one of a series of LRD Land Resource Studies eaoh of whioh inoludss * rang8 of maps. 32

I 1


Typical map-k

Land use


2 Extensive. l,W3-lO,aKt

Land systems Relief units or major landforms

Great soil


clitic and edaphic formation type5 and plant assaiations

series or aswiations of series

Plant association


Land use systems and cultivation density


Location and 1: 25,ooO

*ition o f to developmnt 1 :



4. Dcwlopmcnt StUd&J&JgY

RCSLWIE analysisand dmlopmerd PW

1: lO,Ow to I : 25.000

Landform Land facets Phaxs Of and ckmcats elements or xrizricnd/or slope units i PZLEllXtcB

Plant assaciati~ns and spccles distribution

&gPp crop d&ibution, field patt-


Tzble 1 : Levels of categorisstion in

principal kypes

of LRJI survey

hmn Balkwill, 1972, based on Sat&s, 1970)

Guadalcanal : An Example of an LBD Land Resource Study The details of methods of soil study and mapping used in LRD projects have varied very greatly, partly because of differing project objectives, partly to meet differing environmental conditions and partly to explore with varying success new ways of overcoming the problems of survey in less developed areas. No single survey can be regarded as typical, therefore, and in choosing the land resource survey of Guadalcanal as an example of LBD's work I confess I have been influenced by the interest which this famous name can be expected to arouse in *n American audience. The island of Guadaloanal which covers 5 730 km* was mapped by LTlD between l#!arch 196 and June 1968 as part of a five year programme to map the 28 420 km 8 of the British Solomon Islands. The aim of the survey was to determine areas of land with agricultural potential and to provide basic data on the soils, topography, current and potential land use of these areas. Taking account of the rugged terrain and the virtual absence of roads (96 km only along the northern coast) the land system approach was thought to be the only possible means of obtaining the required answers within the time available. Apart from the northern plains and a few river valleys most of Guadalcanal is hilly to mountainous with a main ridge rising on average to 1500 m and culminating in peaks at 2 330 m end 2 450 m within 15 km of the southern coast. Deytime temperatures exceed 25OC throughout the year, humidity is high and rainfall varies from 3 C00 mm on the northern coast to >13 000 mm in some years on the southern coast. Fortunately air photographs at scales of between 1:40 000 and 1:60 000 and maps with 40 m form lines were available for the whole island. These were used to produce a breakdown of the landscape into 43 land systems on the basis of topography and vegetation. Two weeks in each month were spent in fieldwork. Up to four parties worked from a coastal base camp and moved by ship or dinghy along the coastline to the starting point of each day's work. Incised rivers subject to flash flooding and steep, unstable, often precipitous slopes restricted routes to inter-village footpaths, hunting tracks or valley sides and only rarely was traverse cutting resorted to on the reconnaissance survey. The routes were chosen to reach areas characteristic of the land system and the distance travelled by a party in one day averaged 5-10 km with a maximum of 25 km. Sites were selected along the routes on a subjective, non-random basis with~the aim of describing as many facets of the land system as possible. Because of the hilly nature of the terrain and the overall dense forest cover, the routes had to be checked continually by reference to the air photographs and by comparing altimeter readings with the contoured maps. Even so precise location of sample sites was the exception rather than the rule. Generally 6-10 site descriptions were made each day. They represented as many different land facets as possible but because of the orientation of paths along the more accessible routes, sites near ridge 34

predominate. At the selected sites, augerings of soil profiles were fully described. Slope end altitude readingo of the site were supplemented by records of adjacent slopes, relief and the ground condition of the area, erosion, gullying, rock outcrops, land use and vegetaticm. After acme days in an area representative sites would be seleoted and soil pits dug, desorlbed and sampled. On Guadalcanal 3 700 soil augerings were ma& and 187 pits were sampled.

crests tended to

The broad groupings of soils recognised were described and mapped a8 Soil Associations and the most extensive soils in these associations were correlated with the US Soil Taxononly. From the reconnaissance fieldwork it was possible to decide which provisional land systems had 8cmc agricultural potential and from them representative sample areas were chosen. These area8 were studied in detail in order to investigate soil/topographic relationships and to check the area1 distribution of ~oi1.s. The sample area8 varied in size between &O and 80 acre8 and were defined by traverses 200 ft. apart and between 3 000 ft and l+ 500 ft long out on agrid syysten. The area was accurately surveyed using an engineering level and mapa with contour intervals varying between 1 ft and 20 ft were produced depending upon the nature of the terrain. Soil.3 were described at 100 ft intervals along the traverses and samples taken from the most widespread kinds of soil. The detailed information on the soils of these representative area8 was presented in a series of maps showing single soil characteristics suoh as 80118, soil depth, drainage, stoniness, depth of humus horizon and land use. For the island as a whole the following maps were produced: at 1:250 OW scale (a) Physiography end phyyaiographio regions (b) Gatchment areas (0) Soil sample sites and traverses (a) Soil associations at 1:150 000 scale (e) Land Systema and Land Regions (f) Land use (1962-1971) (g) Agricultural opportunity areas (areas in which present land use is markedly below physical potential) (h) Forest types



Special Problems and Resulting Trends in Land Resource Survevs

IFI conclusion I would like to speak briefly about the special problems which face LRD and similar organisations carrying out resource surveys overseas in developing countries. These problems can be surrimarised under three headings: 1. Objectives and programming 2. Accessibility and logistics 3. Interpretation and applioation of survey findings Objectives and programming: Unlike many national soil survey organisations, LRD has no long term, routine progranui8.a of work for which a high degree of stsndardisation can be developed. Each of our operations is a unique response to a request for aid. Terms of reference must be prepared on eaoh occasion to define the objectives of the study and the means by which these objectives will be achieved. Lack of technical expertise in the countries which we serve is the reason for our Division's existence and it follows that much of the responsibility for defining the objectives and methodolo~ of our projects falls on our own projeot appraisal teams. Muoh of the time of senior staff in the Division is devoted to this work. Occasionally, perhaps increasingly, such work is an end in itself, leading to thf? preparation of Terms of Reference for projects which an overseas government may submit to commercial consultants or to other sources of bilateral or multilateral aid. A large proportion of LRD's work has been at reconnaissance intensity, for many developing countries lack the broad knowledge of resource potential necessary to decide the most fun&mental aspects of land use policy. In developed oountries these basic questions have often been answered by farming experience and where this proves inadequate a broad picture of resource distribuMon can often be synthesised from large amounts of data derived from years of intensive surveys. Time is too short for this approach to serve the developing countries. Once a need has been identified, environmental data, including soils data, must be obtained as quickly as possible or planning will proceed without it - such is the urgency for development. This implies that environmental conditions must be summarised on the basis of a minimum of observations and Samples. This, in turn, places special demands on the oalibrs of the survey team - above all they require relevant experience. I have already emphasised the overseas experience of the LRD staff but this is lsreely a legacy of oolonial history and the problems of training youthful replacements for these men are very considerable. A ohange in the pattern of LRD's work is discernible for there is a tendency for the proportion of more detailed studies to inorease. This trend is understandable, for the 'Development Studies' produce an actual blueprint for the implementation of development and help to meet the current need in most countries to produce 'bankable' projects. Economists and financiers are less eager to invest in small scale reconnaissanoe studies for in themselves these yield relatively few opportunities for immediate development, There are obvious dangers, however, in jumping 36

too quickly to the DevelopmeEt Study - in attempting to answer the question 'how' before the question 'where' has been adequately answered. Associated with the greater emphasis on Development Studies has come 5 gradual chulge in the priority accorded to soil survey in relation to other aspects of an integrated environmental study. Experience ha5 demonstrated that if the location and objectives of proposed doVelOpmont have been chosen with reeaonable care then studies of aoOiolOgy, marketing, water supply and. perhaps other faotors may have a more important bcarjng on economic and practical feasibility than the findings of soil survey. on the other hand, once feasibility is determined, soil survey has a major role to play in farm plsnning end in guiding iana management. In general, the economist is playing an increasingly important part in LRD work - not least in helping to define the objectives of the work before actual inventory begins. Accessibility and logiatioa: Guedzloanal provides an excellent example of the cliffioult terrain in wldch LRD is commonly called upon to work, Equally good examples could be quoted from Nepal or Sabah. The phyaioal prOblema associated with such difficult access are obvious and to these muot be added the usual problem5 of accommodation, trsnsport end equipment maintenance associated with life in developing areas; all of whioh requires that a disproportionate amount of staff time must be used in purely organisntions.1 matters. .Difficultiea of access also exert a controlling influence on survey methoas. They place limitation5 on the types of modern equipment that can be used either beoauae of weight or size (eg: powered augers or diggers) or because of problems of sensitivity, calibration or maintenance (eg: neutron moisture probes), On the other hand aooeaa problems together with shortage of skilled aasistanta have encouraged trial use of automated recorders, notably automatio weather stationa, with promising results. Above all, difficulties of aoceaa have enoouraged maximum use of air photo interpretation in LRD surveys. Conventional panchromatic black and white aerial photography romaina the mains* of our work but other forms of imagery are used and a watchful eye is kept on advances in the field of remote sensing. Interpretation and Application of Survey Findings: A major oonoern in organiaing le,na survey5 over5eaa is to ensure that the findings will be put to effective uae. The result5 of the survey need. to be reported in a form that will be of greatest immediate to potential user5 but, in addition, specific effort5 need to 0 value be made to bring the report to the user's attention to explain its 37

significance. Dealing with this latter point first, LRD has made it a practice for a team leader end perhaps some of his colleagues to return to a country to present their completed report to the government and also to hold what might be termed an "induction se&n& at which local staff at appropriate levels are instructed in the use of the report. Increasingly in future it is likely that a member of the project teem will remain in the country for as much as a year after completion of a large survey to assist in integrating survey findings into the government's planning process. Concerning the form of the report it is apparent that special attention shculd be paid to i.nterpreting the scientific information in terms that will be readily understood by the principal users and that recommendations and practical interpretations should be prominently placed separately from material of a purely reference nature. The trend is for interpretations to take the form of clear cut recom:endations of the suitability of land for rather specifically defined forms of lend use knovm to be of interest to planners in the area. An individual tract of land is likely to be suitable for more then one use and if guidance is to be given in choosing between uses an attempt must be made to express the different suitabilities in quantitative economic terms. Weedless to say this presents special problems in the developing lands of the tropics where all forms of quantitative data are scarce. In the field of soils the desire to assess potential produotivity quantitatively has aroused new interest in parametric methods of soil interpretation - an interest that is doubtless stimulated by more widespread availebility of computers and 8 greater familiarity with statistic81 methods and model building amongst soil scientists. Certainly the need exists for rapid means of assessing potential productivity under defined conditions from measurable characteristics of the soils end other environmental attributes. The means of interpretation must be rapi~d for if the assessments are to relate to specifio uses and are to take account of economic criteria their useful life will be very short. Indeed they may have to be up-dated with subtle changes at frequent intervals returning each time to the soil end other bzsic surveys for the baseline data. Nobody imagines this will be easy but I personally am convinced that it is the direction in which we must go. We must carry out knowledge of soils and land more than halfway to the planner if ws want to ensure that these precious resources are wisely used. This, I believe, is what our work is all about.

Having only recently joined Lard Resources Division it is apparent that, although the vious expressed are my ovm, the work descri.bed is that of my collenSues and I am psrticulsrly indebted for material provided by 1.Y '/I J Aaulkwill, I:r J X F Hansel1 and Mr A R Stobbs. -References: -

Baulkwill, \i' J


"The Land Resources Division of the Overseas Development Administration". Vol. XIV No.4 Tropical Science.

Christiul, C S and. Stewart, GA


'Qlethodoloejr of Integrated surveys ' Proceedings of a Conference on Aerial Surveys and Integrated Studies (Toulouse 1964) UDFACO, Paris.

Stobbs, A R


IV. Soil survey procedures for development purposes. In New Possibilities and Techniques for land use and related swve s. Cox, I H (Ed. ? Oct. Pap. Wld Land Use, ~0.9, u-63.


LAND RESOURCE ANALYSIS PROGRAMS OF THE MU. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY J .R. BALsLEY I am very pleased and honored to be invited to the National Soil Survey Conference to discuss with you the Land Resource Analysis Programs of the UnitedStates Geological Survey. Traditionally, the Geological Survey has been interested in assessing the mineral resources of the United States and for that reason has concentrated most of its research and activities on the bedrock. As I understand it, the Soil Conservation Service has traditionally been dedicated to soil and water conservation related to agriculture and has concentrated on the soils. Now that the Nation as a whole has recognized the value of our land resource and recognized the need to know more about it to be able to make wise decisions as to its best “se, we must learn more about the material that lies between the bedrock and the surface soil. Our two organizations share the major responsibilities of meeting this need, and recognizing this, we have for many years been conducting informal exchanges. Many of you in the field offices know of these joint activities of the USGS and SCS. Our two organizations are about the same size and both conduct extensive field operations. As is the case in most organizations of this type. the field men feel that the Washington headquarters office doesn’t know what’s really going on, and they’re probably right. But we do get together, even in Washington, and have now established a formal SCS-USGS Coordination Committee to improve and expand this cooperation. This group meets every two months under the leadership of Bill Johnson from the Soil Conservation Service and Frank Clarke from the USGS. Subcommittees on special topics meet more frequently and to give you a flavor of the content of our discussions, I’ll give you a quick rundown of their titles. The ERTS-Mosaic Reproduction Subcommittee has already moved forward with the printing on U. S. Geological Survey presses of the Soil Conservation Service 1:5,000,000 mosaic of the NASA ERTS photography. This is to make your band 5 and 7 summer scenes of the If. S. available at only $1.25 a copy. These should be ready by March 15. You may not have heard that the ERTS satellite has now been renamed LANDSAT. so we’ll have to get used to a whole new set of initials. There is a subcommittee on Wetlands, which is concerned with their definition and methodology of their study; another on the coordination of mined-area reclamation programs; another on the coordination of our Land Use Data and Analysis program activities with the land-use mapping needs of Soil Conservation Service. There is a subcommittee on publication of floodplain maps which has arranged for the USGS presses to print Soil Conservation Service flood-plain r.~aps. Other subcommittees deal with the coordination of air photo needs, the interagency coordination of peak flood flow estimates and procedures, the Federal Water Data Coordination program in relation to the Soil Conservation Service needs, and the joint District of Columbia Soil Survey.


Many of you are undoubtedlyf&liar with our organization but I would like to review it briefly and then discuss the various ongoing programs that may be of interest to members of.the Soil Conservation Service. We have four main operating Divisions: the Geologic, Conservation, Water Resources, and Topographic. We also have support Divisions: the Administrative, Computer Center, and the Publications Division; the latter is involved not only with our book publications but operates a major map printing plant. The Geologic Division is responsible for studying the earth in three dimensions with particular emphasis on evaluating mineral resources including petroleum. It Is also involved in the study of natural hazards including earthquakes, landslides, and volcanoes and it conducts geological and geophysical studies of the Outer Continental Shelf. The Water Resources Division studies the distribution, characteristics, and behavior of water on and under the earth's surface. The Topographic Division maps the natural and cultural features of the land and is responsible for the National Topographic Map Series. 0

The Conservation Division is responsible for evaluating and supervising the development of the minerals on public lands and lately with particular emphasis on the development of the energy resources of the Outer Continental Shelf. In the past several years we have recognized that we must do a better job of bringing our information to a clientele, new to us, of people and organizations that are involved in making decisions about the land. Therefore, we have established an Office of Land Information and Analysis to bring together the programs that cross Division boundaries. The effort of this new office will be to conduct multidisciplinary research in new methods of obtaining, interpreting, and displaying information in support of land-use decisionmaking. These studies will be aimed at a wide group of users, ranging from those having little or no training in earth sciences or geography to those conducting sophisticated analyses of the interacting processes that result in land-use patterns and changes and their relation to environmental quality. This office includes two Department of the Interior programs for which the Geological Survey is lead agency--the Resource and Land Information Program and the Earth Resources Observation Systems.


I would like to discuss now the various programs we are conducting that are most likely to be of interest to.the Soil Conservation Service. Like most geologists. I'll start from the bottom and work up and remember if I say "soil" it's not the rigorous definition you're used to.


The term “soil” means many things to many people. To a farmer, perhaps it means the upper foot or so that he uses for agriculture. To a homeowner, it’s the earth on which he plants his lawn and the stuff that leaks water into his basement or fails in the drainfield for his septic tank. To scientists, too, it has different meanings. A soil scientist might define soils as natural bodies of earthy materials on the earth’s surface, containing living matter and capable of supporting plants out-of-doors. According to this definition the lower limit of soil would be the lower limit of biologic activity. To a geologist, however, soil commonly means all unconsolidated material above bedrock and may comprise gravel. sand, clay or organic material, or any combination of these. Both soil science and geologic study of soils yield valuable results and make complementary contributions to the resolution of environmental problems. Land-use planning, natural and man-made physical hazards. construction of highways, dams, buildings and tunnels, increased agricultural productivity, environmental pollution, and quality and availability of water are among soilrelated subjects to which both sciences contribute. In addition to earth sciences generally, other scientific disciplines, aided by research in soils, include health physics, medicine, biology, archaeology, civil engineering, and other environmental sciences. Cur Geologic Division presently is engaged in more than 70 projects involving aspects of soils. Survey field geologists commonly get together with soil scientists early on in their investigations to swap information. Geologic Division soil studies presently are being carried out in this country in more than 22 states from Maine to California, in urban areas and in remote regions of mountains and plains. One project studies soils adjacent to the Bering Sea. Division geologists work with soils in Iran, Alaska, Hawaii, Canada, South America, and in the Artic. Scientists from the Survey coordinate closely with soil scientists in geochemical investigations that include environmental effects of radioactive mineral production, coal and peat mining, power plant siting, and oil field product ion. We conduct soils mechanics studies in field and laboratory that relate to geologic hazards such as slope stability, expansive soils, and liquefaction; we do research on the geochemistry of soils as a means of prospecting for mineral deposits. We study the engineering properties and even try to detect soil types from outer space. Recently Geological Survey geologists have produced a surficial geology map of the United States under the direction of Charles B. Hunt, at a scale of 1:7,500.000 on which nine classes of unconsolidated materials are mapped and described. This is to accompany the soils map at the same scale, prepared by the SCS and published in the National Atlas. Maps showing Quaternary geology and surficial materials of the United States are presently being compiled. This work is coordinated closely with soil scientists of the Soil Conservation Service, Corps of Engineers, and other soil science groups.


Baseline geochemical data of soils are being gathered in the area of some coal-fired electric power plants in Wyoming. These data, gathered in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service will allow monitoring of potential emission of pollutants in the areas of the plants. Also in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, where as much as seven billion tons of coal may be recovered by strip mining, Survey geologists and Soil Conservation Service soil scientists have cooperated informally to produce pilot maps that illustrate earth science constraints to mined-land reclamation, such as post-mining terrain restoration after removing as much as 100 feet of coal, ground water supply, and variability in thickness and character of soils above the coal. A liaison between USGS and SCS will continue throughout the Basin study. Saprolite, a residual soil weathered from complex metamorphic rocks, is being extensively studied in geologic investigations in the East. Environmental geologic studies in the Nation’s Capital area have been greatly accelerated by using agricultural soils maps provided by the SCS and these cooperative studies by USGS and SCS field investigators have yielded valuable data for land-use planning. In the West, parts of San Francisco and its surrounding urban area are huilt on detrital and residual marine and non-marine soils. This “bay mud”, as it is locally called, possesses various physical properties from place to place, and these are being studied from such standpoints as stability during earthquakes, bearing strength, erodibility, and expansive SOilS.

A final example of Geologic Division activities is the Symposium on Geology and Food, recently convened for three days in Denver, with participation by SCS, the Agricultural Research Service, TVA, and the Department of Agronomy at Colorado State University. Subjects addressed at that symposium included the need, production, and resources of phosphate, potash, and nitrogen and nitrates; soil amendment materials; weathering of rocks, soils, trace elements, and plant nutrition; and remote sensing and computer inventory of fertilizer materials. Workshops were held on fertilizer materials, and on soil amendments and rock weathering. At the present time, the USGS is supporting extensive research into the application of computer technology to both the treatment of soil data, and data systems oriented to earth science. One recent major development is GRASP the implementation of the Geologic Retrieval and Synopsis Program. is a portable, interactive information system independent of the data base and oriented to observational data in contrast to textual data in systems like GIPSY (General Information Processing System). The public availability of GRASP allows data to reside in their home banks, thereby eliminating


duplication of effort and data clutter in the banks of each individual This means that every data bank utilizing this common processing center. language will be able to share data with other authorized accessing individuals or groups. The possibilities of data exchange are, obviously, endless. The objectives of the Geological Survey Water Resources Division are to appraise the Nation’s water resources as to their quantity, quality, and a v a i l a b i l i t y , and to assure that adequate and accurate water jnformation essential to the wise development and management of these resources is available. In pursuit of its mission, the Water Resources Division has become the principal Federal water-data agency. As such, it collects and disseminates about 70 percent of all water data currently being used in the Nation. The system is supported by direct appropriations to the Survey, through cooperative programs with states and local governments, and through repay arrangements with other Federal agencies. Other data-related responsibilities of the Survey are the coordination of water data collection a c t i v i t i e s o f all, F e d e r a l a g e n c i e s , and the design and maintenance of data-acquisition networks. A b o u t h a l f o f t h e t o t a l W a t e r R e s o u r c e s D i v i s i o n p r o g r a m a c t i v i t y invo>ves the collection of basic data on streamflow, ground water, and quality of water, including the subsequent computations and analyses needed to present this data in usable forms. To collect such data, we operate about 1 8 , 0 0 0 s u r f a c e w a t e r s t a t i o n s a n d p a r t i a l r e c o r d streamflow stations, and we measure water levels at about 28,000 observation wells. We determine q u a l i t y o f w a t e r repetively a t m o r e t h a n 6 , 0 0 0 o b s e r v a t i o n s i t e s . We conduct a wide variety of programs relating to erosion and sedimentation. The baseline data program consists of (ahout 1 6 0 0 ) s e d i m e n t d i s c h a r g e stations being operated to define the erosional characteristics before, during, and after construction of dams and highways, strip mining, and logging and other activities. We, as well as several other agencies, are trying to learn mc~re a b o u t t h e t r a n s p o r t a n d f a t e o f t o x i c c h e m i c a l c o n stituents that sorb on sediment particles. Movement of water in streams, lakes, bays, estuaries, aquifers, confining beds and other p o r o u s m e d i a h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d c o n c e p t u a l l y . W e h a v e simulated the movement with models (both analog and digital) whether caused b y g r a v i t y , h e a d d i f f e r e n c e , t e m p e r a t u r e , or d e n s i t y . W e h a v e a l s o s u c c e s s fully modeled the transport of heat and certain minerals in fairly simple systems. We are working on more sophisticated models to describe and predict mass transport in water, including physical and chemical reactions within the water and/or porous media.


All land-use activities have some impact on water quantity and quality; some have great potential to degrade and reduce supply. A few examples (1) waste disposal activities such as landfills, land disposal might be: of wastewater. and waste lagoons subject to overflow, seepage, or levee destruction; (2) agricultural pollution from feedlots, pesticide application, or excess chemical fertilizers, improper construction or tilling that contribute large quantitjes of sediment; and (3) urban developments that cause flash runoff and erosion, spread highway chemicals, and pave recharge areas. Most of you are probably familiar with our technical reports--Water-Supply Papers, Geologic Bulletins, Circulars, and Professional Papers, but we also release our water data through the publication series of many of our cooperators at the State and local levels. Streamflow, water quality, and ground water level data are published in informal annual data releases according to State boundaries. The releases are available from either the headquarters office or the appropriate district office.

0 _

Most of our data are available in machine-readable form. We use computers to process digitally recorded field data and to store and retrieve data in the Survey’s information system. About 275,000 station years of streamflow data and a volume of information equivalent to about 100,000 station years for some 50,000 wells and 5,000 water quality stations are available. The current streamflow and water quality records are stored in the central file on magnetic disks whereas the historic data are available on magnetic tape. Almost all the streamflow data placed in the permanent magnetic tape file of daily discharges is subjected to a package of three magnitude-frequency SllSlYS%.

A large number of other analyses currently are being made on selected daily discharge using the computer. These include several types of probability analyses, low flow recession analyses, flow variability studies, backwater analyses, analyses of the effect of physical characteristics of river basins on flow, analyses on the interrelationships of surface waters and ground waters, and many others. Our water activities are reported in some 800 published products a year Others and produce a growth in our data files of about 10 percent per year. i n t h e w a t e r r e s o u r c e s f i e l d , I ’ m sure, experience similar rates of expansion in information activities. However, because of the massive amounts of information available, those working in the field of water information have had to fac~e a double-barreled problem: not only is more information available, but the demand for quicker, more reliable information and in a” easily digested format has mushroomed with the environmental movement. active


People, especially nontechnical people, are more aware of the water environment, more concerned with their water resource, and want to know more about the health and status of those resources; and they want to know now, in language they can understand.

As previously noted, a principal program of the Water Resources Division

involves' the coordination of Federal water data acquisition activities. Several of these activities involve both the water resources and soil sciences communities and result in improved communication and coordination among these two groups. Let me cite five examples. First, we have underway a procedure for carrying out coordination of water

data acquisition activities through field offices of the Geological Survey and other Federal agencies, including SCS. The mechanism works this way. Using the information about ongoing water-data activities, that is put in the Catalog of Information on Water Data, agencies are asked to identify any new activities they plan to conduct which will produce water data, and to identify beyond this their needs for information that are not now being met by the various programs that are producing water information. This input is consolidated in the form of regional plans for each of the 21 major water resources regions and thesein turn become available and are used in producing an annual plan to the Office of Management and Budget. The intent of the activity is to look ahead and identify emerging needs for information and then to do collectively as much as possible to coordinate ongoing and planned activities in order to better meet these needs. The Soil Conservation Service, through its field organization, is actively participating in this field coordination activity. A second area in which significant progress is being made concerns the development of recommended methods for the acquisition of water data. We are just entering into the second expanded phase of this activity which will go beyond the traditional forms of water data such as streamflow measurements and water quality determinations into other areas such as soil moisture and basin characteristics. This is an interagency effort that involves the nonFederal as well as the Federal water resources community and will involve the Soil Conservation Service to a great extent in the working groups that are being established to consider the methods for obtaining information on drainage basin characteristics, on soil moisture, and on snow and ice. A third area that is aimed at improving coordination and communication among agencies is the development of a new series of basic hydrologic unit maps together with codes for some 1500 drainage basins across the country. This new map series on the State base maps at a scale of 1:500,000 will provide, for the first time on an adequate base, a nationally consistent set of basins across the country. In developing these maps, the drainage basin boundaries that had been developed by the Soil Conservation Service


several years back were used extensively, and the Soil Conservation Service has been actively involved in the review and approval of these basin boundaries on the new maps. We feel that, through this mechanism, we shall have achieved a common set of boundaries that can be used by all parties concerned with water and related land information and that the communications among groups will be greatly enhanced by the use of these common boundaries. These same boundaries will also be portrayed on the new series of land-use maps being prepared by the Geological Survey at a scale of 1:250,000. A fourth area where the agencies have been cooperating closely in the field of water information concerns the needs for water data as they relate to small watersheds. A report has just been completed that summarizes a rather detailed interagency study of the requirements and the needs for this type of information. As this relates directly to the mission of the Soil Conservation Service and other agencies concerned with management of land resources, this report should receive rather widespread llse among these agencies. In essence it identifies a deficiency of information and calls for the establishment of a coordinated network of stream gagjng and precipitation measuring stations in many areas of the country. Finally, we are cooperating closely with other agencies, both Federal and non-Federal, to identify, by means of a Catalog of Information on Water Data, just what kinds of data are being collected where and at what frequency. This catalog has proved useful to the entire water and related land resources community by serving as a means of identifying where data can be located for the potential data user. It is the forerunner to a much broader improvement of handling of water data that will be on-line later this year in the form of NAWDEX, the National Water Data Exchange. When fully operational, this system (NAWDEX) will link together the various data banks concerned with water and ~111 provide a means whereby the organization that needs water information can identify what is available and can acquire these data together with Information about how the data were collected; researchers may then evaluate the adequacy of the data for their own particular purposes. The activities just discussed exemplify the coordination that is ongoing with the Geological Survey as lead agency but with full participation of other agencies, including the Soil Conservation Service. The goal, of course, is to improve the data base in the field of water resources and to provide ready accessibility of data to the user. Interagency cooperation is evident in flood investigations. The preparation of maps delineating areas of flood potential is one outstanding example. In 1969, the Geological Survey started a project of quickly i~nforming individuals and communities about areas of fl~ood potential. The work


began in response to a recommendation of the Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy described in House Document 465 of the 89th Congress. The project delineated on maps the approximate boundaries of areas ocsssionslly flooded, but with no reference to the magnitude or frequency of the depicted flood. A primary objective was to produce the flood maps quickly f r o m a v a i l a b l e p h o t o g r a p h s , maps, historic flood data and stream gaging records. S o i l s u r v e y m a p s p r o v e d a valuable aid in,the d e l i n e a t i o n s . The flood-mapping work was altered slightly in 1970 to show approximate boundaries of a “100-year” rather than an “occasional” flood. Again, the boundaries were defined only to a reconnaissance level of accuracy from readily available data. This change was requested by the Federal Insurance Administration (HUD) to allow use of the maps in managing the National Flood Insurance Program. The maps proved to be so useful that FIA financed an acceleration of map production. The Soil Conservation Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority joined the Geological Survey in producing these maps during 1972-73 to aid in getting needed coverage of the developed and developing areas of the Nation. To date, approximate flood boundaries have been delineated on nearly 12,000 quadrangle maps. The SCS effort produced 417 maps in 21 states. Floodprone areas have been delineated on about 95 percent of the 9,000 topographic maps of developed and developing areas where the information is most needed. The Geological Survey is continuing to produce the flood maps for areas having a known flood problem, f o r a r e a s o f p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e development, for areas in the public domain where management decisions may be needed, and for recreational areas. It is expected that a total of 15,000 maps covering about half the Nation may be prepared. Copies of the “Flood-Prone Area” maps produced by the Geological Survey may be obtained free from district offices of the Survey. Headquarters officials of the Survey and SCS recently completed arrangements for the USGS to print, stock, and distribute flood maps produced by the SCS. In the past several years, there has been special interest for more coordination between the SCS and the USGS in the field of utilization of Topographic Division products. The USGS orthophotoquad is being utilized by SCS as the photoimage map base for publishing soils data. Additionally, the Survey’s adoption of an intermediate-scale series (mapping between 1:24,000 and 1:250,000 scale) should become a useful base map for meeting SCS needs for special areas, counties, or regions. The new Survey orthophotoquad program began this fiscal year with a plan for preparing 5,000 7.5-minute quadrangles by July 1, 1975. An index map i s a v a i l a b l e s h o w i n g t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f o r t h o p h o t o s f o r t h e Il. S. The SCS is the leading agency in cooperating with the USGS in producing orthophotoquads by actively cost sharing in about 50 areas covering


approximately 1,700 7.5-minute quadrangles. The Survey’s goal, within the next three years, is to provide 7.5-minute orthophotoquad coverage of all areas of the IJ. S. not yet mapped in the 7.5~minute topographic series. The national requirement for standard base intermediate-scale maps is fully recognized as a” area where the USGS can be of assistance. County format and quadrangle format mapping at 1:50,000 and 1:100,000 is underway in several states. The SCS has recently conferred with the USGS regarding requirements for U. S. wide map coverage at l:lOO,OOO scale. Funding for such a program needs to be determined. Other activities where the USGS can assist in responding to current mapping needs are slope mapping and furnishing map data in digital form. Slope maps for soil studies can be produced at relatively low cost from existing contour data. Digitizing base map categories such as terrain. drainage, land net, civil boundaries, and transportation routes is another area where we are toolin.g-up to meet urgent requirements from a number of Federal agencies including SCS. USGS is digitizing these map categories at 1:24,000 scale for coal resource studies in Jewel1 Ridge, Virginia. Digital terrain data at 1:250,000 scale compiled by the Defense Mapping Agency are now available from the Geological Survey. Another area of interest to the Federal and State governments concerns the management of coastal zones. New legislation has been enacted which will require well defined objectives for use of the land. Coastal zone mapping will need to be updated to better define these zones. Workshops have been held to reach accord on requirements for coastal zone mapping. As a result a Coastal Zone Mapping Handbook is being prepared jointly by the National Ocean Survey and USGS. Another mapping tool, the orthophotomap, which combines a line map with photographic imagery is available for several areas where water features are predominant. The Survey is researching new ways of combining the image map with the line map during standard revision operations. The past year a National Cartographic Information Center was organized, staffed, and became operational to help provide information for map users. This organization has become a focal point for information of all U. S. cartographic data including aerial and space imagery, maps and charts, and geodetic control. In addition, better knowledge of other agency holdjngs and data acquisition plans will be available to users. A more efficient mechanism forordering data has been developed, resulting in better service to both government and public organizations. To become even more effective NCIC is encouraging interagency agreements for participation. As you may know, preliminary meetings were held with SCS on December 17 to develop summary records of the aerial photography holdings of your agency. An amendment to the current SCS-USGS mapping agreement is now being drafted in anticipation that preliminary work will start on the aerial photography summary records in the next month. 49

I would like to move now to a discussion of the programs of the Office of This is the new office that I mentioned Land Information and,Analysis. earlier that we have organized to bring together programs that cross Geological Survey Division boundaries. Its main thrust is to make our earth science products more useful and in the long run to bridge the gap between physical science and social science. This is, of course. the new definition of “Geography” and I suspect that if and when this new office develops fully, it may be designated as the “Geographic Division.” Appropriately, the new office includes a Geography Program under Jim Anderson, our Chief Geographer, who will be with you during your whole conference. It also includes two Department of the Interior programs. the Earth Resources Observation System and the Resource and Land Information Program. An Earth Sciences Applications Program and an Environmental Impact Analysis Program completes the ensemble. The U. S. Geological Survey is initiating. as part of its Geography Program, a Land Use Data and Analysis (LUDA) Program during the Fiscal Year 1975. This program will provide a systematic and comprehensive collection and analysis of current land-use and land cover data (derived from remotely sensed source material) on a regional scale of 1:250,000. The maps will show the 38 Level II land-use categories described in USGS Circular 671 that is currently being revised with input from SCS and other Federal and State organizations. The program is designed to supply these data for the entire country within a 5-year period and to provide for the periodic revision of the data. Because of the dynamics of land use, the emphasis in the preparation and distribution of all products will be on supplying the information to users in the shortest possible time. Applied research in data and information requirements, inventory methods, and data use, as well as interpretative studies will also be carried out under the program in order to assist in supplying needed current land-use and land cover data for planning, resource management, and other purposes. Selected experimental demonstration land-use and cover maps at 1:24.000 or 1:50,000 scale will also be prepared. These will show how land-use and cover mapping at a regional scale, such as the 1:250,000 LUDA maps, can be related to more detailed maps. As early as 1970, personnel from the Soil Conservation Service had contributed significantly to the development of a meaningful framework for the classification of land-use and land cover on a nationwide basis. B i l l Johnson and Jerry Gockowski were members of an interagency committee which studied the maximum use of potential of remote sensor data, chiefly from high altitude aircraft and ERTS, obtaining current land use and land cover data. Land use and land cover mapping is now nearly completed for 25 1:250,000 topographic sheets which serve as the mapping base. Approximately 200,000 square miles have already been mapped under pre-LUDA programs, 50

primarily in the States of Arizona, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kansas. Land use and land cover mapping is in progress for an additional 65 sheets, totaling about 500,000 square miles, in FY 75. Mapping is completed for Maryland, Delaware, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and cooperative agreements exist for mapping all of Kansas, Florida. and Pennsylvania within the next year. Coastal areas adjacent to probable offshore oil exploration and drilling areas are receiving particular attention in FY 75. Recommendations from SCS for future priorities in mapping are invited. With the operational LUDA Program now well underway, our Geography Program is extending the research and development activities which helped to bring it into being. Activities include urban climatology, multidisciplinary environmental studies, comparative urban land use studies, and state-of-the-art work in use of sensors aboard aircraft and satellite. One activity showing promise is the use of computer manipulation of multitemporal and multispectral satellite data in its original digital format. While our initial concern has been the mapping of land cover and land cover change, we are aware of wider application of the techniques. Besides uses In surface geology and hydrology, uses in wetland and vegetation mapping are also apparent. The seasonal “looks” afforded by satellite observation are making possible the identification of crops and their vigor, progress of logging and strip mining operations, extent of seasonally bare soils, and discrimination of pastureland from cropland. Among the advantages of semi-automated classification are the relative speed at which it can produce fine detail over large areas, the ability to supply comprehensive area coverage at different seasons, and the ease with which data can be manipulated from digital format. This activity has had significant support from the EROS Program which is the principal Interior Department activity seeking sways to use remote sensing data acquired from aircraft and spacecraft. The EROS Program is designed to contribute to many of the data-gathering requirements In the Department--Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc. EROS is a Departmental program administered by the Geological Survey as lead agency. In 1966, the Interior Department, through the EROS Program, sent to NASA the general operational requirements for the first experimental earth rasources satellite. That satellite, initially known as ERTS, was launched in 1972 and has been providing multispectral imagery in the visible and near infrared to earth scientists, resource! planners and agricultural users throughout the world ever since. Al though ERTS-1 is an experimental satellite, it has worked extremely well.


The second satellite in this series, now renamed LANDSAT-2, was launched last Wednesday, and initial reports indicate that the orbital configurations and system performance are outstanding. The sale of multispectral imagery from these satellites to the public. both domestic and foreign, is achieved jointly by the EROS Data Center at Sioux Falls, South Dakota; NOAA in Suitland, Maryland; and the Department of Agriculture’s photographic laboratory in Salt Lake City. The EROS Data Center’s data base includes more than a half million items of ERTS data, plus more than five million frames of NASA, USGS, and Corps of Engineers’ aerial photography. In addition to public sales of satellite and aircraft imagery, the EROS Program offers training in the form of classroom lectures. laboratory experiments, and field exercises in remote sensing for groups of resource managers and scientists, not only from the Department of the Interior, but other Federal departments, as well ss foreign participants under the sponsorship of AID. This training is offered at the EROS Data Center, as well as at EROS Application Assistance Facilities located at Bay St. Louis, Mississippi; Phoenix, Arizona; Menlo Park, California; Denver, Colorado; Reston, Virginia; and the Canal zone. Perhaps of interest to this audience is a workshop for Department of Agriculture’s Statistical Reporting Service personnel from the northcentral states which is scheduled for early April 1975 at the EROS Data Center. Another workshop with Soil Conservation Service personnel from the northcentral states is tentatively scheduled for early FY 1976. In collaboration with other Bureaus in the Department of the Interior, the EROS Program also conducts projects to demonstrate potential applications of remote sensing to operational activities of the Bureaus. For example, the EROS Program is cooperating with the Bureau of Reclamation in a test of a network of on-the-ground precipitation sensors near Miles City, Montana, which transmit via LANDSAT to a central facility of Reclamation. The objective of the experiment is to augment operation of a large-scale cloud seeding experiment. The EROS Program and the Fish and Wildlife Service are cooperatively supporting an effort to demonstrate the utility of LANDSAT imagery to measure seasonal change in the area1 extent of surface water in migratory bird flyways, correlating these observations with ground surveys, therein improving prediction of waterfowl production. EROS and University of Nebraska scientists are using LANDSAT imagery to systematically monitor the increased deployment of center pivot irrigation systems in Holt County, Nebraska. In part of Holt County, for example. center pivot installations have increased from 508 in 1972, to 552 in 1973, to 740 in 1974; continued increase could affect the local water table in some areas.


The Soil Conservation Service has produced LANDSAT image mosaics of the e n t i r e conterminous U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d A l a s k a a t s c a l e s o f 1:1,000,000 and 1:5,000,000. The EROS Program is collaborating with the Service in p r o d u c i n g l i t h o g r a p h i c c o p i e s o f t h e 1:5,000,000 mosaic, which will be a v a i l a b l e i n M a r c h 1 9 7 5 t h r o u g h b o t h DOA and DOI/USGS d i s t r i b u t i o n c e n ters at $1.25 pet copy. A n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f SCS/LlSGS c o o p e r a t i o n - r e l a t e s to the fact that both of our Bureaus are nurturing fledgling programs designed to provide a more adequate information and knowledge base to support land-use analysis. Your program is titled the Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) Program, and ours is the Resource and Land Information (RALI) Program. For over a year a representative from our RALI Program has, at your f o r m a l i n v i t a t i o n , b e e n a t t e n d i n g a n d o b s e r v i n g LIM advisory committee meetings at both the SCS Bureau and Agriculture Department levels. It has been a rewarding experience for us to participate in the difficult task of defining LIM Program goals, objectives, and priorities.


A few months ago, the RALI Program was able to reciprocate by making SCS an ex-officio member of its Departmental Coordinating Committee. We e x p e c t t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o b e e q u a l l y f r u i t f u l , a n d have a l r e a d y p r e vailed on the LIM attendees to comment and advise RALI on several proposed and ongoing projects relating to the display of natural resources data, in map form, for basically non-technical audfences--principally l a n d resource managers. Like the LIM Program, the RALI Program has been endorsed “in principle” but has failed to obtain adequate financial support up the line. However, we have been able to accomplish some limited objectives. We have demonstrated the use of existing data to prepare thematic maps for three areas. Phoenix-Tucson, Powder River Basin, and Puget Sound. We have prepared a multidisciplinary report on South Dade County, Florida. and are in the process of publishing one on the environment of South Florida. A l l o f t h e activities have involved other Interior Bureaus, and the SCS has provided input to both the Phoenix-Tucson and Powder River projects. I have brought along a few copies of the RALI sponsored products to give I also have brought you an idea of the direction in which we are heading. These include along copies of a list of available and planned products. contract studies by MITRE and by the Council of State Governments relating to data and information needs and availability, and methodological guidebooks being prepared under the lead agency concept.


The guidebooks involve the development of guidelines for the selection of c r i t i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l a r e a s . assessment of State land inventory and data h a n d l i n g n e e d s , e v a l u a t i o n of the environmental impact of pipeline and


transmission line corridors, and identification of potential environmental impact of a wide variety of activities. Preparation of the first two guidebooks is the responsibility of the Office of Land Use and Water Planning, the third is the responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management, and the last is the responsibility of the Geological Survey. Because we are trying to find ways to present technical natural resources information in a form meaningful to planners and managers, particularly at the State and local level, we have great expectations regarding the value of the grants we have made to the Council of State Governments. The first grant will result in a series of reports recounting the needs of States for environment,al i n f o r m a t i o n . The second will provide an evaluation of the utility of map products--both traditional and experimental--to planners and managers. Moat of these fiscal year or evaluation, we decisionmakers

projects are scheduled for completion by the end of this Following a period of assimilation and e a r l y i n FY 1 9 7 6 . expect to have a much better understanding of the needs of for natural resources data and how best to meet them.

In part to support the Departmental RALI Program and in part to more effectively meet Geological Survey mission responsibilities, we have established the Earth Sciences Applications Program to coordinate and integrate the core disciplines of the Geological Survey--the geographic, h y d r o l o g i c , g e o l o g i c , and cartographic sciences. This program provides highly innovative multidisciplinary earth science products in clear and understandable language and formats designed to facilitate problem solving by providing insight into the environmental consequences of alternative land-use decisions. Studies are being made in representative urban and rural parts of the Nation selected so that the products and technologies developed in these areas will have broad national transfer value. In addition, intensive user interaction at all stages of the studies characterize the program to assure maximum utility of the resulting products. The San Francisco Bay Regional Study, which began in 1970 and which is scheduled to be completed in 1976, represents the most intensive effort to date in the Earth Sciences Applications Program. Thus far, more than 80 reports have been released as a result of this study. In addit ion, twelve summary multidisciplinary interpretive reports, considering such subjects as flood inundation, erosion and sedimentation, slope stability, and seismic hazards, are nearing completion. These will summarize the scientific results of the study and will focus on their land-use planning i m p l i c a t i o n s , with particular emphasis on regional planning.


Similar studies are being conducted in six other urban-centered parts of the country--Puget Sound, Phoenix-Tucson, Denver, Pittsburgh, BaltimoreWashington, and the Connecticut Valley. These studies, too, have been oriented toward the development of products needed to support land-use decisionmaking. I" overall aspect, the seven urban-centered studies have been highly productive in terms of stimulating the use of earth science information in planning, including the enactment of legislation. Finally, the Earth Sciences Applications Program presently is coordinating multidivision inputs to the Water Resources Division's "Intensive River Quality Assessments." In FY 1975, one such assessment is scheduled to be initiated for the Chattahoochee River Basin in Georgia and Alabama, and another is planned for the Yampa River Basin in western Colorado. The Chattahoochee Study will provide a" opportunity to evaluate point and non-point sources of pollution in a highly developed river basin, and the Yampa Basin will provide the opportunity to study changes in water quality associated with intensive development of coal and oil-shale deposits. It is apparent that both studies require the full spectrum of Geological Survey scientific expertise, and it is the mission of the Earth Sciences Applications Program to marshal1 that expertise. Last, but not least, I'd like to discuss a" activity in which all Federal agencies participate--that of responding to the National Environmental Protection Act. This activity, like the other units of our new office, requires a multidisciplinary approach. We have, therefore, established the new Environmental Impact Analysis Program to provide direction, coordination, and technical expertise in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for which the Geological Survey is lead or joint agency. The program also will provide technical analysis and review of Environmental Impact Statements prepared by other agencies. This responsibility to prepare or review a large number of EIS provides the Environmental Impact Analysis Program with a" unusual opportunity to pursue research in environmental impact studies. We will review, record, and analyze the needs, problems, and assistance required by many organizations that prepare impact statements. Ancilliary research will establish the methods by which the Geological Survey can best assist these organizations within the scope of our expertise. In the preparation of our EIS, we will develop guidelines and manuals for the logical presentation of USGS information in a format that satisfies NEPA requirements. From selected EIS case histories, we will analyze the actual and potential impacts of various actions reported in Environmental Impact Statements and assess these, especially in terms of land-use decisionmaking. we will


stimulate, perform, and supervise topical investigations and research needed to formulate and implement Survey and Interior policy, particularly with respect to the preparation of impact statements, and recommend research programs to be initiated by the Survey. We intend to design and supervise research programs concerned with the thresholds at which Environmental Impact Statements should be required, and which aspects are critical. I have gone on at great length, but both our organizations are large, and the problems we must face jointly are larger. I have tried to identify the areas of our mutual interest and the services and expertise that the Geological Survey can supply to the Soil Conservation Service. We feel very strongly that we are now fully committed to applying our scientific resources to the sobering problems of the 70’s. The natural scientists in both our organizations have a keen appreciation of the great value and beauty of the laboratory in which we work. The choices between needs and aesthetics will be difficult. but if we do not assist in these choices then we will have failed our most important and ultimate test. Thank you for the o,pportuaity to present to you the’survey activities that seam to us to be of interest to both our organizations. We will continue to cooperate at field and headquarter levels, and if there are further ways that we can help you, please do not hesitate to communicate with us at the National Center, Reston, Virginia.


Northeast Region Report R. V. Rourke*

It is a pleasure to be here today to renew old acquaintances and to meet with men interested In soils and soil surveys from other regions and countries. Today I shall review the committee reports of the 1974 Northeast Conference. The conference was informative and generated considerable constructive comment from those in attendance. A complete review of each committee report is available in the conference proceedings thus I will summarize the reports to meet the time requirements of this conference. The conference was opened by Mr. William Johnson, who spoke on the subject of "Soil Survey Objectives". His presentation was followed by an address by Dr. L. J. Bartelli concerning the "Modern Thrust in Soil Survey Interpretations". Both subjects are basic to the intensive use to which much of the land In the Northeast is being subjected. Later, reports were given by representatives of the varlous experiment stations concerning their activities as they pertained to soils and soil surveys. The committee concerned with the legal aspects of the use and interpretation of soil surveys filed an extensive review of the legislation and other documents pertaining to soil surveys in the Northeast and in the rest of the country. At the time of the conference, Maine and North Dakota had registration programs for soil scientists. The committee recommended that common terminology be developed for state ordinances. It further presented the request that a model ordinance be developed. The committee that worked with the problem of using soils for waste disposal felt that guidelines might be established by 1975 that would reflect soils as a method of disposing of wastes from: animals, septic effluent, sewage treatment plant effluent, sewage sludge, and sanitary landfill. Constructive suggestions were offered to improve the "Guide for Rating Limitations of Soils for Disposal of Waste". A ,review of research needs in area of waste disposal and a list of recent publications pertaining to waste disposal in soils was presented. The recommendations of the committee reviewing the establishment of guidelines for overcoming limitations Of ~011s for different uses indicated a need to present these methods particularly in the non-farm area. It was suggested that a county soil survey be developed in the Northeast, on


*Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. 57

b a s i s , in which the format of overcoming soil limitations for non-farm uses be attempted.

a trial

The soil survey interpretations committee dealt with the section of potential frost heaving in the “Guide for Interpreting Engineering Uses of Soils”. It was decided that the 250 degree day line should extend along the southern New England coast and across Cape Cod in a manner that Long Island, N.Y. was south of the line. The potential frost a c t i o n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s s h o u l d b e s e p a r a t e f o r soils in the frigid and meslc z o n e s . No frost action ratings should be The made as criteria in judging material for road fill. p a r t i c l e size c l a s s h a v i n g t h e g r e a t e s t f r o s t h a z a r d s h o u l d be used when contrasting textures are evaluated for frost In other activities the committee suggested that action. guidelines for new interpretations should begin at the state If adopted nationally, level and be correlated regionally. they should become a part of the soil interpretation handIt was proposed that in the area of septic waste disbook. posal new criteria be applied for depth to water table because of the conflict resulting from water table depths in well drained soils in the Northeast. The soil moisture regimes committee proposed that a water table study be initiated to monitor water movement In They felt that the a sequence of soils on the landscape. depth and duration of the water table should be expressed graphically on a yearly basis. It was hoped that a regional project would be developed and initiated amongst the various research agencies concerning water tables. A bibliography of water table studies was included in the report. A review of the classification of disturbed soils was A proposal by W. done and several proposals were made. Virginia was most detailed and inlcuded various subdivisions to be established within a new suborder of Entisols termed A review of several profile descriptions of disSpolents. t u r b e d s o i l s w a s p r e s e n t e d j o i n t l y b y U n i v . o f M d . , S.C.S., Univ. of Pa. and the National Park Service. The committee active in the area of criteria for classifying families and series recommended several areas that should be Investigated: moderately deep soils, modifiers of the series level other than soil properties, format changes of official series descriptions, and the need to determine the effect of sands being included In the camblc definition. They proposed that color ranges continue to be reported as It was felt that a need ranges of hue, value, and chroma. e x i s t s t o d e v e l o p a r e a s o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s i e . , “fragipans A lively and informative evening session In the Northeast”. 58

was held concerning fraglpan concepts in the Northeast, The group dealing with organic soils and tidal marsh concluded that It Is not possible to use plant species as an Indicator of tidal marsh properties other than for salinity. The methods and other techniques used in New Hampshire's study of tidal marsh soils were presented. The committee Indicated that mapping units based upon subgroups or phases of subgroups were adequate. In the Northeast the committee dealing with soil research needs felt that the most pressing areas are those In the soil water, environmental, and other non-agricultural subjects. They intend to develop an inventory of published and unpublished benchmark soil data in the Northeast. The forest soils committee explored the types of soil surveys being done by U.S. Forest Service In various regions of the country. The committee stressed that the users needs should be considered when the legend was developed. It was their hope that all extensive soil surveys be in a form that would permit national correlation. The remote sensing committee was somewhat Inhibited by the lack of people presently utilizing this technique in the Northeast. In closing I wish to comment that the biannual regional meetings are most beneficial. This is the only time that people throughout the Northeast, who are interested in soil survey and soil survey investigations, meet to constructively review soil survey problems. The meetings are well attended and the discussion evolved Is lively. The meetings serve as an excellent method of presenting and reviewing soils and soil survey problems as they relate to Intensive soil use.


REPORT OF THE LAND GRANT COLLEGE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOUTHERN REGION H. B. Vanderford* The biennial Southern Regional Technical Work-Planning Conference of the Cooperative Soil Survey met at Mobile, Alabama on March 11-15, 1974, with Dr. B. F. Hajek, Chairman (Auburn University) and E. A. Perry, Vice Chairman (USDASCS). The members welcomed and appreciated the participation of the following speakers who were invited to address the conference: Major Greenough, City of Mobile. W. B. Lingle, State Conservationist, SCS, Auburn, Alabama. Dr. R. D. Rouse, Dean and Director, School of Agriculture and Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University. Dr. C. S. Hoveland, Professor, Agronomy and Soils Department. Auburn Universitv. Dr. Warren McCord, Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Auburn, Alabama. Dr. John E. McClelland, Director, Soil Survey Operations, SCS, Washington, D.C. About 68 individuals participated in the Conference, representing 14 universities and experiment stations, the Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Research Service, and II. S. Forest Service. The main work of the conference was performed by the action of eight committees. Each committee prepared and presented a report and all of these reports were published and are available to the members of this National Conference. Consequently, I will not give a summary of each committee report. An Ad Hoc Committee reported on the status of and interest in the certification of professional soil classifiers in the southern states. There is much interest in such an organization although the extent of the interest and progress made varies from state to state. South Carolina has passed a certification law, and Tennessee has introduced a law in the state legislature. A bill is being considered in the Mississippi legislature now. Several other states are in the process of organizing state groups which will prepare and introduce laws later. *

State Soil Survey Leader, Agronomy Department, Mississippi State University, Missisgslippi State, Mississippi 39762.

The Southern Soil Survey Work Group has had a project involving the preparation and publication of a general soil map of the South and Puerto Rico for the past few years. This project has been under the leadership of Dr. Stan Buol of North Carolina State University. The maps have been released and distributed along with bulletins giving valuable information and interpretations. This document is entitled "Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 174." The contributions of the Land Grant Institutions in the South to the Cooperative Soil Survey Program is a perennial topic of discussion. This situation has improved some recently. The Florida legislature appropriated over one half million dollars for soil survey in 1974. Virginia and North Carolina are also spending large amounts of state funds for soil survey activities. Several other states will likely be able to use more state funds to support the soil survey program in the future. After the committee report on "Automatic Data Processing" considerable discussion was directed to methods which would decrease the time period from field mapping to the release and distribution of survey data to users. It was pointed out that computer technology has great potential in saving time in the preparation of manuscripts and reviews of same. Modular writing lends itself well to computer storage and retrieval. New applications of computer technology will likely become useful in soil survey operations in the future. In addition to the regular conference Messrs. Grant Mattox, Party Leader; Earl Norton, District Conservationist; and Charles Owens, Soil Scientist, organized and conducted a soil study tour of the Mobile area. This provided an opportunity for the group to study several soil profiles and obtain interpretative information. The tour was a valuable contribution to the Conference.


REPORT FROM NORTH-CENTRAL REGION LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES T . E. Fenton&' The technical committee concerned with soil survey in the North-Central Region is NCR-3. This committee has the responsibility of coordinating the university efforts concerning soil survey in the region. Each university and several federal agencies have representatives on this committee, Hollis Omodt from North Dakota was the other university representative from the North-Central Region scheduled to attend this conference. However, Hollis could not attend due to the illness of his wife. A funded research project, NC-109, began in 1972 and was approved through 1976. The project is entitled "Soil Landscape Characteristics Affecting Land-Use Planning and Rural Development." Two general objectives of the project are a) to define, map, and evaluate soil landscape units in terms of alternative land uses in rural and suburban areas; b) to develop and publish soil landscape guides for land-use planning and rural development. There is a range of projects in various states within the region that are working toward some area of the objectives listed above. Subconsrittees of NCR-3 and NC-109 are presently involved in the following areas: a) development of criteria for prime agricultural land in the Midwest so that a map of the region, using the units shown in NCR Publication 76, can be published; b) investigation of format and content of soil survey reports; c) soil taxonomy; d) interstate correlation of laboratory analyses. The Regional Technical Work-Planning Conference was held at Osage Beach, Missouri, April 8-12, 1974. Several Extension people attended the meeting, Bill Oschwald, Extension Agronomist, University of Illinois, and Harry Galloway, Extension Agronomist, Purdue, presented thought-provoking ideas concerning cosnsunication aspects of soil survey information programs, including an analysis of the present format of soil survey reports. The theme of the regional workshop centered on interpretations. I would like to briefly outline some of the concerns in our region that were expressed at that meeting and subsequent to that meeting. I believe we can all agree that the basis of our activities in the National Cooperative Soil Survey is the soil map. The kind of map produced depends on several factors including, among others, map scale, detail shown on the map, mapping unit design, and field procedures. The degree of refinement can be adjusted by the legend used in each survey area. This means that the niapping unit definition and composition are critical to use and interpretation of the soil map. Combination of soil mapping units subsequent 0 L/Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 63

to completion of mapping is generally not desirable. Field decisions and resulting boundaries in most cases would change. Therefore, our workshop encouraged all concerned individuals to participate in the initial field review and in setting up of the legend. Soil science has progressed greatly in the past few years, and much quantitative data is available. However, on a day-to-day basis in soil survey, we still make many judgments and decisions which are not based on quantitative data but upon our knowledge and experience with the SOilS. For example, many factors affecting use and management can not be easily expressed in quantitative terms but are apparent when viewed in the field. Increased interest, together with increased support from nonfederal sources, has greatly accelerated soil survey programs in many states. This increased support has come about for various reasons. The needs and goals of individual states and of survey areas within a state are not necessarily uniform. However, I believe we all have a common goal-the production of the best possible soil survey with the resources available. Those of us at the state level (both state and federal employees) who work on a day-to-day basis with our users are in the best position to recognize the needs of our individual state and survey area. In my judgment the National Cooperative Soil Survey should become more sensitive to the individual needs and desires of the states. I would like to raise a series of questions based on my experience in the past few months to illustrate my point. 1.

Is it reasonable to expect individual states to alter and readjust their programs on short notice because of a national or regional memo, advisory, or directive? A recent regional advisory indicated all text manuscripts for surveys scheduled to be sent to the printer in F.Y. 1978 must be written according to a new procedure. Any mapping unit already written will be rewritten following the new format. Are directives such as these in the spirit of a cooperative soil survey? Is this policy the best use of the limited resources we have to work with? Is it not a waste of our soil scientists’ time and talents to rewrite these mapping units?


Is it reasonable to have a policy that encourages more detailed and specific interpretations of pedons and at the same time encourages fewer soil mapping units, broader ranges of properties within units, and deemphasizes the importance of landscape parameters?


Is the Cooperative Soil Survey sensitive to the needs of the user? Does the changing of long-used, well-accepted terms, for example, Marsh to “Fluvaquents, wet”, contribute to a better understanding by our users of the soils of the survey area? I have attended many meetings with users in our state, and our basic units of conununication are the soil series, the soil types, and the soil phases, not.higher categories of the classification system. 64


Should not the guidelines used in preparation of handbooks and(w) manuscripts also provide for the information needed to adequately justify the correlation of mapping units?


How can national and regional memos, directives, etc. be more efficiently integrated into state programs? Is it reasonable to expect that specific guidelines, rules, and (or) regulations written at the regional and national levels will best serve the needs of all atates and all survey areas in the United States?

In any organization or group there is a need for soma basic rules. However, the question I raise is this: "What types of guidelines and regulations best serve the overall interests of the National Cooperative Soil Survey Program?" I suggest that the optimum program is a) based on broad, general guidelines at the regional and national levels that allow the states maximum flexibility in utilization of their resources in developing soil surveys that truly meet their needs and the needs of their users; and b) is truly cooperative. One final item of business from the North-Central Region: Don Franzmeier, who is editor of Soil Survey Horizons, a soil survey publication normally circulated mainly in the North-Central Region, asked me to relay to you that Soil Survey Horizons in the future will be printed, distributed, and subscribed to from the Soil Science Society of America. However, the present Soil Survey Horizons publication corporation will continue to be the publishers. We hope that all of you will contribute to and support this publication which is debigned primarily for those of us in the field of Soil Genesis and Classification.


REPORT FROM WESTERN REGION LAND GRANT UNIVERSITIES G. A. Nielsen* It is a pleasure for me to participate in this National Soil Survey Conference and to represent the Western Agricultural Experiment Stations along with Bob Hell of Colorado. The Western Technical Work-planning Conference met last January in San Diego. The proceedings are published. Reports from 7 of the technical committees have provided input for national committee reports to be reviewed this week in Orlando and will not be summarized here. Rather, your attention is drawn to three regional efforts which will not receive our formal consideration. The Committee on Soil Taxonomy reported that soil moisture regimes are adequately defined in Soil Taxonomy and that there are no problems in their use. There was concernhowever, that a shortage of data has made it necessary to draw arbitary boundaries that are difficult to defend. The Committee recommended a redefinition of soil; clarification of criteria for several subgroups of Histosols, Andepts, Aquods and Boralfs ; and clarification regarding Vertisols VS. vertic subgroups in frigid and cryic temperature regimes, Lithic Vertisols, and O-horizon requirements in cryic temperature regimes. The Committee on Improving Soil Survey Interpretations proposed 10 revised guide sheets for engineering uses of soils. They also recommended a general format for information on overcoming soil limitations, these to be compiled in SCS field offices in cooperation with sanitarians, contractors and others. The Committee on Description of Internal Properties of Soils reviewed the particle size classes in a draft of the Soil Survey Manual. They recommend the .074 mm boundary between sand and silt and prefer to leave the boundary at .05 rather than change to .0625 mm proposed by the Soil Science Society. This committee also reviewed consistence terms in the draft manual, pointing out that the terms and tests have not been widely circulated. Consequently, field testing has been vary limited and ability of field men to apply the tests is not known. The regional meeting in San Diego provided an opportunity to review a unique and innovative soil survey. The San Diego county survey was reported in two volumes, Volume I-Soil Facts and Volume II-Soil Interpretations. This facilitates updating and reevaluation as new information becomes available. Volume II was written in part by community planners. Some of the interpretations were developed locally. The planners requested map preparation at 1:24,000 to fit USGS 7.5 minute quads. SCS was reluctant but complied and now plans that future surveys published in California be at the same scale. * Plant and Soil Science Department, Montana State University, Boeeman, Montana. 67

Soil Survey representatives of most Western State Experiment Stations participate in a regional research project’(W-125) entitled, “Soil and SocioC’for. This is a multidisciplinary effort with leadership from pedologists and economists. Chairman, Al Southard, has summarized under three objectives, the activities reported by project participants at Denver in November. Objective I - Determination of the physical and socio-economic causes and consequences of encroachment by urban activities upon rural lands: California studies demographic trends in the San Joaquin Valley and the disposition of recreational and second home lots in Plumas County. Colorado investigates the transfer of water from agriculture to domestic use. Montana published a case history of the Big Sky recreational second home development and also produced a 27-minute film on land use planning issues in the area, New Mexico investigates the community cost-benefit effects of residential land development. A Oregon completed c a land ouse inventory m of the p Willamette u Valley. t e r data storage system is used to examine the influence of soil suitability upon development patterns. Objective II - Identification and organization of kinds of soil data and interpretations needed for present and potential clientele: Arizona is completing a state soil map and bulletin at 1:1,000,000 scale. Colorado is developing a land capability data base for all counties. “Land opportunity and limitation maps”, will be developed. Soil data needed to evaluate the impacts of oil shale development are also being investigated. Hawaii will test a model for rating alternative land uses. Montana published a list of factors that influence choices among alternative land uses. A Resource Inventory Handbook for counties is being prepared at the request of participants in land use conferences. Nevada is working on definitions of kinds of soil surveys and a system to determine the level of soil survey needed to satisfy specific interpretive demands. Oregon completed a resource inventory of Croak county with maps on ERTS imagery at 1:1,000.000 and 1:250,000 scale. Land resource units were developed with interpretations. A state soil map is in progress. Utah published a general soils map of the state. A soil survey and interpretive report of the Ogden Valley was published for county planners and serves as the basis for land use plans. Objective III - Evaluation of the adequacy of present data and the development of new data, interpretations and procedures to overcome soil limitations: California is continuing the use of rain simulators to evaluate erosion. Colorado is developing a system to evaluate performance zoning to encourage agricultural land preservation. Hawaii is evaluating soils in order to rate the land for its agricultural potential. Montana has compiled the engineering data for soils of the state and is developing methods to rate landslide hazards in mountainous areas. The Decker storage and retrieval system for pedon and mapping unit descriptions is operational statewide by the SCS. Nevada and New Mexico are developing improved methods for measuring or estimating soil permeability. Oregon continues work on septic tank filter field performance and has expanded to hill-slope analysis using tagged water.

Other cooperative projects for soil survey in the West include: 1) A soil taxonomy workshop in Portland, December 2-6, 1974 for soil classification leaders. 2) A 35-mm slide series illustrating diagnostic horizons and soil taxonomy, soon to be advertised and distribution by the Western Soil Survey Work Group. The series is drawn largely from the collection of William M. Johnson. 3 ) E f f o r t s toward state legislation to license or certify professional soil classifers. Clint Mogen has susnnarised this activity. Soil Surveyor Organizations and Legislation in the Western Region. State

Professional Title



Professional Organization


Organizing a n

Status as of January 20, 1975 No information Discussion stage

Association CA



Soil Classifer NO




Discussion stage


No information


Soil Scientist


Legislation introduced


Soil Classifier


Legislation introduced



Possibly organiee with California

Discussion stage



Soil Science Society

Discussion stage





Soil Classifiers Association

Pedologist No Soil Scientist



Legislation to be Introduced


Discussion stage

Society of Professional Soil Scientists No

Legislation to be introduced Discussion stage

* Estimated annual administrative costs of $50.000 may require registration with geologists who are already organieed and licensed in California. 69



It is a pleasure for me to appear before this group this afternoon. Those of us in Soil, Water and Air Sciences of ARS feel a particular close bond with the Soil Conservation Service. As you till recall at one of our earlier reorganizations most of the research portion of SCS was transferred to ARS and became a portion of the Soil and Water Conservation Research Division. Since that time ve have attempted to respond to the research needs of SCS. In fact, most of our research programs in Soil, Water and Air Sciences are in direct response to your needs. We have valued this close cooperation in the past and hope that it vi11 continue. I have been asked to discuss with activities that affect or are used There are, of course, program, able to cite a few examples here

you some of the soil survey by our agency in our research many of these and I will only be this afternoon.

The Agricultural Research Service has eeven major research watersheds in the United States. Most of these watersheds have been surveyed and the soils classified by SCS. This was done so that the research information could be transferred to ungaged vatersheda having similar soil conditions. This approach has paid off in our hydrologic modeling efforts. A good example of this is the USDA Rydrograph Laboratory model which is based on the SC6 classification system.

Presented at the National Soil Survey Conference, Orlando, Fla.. January 27, 1975. Deputy Adsistant Administrator, Soil, Water and Air Sciences, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.


Our erosion research has benefited considerably by the availability of soil survey data. For example, the K values for the Universal Soil Loss Equation are keyed into the SCS soil classification system. Wind erosion research is also benefited. Our scientists can develop theoretical models with little dificulty, but until they have been tested, they are of little value. These tests must be made under varying conditions, but it is essential that we have accurate descriptions of the soils Not only have we had the benefit of SCS data to to be tested. help us in this, but SCS personnel often work with our scientists in selecting the specific site to be tested. Our research on water use efficiency relies very heavily on soil survey data. Our scientists in the Pacific Northwest are attempting to develop soil management practices that will reduce erosion and utilize water more efficiently. They have developed tillage systems based on soil survey data. The type of system to be followed is dictated by the sol1 conditions. What will work for a sandy soil Is not at all adequate for finer textured soils. Research on irrigation, drainage, and reclamation of salt-affected soils utilize soil survey data. In fact, SCS personnel assisted in selecting the site of one of our more recent studies on the use of salt-affected soils. This project, located at Grand Junction, Colorado, is utilizing varying irrigation rates to control salt leaching. It is anticipated that an irrigation schedule can be developed that vi11 permit crop production on these soils without increasing the salt content In the return flow. We are working very closely with SCS in identifying soil characteristics associated with crop yield and quality. For example, through this joint effort, ve have been able to Identify those areas in the United State6 where selenium in the crops will be toxic to animals, and those areas vhere the soil cannot furnish adequate levels for animal health. We are doing the ssme kind of work for other micronutrient+-both essential and, possibly, toxic. Infiltration data and soil structure, including the presence of pans, have been very helpful in our work on water quality, particularly as it may be affected by fertiliser nitrogen contamination, Our nitrogen leaching study plots at Lincoln, Nebraska, were selected by SCS personnel.


Perhaps the most recent use us have made of soil survey information is in the work we are nov doing in cooperation with EPA to develop guidelines that can be used by individuals or agencies charged with responsibility for developing plans to CO&r01 nonpoint sources of pollution as required under PL 92-500. It probably would bs advantageous to di6CUsS this effort with you in just a little more detail. We plan to develop a two-volume document. Volume I, now in draft form, is designed to be a user's manual in which the process of identifying a specific potential problem, and the corrective measures that can be taken can be followed from a direct sequence of instructions. Volume II reviews the appropriate basic principles on which the instructions are founded, provides documentation of the information presented, identifies gaps in our present knowledge, and makes recommendations for research that is needed. The Agricultural Research Service relied very heavily on information that has been made available by SCS and soil surveys in developing the format and the guidelines presented in the documents. For example, we use the "land resource area" as the basic unit in identifying potential pollution problems and their control. Within each of the 156 resource areas it is possible to further subdivide potential problem areas. Again, this is based on '3% concepts of soils, climate, topography, and ground cover conditions. Despite the tremendous effort that is now going into modeling, our scientists relied on the SCS curve number approach to predict runoff from a given storm rainfall. They felt that this was the only available method that could be readily used in a national assessment. Of course, we do have some problems with this approach in portions of the western United States because of very steep rainfall gradients. We have, however, prepared a map depicting the average annual, potential, direct runoff for the United States. Erosion is estimated from the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Of course. the basic concepts for this equation were developed and tested by AR3 scientists, but SCS has used this equation extensively and has K factors for the predominant soils within a resource area. The leaching or percolation factor presented in the handbook is, again, based on the results of soil surveys. Prom this and meteorological data we have developed a map of the United States showing the average annual, potential percolation from various resource areas.


Without the tremendous information now available from soil surveys, it would have been impossible to develop a guideline that could be utilized to implement the nonpoint source phase of PL 92-500. While soil surveys are proving indispensable in the program of ARS there are gaps that ve feel need to be given more attention. For example. we do need better data on mapping units as they relate to such items as land application of waste, fate of pesticides, erosion, and land to be disturbed through mining operations. During the last tvo years there has been a modeling explosion. The success of predictive models will depend upon the reliability of available physical and chemical data on a mapping unit or other genetic classification. This probably will require a combined SCS-ARS effort. A lot of old faces have disappeared from both our agencies. These were the people vho knew each other on a first-name basis and really made the cooperative effort operate. We have new faces now in many leadership positions. It is important, in my opinion, that we make sure that these people get to know each other on a first-name basis, learn what each agency is doing and be aware of their needs. Dy doing that, w can assist each other and accomplish far more together than what could be done by each agency working alone.


Presentation o f : Wesley R. Booker soil c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t Bureau of Indian Affairs Washington, D. C. It is indeed a pleasure for me to attend and participate in the National Soil Survey Conference again. I have the privilege of representing the Bureau of Indian Affairs as I did two years ago. There is, however, a significant d i f f e r e n c e t h i s t i m e . Two years ago I was the Bureau’s Acting Soil Conservationist, on detail from my duty station in Idaho. This time I’m happy to announce that I have been appointed to that post and am now officially the Bureau’s Soil Conservationist. I have been looking forward with a great deal of anticipation to seeing old f r i e n d s , renewing acquaintances and making new friends at this conference. There is one man in our midst, however, that I want tu give a special word o f g r e e t i n g . I owe him a great deal because it was thn,ugh his efforts that I received my basics in soil surveying (and somehow kept my job). He issued me an old Ford pickup, some aerial photos and a “sharpshooter” shovel, told me 1,000 acres a day was expected of me, then proceeded to teach me how to make soil surveys. That was in ~ayville, North Dakota when we were both employed by the Soil Conservation Service. ~ollis Wesley Omodt, I thank you. The soil survey effort in the Bureau of Indian Affairs is perhaps more important today than ever in the history of that effort. We are actively involved in collecting soils data for management planning and development of farmlands, both irrigated and dryland; for improvement, management and development of grazing lands; for management and improvement oi forest lands; for recreation, commercial and community developments; for highway and other construction programs. We are also very much involved in surveys for and evaluation of environmental impact statements. Last, but perhaps most important to the Indian people are the soil surveys conducted specifically for the protection of the statutory rights of those people. In Fiscal Year 1974 a total of 1,736,OOO acres of Indian lands had soil surveys made. In Fiscal Year 1975 we expect to complete soil surveys on 2,280,OOO acres of Indian land. Currently our total Soils staff numbers 30 positions, two of whom operate our soils laboratory in Gallup, New Mexico. As you can see our staff is limited. We, therefore, accomplish a number of our surveys by cooperative arrangements with other governmental agencies (primarily SCS) and by contract with private concerns. Those kinds of arrangements will no doubt continue to increase in coming years. As they increase it becomes almost mandatory that we all use one universally accepted system for the surveys we make - I hereby pledge my support of the National Soil Survey Conference effort in perfecting and implementing a uniform system, designed to be usable by all Agencies. At the next conference I hope to report to you how the Bureau of Indian Affairs made the conversion. Thanks again for extending an invitation to participate in the conference. 75



James S. Hagihara Bureau of Land Management The Bureau of Land Management appreciates the opportunity to participate in this conference. We also extend our thanks to the Soil Conservation Service for their excellent cooperation and assistance in related soil survey activities. We are continually increasing and improving our efforts in collecting and utilizing soils data to satisfy planning and development of multi-resource management programs on the National Resource Lands (NRL). During the past year the "energy" crisis and requirements to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act has created a greater demand for more and better soils data for the protection and enhancement of our environment. The present mineral "energy" situation has really accelerated the BLM soil activities in the western states. The proposed strip coal mining operations has created a great and u.rgent need for better soils information that will assist in rehabilitation and reclamation of the disturbed lands. Sound basic soil information is also required to manage the national resource lands under the multiple use concepts.


Current Activities Since our last report to this conference the BLM has made substantial progress in developing the soils functions within the Bureau. Currently BLM has 30 Soil Scientists located within the 11 western states as compared to 16 a year The primary assignments of the BLM Soil Scientists will be: (1) to %iect and inventory soils data, (2) make practical interpretations that will assist in making multi-resource management decisions, (3) assist the resource managers in the application and use of soils data. Thus far our soil scientists have completed mapping approximately 4,OOD,DOD acres of NRL located in Oregon and California. These lands were mapped in accordance with the COOPerative National Soil Survey procedures. Considerable progress has been accomplished on the extensive Watershed Inventory of the 450 million acres of National Resource Lands under our administration. As of October 1974 we have inventoried nearly 126 million acres. It is anticipated the Watershed inventory of the 180 million acres located in the eleven (11) western states will be completed in FY 76. The Watershed Inventory includes. collection of vegetation, soils and erosion data on a broad level. This information will be used in developing long range resource management plans. Another activity requiring soils information on the NRL is the Colorado River Salinity Program. The BLM has been assigned the-charge to (1) identify point, and diffuse sources of saline waters and (2) identify and determine soils that have potential to produce saline runoff in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The purpose of the program is to develop resource management plans for reducing and controlling saline runoff from NRL that enter the Colorado River. 77

Cooperative Soil Surveys_ 1.

Cooperative Soil Surveys with Soil Conservation Service, The Soil Conservation Service is mapping nearly 4.5 million acres during FY 75 under reirrburseable cooperative agreements in the following states: Arizona California Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada Utah

1,390,OOO acres 59,000 155,000 195,000 1,200,000 1,400.000 118,000

We hope to continue mapping at this level through cooperative agreements with the SCS, however, this will depend upon future funding and capabilities of the SCS to accomplish the mapping. 2. Cooperative Soil Investigations with the Bureau of Reclamation (BR). During FY 75, the 8LM entered into a cooperative agreement with BR for soil investigations upon nearly 100,000 acres located in Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. These soil investigations are concentrated primarily in the high potential energy, mineral resource areas. The objectives of the soil investigations are to collect baseline soil data that will assist in defining, analyzing and developing alternative rehabilitation practices for surface disturbed areas. Thus far, 4 sites totalling 2,000 acres each have been investigated near Colstrip, Montana, Hanna. Wyoming, Craig, Colorado, and Kanab, Utah. Approximately 200,000 acres are scheduled for investigation during FY 76. These investigations include detailed mapping of soils, complete physical and chemical analysis of the surface and subsurface to a depth of 200 feet. The drill hole investigations also include mineral, geologic and underground water studies, Problems 1.

Training and Technical guidance of the newly hired soil scientists can become quite a problem as our soil activities accelerate. Many of the newly hired soil scientists are recent graduates in soils from the various universities. Although they are well qualified and have the academic requirements, many lack the necessary field experience. The BLM hopes to provide the necessary field experience and training to the newly hired soil scientists by working with the Soil Conservation Service and other agencies that have this kind of expertise and on-going training programs, In the interim, we are developing a formal training and technical guidance program for our new soil scientists which we hope will bring them to their full productive capacity in as short a time as possible.

2. Another problem is the use and application of the soil data that has been collected by our soil scientists and through the cooperative soil surveys. 78

We are developing a program in which we hope to train the resource managers or users upon the use and application of soil data in making multiple use resource management decisions. We propose to accomplish this by involvino the resource managers during the field mapping and development of management interpretations. We have also learned that in addition to teaching the resource manager how to use the soil survey report, he must learn how to relate soil behavior to varfous land treatment practices that will be applied. Thus, the soil behavior section is very important to the user. Conclusion All of us are involved with collection and application of soil survey data for many purposes ranging from urban to remote, mountainous areas. Conferences such as this, provide us with an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas and information that will make soil surveys effective.

USDA-SCS NATIONAL SOIL SURVEY CONFERENCE Orlando, Florida, January 27-31, 1975 USDI BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ACTIVITIESL/ Soil Science and related activities of Reclamation programs primarily relate to water and land resource development. They include multipurpose land classification in determining land use suitability for multiobjective planning; economic land classification, wetland surveys, and drainage and reclamation of salt-affected lands on existing irrigation projects; soil characterization for irrigation scheduling; revegetation of lands disturbed through construction of project features; reclamation of lands to be surface mined of mineral deposits; soil inventory in areas potentially affected by development of mineral resources; land and water appraisals for environmental studies; remote sensing research; predicting quality of return waterflows into drainage systems; water quality control, particularly salinity of major river systems; soil investigation for other agencies; assistance in selection of lands for irrigation to foreign countries and international financing organizations; and participation in interagency a f f a i r s , on committees, at workshops, and professional societies. A portion of the lands surveyed for salinity and all the work on soil inventories and reclamation of mineral extraction are performed for the USDI Bureau of Land Management through contractual arrangements. The soil inventories for BLM are described in the presentation by Mr. James S. Hagihara. It is Reclamation’s practice to utilize USDA-SCS foil survey information to the fullest extent possible in all activities for planning construction, development, settlement, operation and maintenance, and rehabilitation of projects. Reclamation of Coal-Mined Areas The studies for BIM on reclamation of mineral areas are in response to the “coal rush” in meeting the energy crises. The objective is to identify optimum coal-leasing sites having superior potential for reclamation and to formulate lease stipulations. This involves obtaining basic data; making evaluations; and developing standards, guidelines, techniques, and aiternate plans for land rehabilitation


l/ William B. Peters, Head, Land Utilization Section, Resource Analysis Branch, Division of Planning Coordination, Engineering and RBBearCh Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 81

and restoring vegetative growth. The plans will include reconmendations for deposition and treatment of overburden and measures required to minimize environmental impacts, air and water pollution, and to promote safety. Environmental planning, design, and engineering are a very important aspect in formulation. Where viable alternative opportunities for enhancement are identified, plans will be developed as requested by BLM. A l t e r n a t i v e l a n d uses and potentials might include rainfed a g r i c u l t u r e d i f f e r i n g f r o m p r e s e n t cover and enterprises, irrigated agriculture, wildlife habitat, recreation, homesites, industrial developments, and others. In this planning, analysis will be made of land use problems and opportunities associated with water plans, recognizing the natural and a modified land base, e x i s t i n g a n d p o t e n t i a l l a n d u s e p a t t e r n s , zoning regulations, and general relationships to environmental s o c i a l , a n d e c o n o m i c a s p e c t s o f t h e s e t t i n g . All plans developed will include an assessment of cost and benefits. The work is being approached on an interagency and interdisciplinary b a s i s . Reclamation, in cooperation with the USDI Geological Survey, is exploring and characterizing overburden, 21 surface and ground w a t e r , a n d d e v e l o p i n g a n d analyzi~ng data with respect to geology, engineering, plant science, hydrology, soils, drainage, economics, ecology, environment, a n d o t h e r r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . T h e i n v e s t i gation with respect to lands largely involves characterizing the overburden for reclamation potential and determining land use suitability. In characterizing overburden, sufficient exploration and d r i l l i n g a r e a c c o m p l i s h e d to d e s c r i b e a n d c o l l e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l e s o f s o i l , subsoil, and substrata to a depth below overburden and coal (maximum depth of 200 feet). The description of soil, subsoil. and substrata characteristics in relation to land characterization essentially conforms to the USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey procedures. Sampling of overburden at master sites and agronomic laboratory testing is on a comprehensive basis. At the other explorations and borings, representative samples are selected for laboratory characterization on a screenable basis to confirm judgment in field appraisals. The first priority in the agronomic laboratory characterization of soil is directed toward direct and indirect measurements to evaluate soil structure and its stability, effective soil cation exchange capacity, and soil reaction. After this is accomplished, then consideration is given to testing that confirms the field c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , e x p l a i n s t h e c a u s e s o f phenoma p r e v i o u s l y

/ Overburden is the material consolidated or unconsolidated, overlying the coal. 82


observed or predicted, reveals the presence of toxic elements (salinity level, boron content. alkali, acidity, reduction products, etc.), and indicates measures required to cope with the soil deficiency under eventual field conditions. Selected samples found by the laboratory testing to represent a range in properties conducive and adverse to establishment of vegetation are further subjected to greenhouse studies at Colorado Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. These greenhouse and related studies are designed to establish possibilities and methods for establishing vegetation. Should these studies identify or detect unforeseen toxic conditions or soil deficiencies not susceptible to amelioration by established procedures, a program of applied research will be recommended. A product of the characterization with respect to lands will be s resour’ce map reflecting both the present condition and future conditions under alternative plans for reclamation and restoration. As mentioned by Mr. Hagihara, the Soil Survey aspects are being coordinated by BLM with SCS at State and local offices. The USDA Forest Service Surface Environment and Mining (SEAM) serves as a consultant to BLM on coordination matters. Concurrently with the above-described investigations, the overburden is also characterized for geological, hydrological, and engineering properties. The USGS is responsible for ground-water data collection. This work was initiated last year at four specific sites, comprising about 2,000 acres each located “ear Ashland, Montana; Hannah, Wyoming; Meeker, Colorado; and Kanab, Utah. Studies at six additional sites are to be initiated this year and each of the following 3 years. Experience gained to date from this initial study and consultation with others lead us to believe rehabilitation of disturbed lands can be accomplished using procedures already developed. Soil testing and soil fertility evaluation are sufficiently advanced to prescribe optimum management practices for rmst conditions. Research is underway to further develop plants for erosion control. The principal obstacle precluding successful rehabilitation of disturbed lands has bee” the general lack of coordinated planning among disciplines, agencies, organizations, and activities. In this regard, Mr. Hubertus Mittman of the USDA FOrast Service has emphasized the need for greater involvement and increased action by persons experienced in planning. Problems have to be anticipated and alternatives considered from a” interdisciplinary standpoint. 83

Reclamation by reason of experience in revegetation of disturbed lands and the many other facets, organizations, staff capabilities, f a c i l i t i e s , and administration “know how” to coordinate the variet~ies of disciplines and activities is striving to provide leadership in meeting needs. Irrigation Management Services ProRram The Irrigation Management Services is a program developed by the Bureau of Reclamation to direct and assist irrigation and water districts in establishing programs to promote more effective and efficient use of their water supply. It is directed toward better on-farm water management and extending water management through the distribution and storage systems. While the program was initiated primarily as a research effort, the beneficiaries of the program are expected to financially support these programs in their operational stages. The results of these program efforts will be applied in the design of new projects or in the rehabilitation of irrigation systems * The establishment of the Irrigation Management Services Program on irrigation and water districts is a cooperative effort with the Soil Conservation Service and the State Extension Service. Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program The purpose of this investigation is to develop plans for controlling salinity in the lower reaches of the Colorado River at or below present levels. The mineral burden of the Colorado River is the foremost water quality problem in the basin and carries both interstate and international implications. Continued development of the water resources is expected to generate additional salinity increases with concomitant economic losses to agriculture and M&I users if the salinity is not controlled. Natural sources contribute most of the salinity to the river. Return flows from irrigation and municipal and industrial uses also add significant quantities of salt. Moreover, concentrating effects are produced by water exports out of the basin, use of water by vegetation, and evaporation from free water surfaces. This investigation program will consider individual problem areas, develop control plans, and make specific recommendations for remedial action. Under the program, appraisal and feasibility plans for control of salinity from irrigated areas and high salt input, point and diffuse sources are being prepared. To date the program findings on salinity sources are pointing toward a need to emphasize nonstructural salinity control measures. Support studies involving the preparation of a mathematical model for management of the river, economic evaluation

of water quality, institutional and legal review are being made. Preliminary work has been completed on the applicability of ion exchange technology. On the irrigation sources. irrigation scheduling techniques to improve irrigation efficiency are now being applied to 6,500 acres in the Grand Valley area, Colorado; similar work is underway on the Palo Verde Irrigation District, California; and the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona. Irrigation scheduling work will be started in the Lower Gunnison Basin and in the Uintah Basin in the fiscal year 1974. To assure effectiveness in irrigation source control, feasibility studies of the conveyance and drainage syatems are being made to disclose improvements that could be made which would achieve reductions in salt loading. Feasibility studies on point sources at LaVerkin Springs and Crystal Geyser in Utah ware completed in FY73. Studies at Paradox Valley in Colorado are progressing and work at Las Vegas Wash in Nevada will be initiated during the current year. Feasibility studies in Paradox Valley will be completed in FT75. An appraisal report is under preparation for Blue Spring. All other point sources and diffuse sources in the program involve basic data collection as a prerequisite to report preparation. These include Glenwood-Dotsero Springs and McElrm Creek in Colorado; Littlefield Springs and Price, San Rafael, and Dirty Devil Rivers in Utah; and the Big Sandy River in Wyoming. On the latter, pilot studies will be undertaken to appraise efficiency of desalting the water using natural freesing, i.e.. not a desalting plant per se but rather a process involving the use of the natural cold temperatures in the area to freeze the water and thereby remove most of the salt. Cooperative research with the USDA Agricultural Research Service has been started to evaluate the relationship between high irrigation efficiencies and reductions in salt loading. Land Use Planning The Soil Science Training Institute conducted at Colorado State University was, commencing in 1974, modified and supplemented to comprise a Land Use and Water Planning Institute for the years 1974 through 1976. Under the capable direction of Dr. Robert D. Heil, the 1974 course was structured to give top-level management personnel an overview of the interface between land use and water planning. The course emphasized the principles of land use planning including the physical, economical, biological, political, sociological, and other factors which are important in the development of viable land use plans. To accommodate Reclamation needs in water development, the cc~urse was directed toward the following areas: 85


Basic land use planning considerations including ecological, physical, biological, economic, sociological, and political

2. Management and development considerations for uses other than irrigation such as recreation, wildlife, aesthetics, archaeological, urban, and suburban 3.

Inputs required for adequate land use planning


Methods for inventorying land features to evaluate alternative land use suitabilities


Techniques and procedures in planning for reclamation and reuse of disturbed lands


Impact of land use changes in natural resource areas


Impacts of land use and its regulation on planning of water projects

Subsequent courses are to be directed toward needs in broadening and attaining greater technical proficiency among workers actually involved in investigations. Remote Sensing Research Reclamation continues to support research in remote sensing for many applications including land classification. Most of the Soil. Science activities have been in cooperation with the EROS Program and directed toward development of methods to assist in better identification of depths to water table, surface water accumulation and drainage ways. vegetative cover and crop identification, depth to ‘root and water impeding barriers, and gross soil features including soil moisture and salinity. This last year, our Research Division has been field testing a short pulse radar system. This is being developed for: (1) ground water depth measurement accuracy; (2) soil moisture content measurement; (3) soil layering detection. They were unsuccessful in attaining sufficient ground penetration. A remote sensing contract was signed with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, June 3. 1974. The remote sensing is to be accomplished for the Elephant Butte Reservoir, Fort Quitman Project, New Mexico-Texas The objectives of this program art? twofold: (RGREP). (1) To 86

investigate the utilization of remOte sensing to assist in assembling resource and land use information for the regional plan of RGREP. Emphasis will be given to long-term development of available natural and human resources in order to realize their full potential within and environmental setting of high quality. (2) To investigate the application of remote sensing for the management of water resources in the RGREP area, Approach. - It is anticipated that this study will be developed in three l-year phases to meet the outlined objectives: Phase I - Development of information on agricultural and natural resources and land use as a data base for the RGREP area (fiscal year 1974). Phase II - Data base expansion to include urban, suburban. and special land use categories and application of advanced sensor survey for monitoring water use in the RGREP area (fiscal year 1975). Phase III - Investigation of remote sensing applications for monitoring and management of water resources in the RGREP area (fiscal year 1976). In the Columbia Basin, Washington, ERTS imagery is being used to monitor new irrigation, primarily use of pivot sprinklers. Summaries on land classification activities by States are presented in tabular form on Tables I and II.



Colorado River Indian Small Projects Loan California LeBranza Water District Gravelly Ford Water District Lagms Water District Mid-Valley, Raison City Rainbow Municipal Water District Foster Municipal Water District Colorado Dolores Project Uncompahgre Project Idaho Teton Phase II Oakley Fan Unit Ririe Dam Project South Dakota Brown County Castlewood-Estelline Area Utah Ute Indian Unit

Table I - Continued Washington Yakim Project Spokane Indian Reservation Columbia Basin Project Montana

Mill Iron Unit upper Missouri Project, Lower Musselshell Area Nebraska Hid-State Division North Loop Division O'Neill Unit New Mexi CO

Animas-LsPlata Project Navajo Indian Irrigation Project North Dakota Missouri Souris Project Oregon

Rogue River


Table II MULTIPURPOSE LAND USE SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION FOR MULTIOBJECTIVE PLANNING Colorado Basalt Project Dolores Project Uncompahgre Project Yellow Jacket Project Grand Mesa Project Dallas Creek Project Fruitland Mesa Project Idaho Minidoka Northside Extension Upper Snake River Area Oregon Willamette River Project Rogue River Project Wyoming

Sublette Project


SOIL SURVEY RESEARCH IN THE STATE EXPERIMENT STATIONS BY Eilif V. Eliller Principal Soil Scientist Cooperative State Research Service

The Cooperative Soil Survey has long been an effective mechanism for joint involvement of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations with the Federal Soil Survey under SCS. The directions which such cooperative work is taking in the various states is a glaring example of the diversity which characterizes American science and technology. In some states there is extensive involvement of the Station in present programs of mapping. In some there are other units of state government which have increased the inputs made by the state to the total effort. The Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) of the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) works closely with the Experiment Stations and provides funds for the support of research, broadly defined, in the field of soils and soil survey. By using the Current Research Information Service 0 (CRIS) data bank which records all research projects in the State-Federal system, one is able to keep informed about the state funded projects as well as those supported federally by CSRS. Looking over a printout of all soil survey projects in the system, we find that approximately equal numbers of projects are receiving primary support from CSRS and from state appropriations. Table 1 shows that out of 101 total research projects underway in 1974, 50 were supported by CSRS and 51 by state funds. There is no subjectmatter distinction due to the sources of support for station projects. Table 2 presents the major subject-matter fields investigated in soil survey research projects of the State Experiment Stations tabulated in order of frequency of occurrence. The subject of correlation, classification, and mapping was a major part of 24% of the projects,closely followed by soil survey interpretations, 21.5%, and soil profile characterization and taxonomy, 20.5%. Land use planning, a subject of increasing importance in soil survey research was a major part of 17% of the projects. Table 3 indicates the output of research publications from the 101 projects summarized. It should be noted that the flow of publlcations from any given state is extremely uneven as shown by the large number of states which had none in 1973. There is also a difference 0 in the way research publications were defined in different Stations. 91


Sources of Soil Survey Research Support, 1974 Primary Source of Support Hatch Act Funds, CSRS

Number of CRIS Projects 44

McIntire-Stennis Act, CSRS


Public Law 89-106, CSRS


State Appropriations





Major Subjects of Soil Survey-Related Research Projects, 1974 State Agricultural Experiment Stations

Frequency in 101 Projects* %

Major Subject-Matter Fields


Correlation, Classification. Mapping



Soil Survey Interpretations



Soil Profile Characterization, Taxonomy



Land Use Planning



Remote Sensing, Data Banks







Genesis and Morphology TOTALS

*The excess frequency of occurrence over the number of projects is due to the occasional occurrence of mOre than one major subject-matter field in one project.



Publications Reported from Soil Survey Research Projects, 1974 State Agricultural Experiment Stations (CRIS)









Ala. 1






Ark. 2

Cal. 4





Fla. 6













Mass. 0

















Miss. 5

Mont. 4.





N.C. 1







Okl. 0







P.R. 0















Tenn. 2

Wash. 3



Tex. 3




Va. 2 V.I. Jl







North Central Northeast South Western Total

56 40 29

30 163




Research chapters which were published as part of soil survey reports were usually listed as research contributions from the project. In some Stations the publications listed were mainly journal articles. The summary by regions shows that 163 research publications were prepared during the 1973 project year. The North Central Region reported the largest number, 56 publications from the 13 Stations in the Region. In addition to the individual station research projects reported above there were 2 active cooperative regional research projects relating to soil surveys and their use in land use planning. Their titles and contributing projects from the cooperating stations are given in Appendix 1. These projects, like all regional research under the Hatch Act of 1887, are supported in part by Federal monies (the Regional Research Fund) and in part by other resources of the stations , part state and part Federal.


NC-109 in the North Central Region is concerned with the characterization of soil landscapes to make soil survey information more useful in land use planning and rural development. The cooperators are preparing state soil maps and planning guidebooks as well as other kinds of interpretive data usable by soil survey clienteles. W-125 in the Western Region is concerned with urban encroachment on rural areas and the kinds of knowledge needed by the affected people to use soil survey information in land use planning. The cooperating scientists are concentrating upon the organization and mobilization of soils information including the preparation of interpretation manuals for the lay person. The Regional Research Fund under the Hatch Act is extremely important to the achievement of greater coordination and scientific uniformity between states in the application of research. Twenty-five percent of the Hatch Act funds (which now amounts to $77 million per year) is devoted to agricultural regional research of all kinds. It is possible that more of this kind of innovative cooperative research is needed to achieve full benefit from soil surveys by broadening their usefulness. New clienteles exist for the soil survey and attainment of the correct interpretation of the data will be a continuing duty of soil scientists. There is another side to the state soil survey research picture in the United States which is definitely negative in character. This is the long-term downward trend in Experiment Station support for research classified under RPA No. 101, Appraisal of Soil Resources.

Table 4 shows the trend in scientist-man-years (MY's) devoted to 0 soil appraisal research for the period from 1966 to 1973. The allocation of scientist manpower to soil survey research has been cut in 95

Table 4 Scientist Man - Years For State Agricultural And Forestry Institutions. Research Problem Area 101, Appraisal of Soil Resources SCIENTIST UNPOWF,?, YEAR



























Source of Data:


Inventories of Agricultural Research Current Research Information Service, CSRS,

half in a period of seven years. This reduction comes at a time when the soil survey is attaining its widest usefulness in land use planning, especially for non-agricultural purposes. In spite of the above evidence of retrenchment, there are many favorable signs of progress which give great importance to the training of a new generation of soil survey scientists in the land grant It is more important than ever to conserve the concept universities. of cooperation between Federal and state programs in this vital field.





Soil Landscape Characteristics Affecting Land Use Planning and Rural Development.

Contributing Projects (1973): Research Approach

State and University Illinois (U. Ill.)

Development of interpretive materials for some of the newer audiences using 3 soil surveys of different publication dates.

Indiana (Purdue U.)

Employment of remote sensing and photo-imagery to percieve landscape units. Land resource maps and data banks to be developed for derivation of specific guides and tabular information usable by planners.

Iowa (Ia. state IJ.)

Examine 3 or 4 prevalent soil landscapes for disposition of municipal and residential wastes. Guides for rural land assessment are being constructed.

Michigan (Mi. State U.)

Study of the relative adequacy of present and past soil survey maps. Transect studies, intensive grid analysis and remapping have been employed. Purpose is to obtain wider immediate coverage of useful soils information for planning.


APPENDIX 1 (Continued)

Ohio (O-State U.)

Critical examination of a recently urbanizing area to characterize the predevelopment hydrology and then to develop predictive criteria for this landscape. Project will also develop soil landscape guides for community planning, land use, and erosion.

South Dakota (S.D.State U.)

Will use technique of "density slicing" to examine remotely-sensed photo-imagery of selected soil landscapes. Guides for rural land assessment and tax equalization use have been published. A statewide map of soil associations has been proposed to assist in preparing the Land Use Plan.

Minnesota (U. of Minn.)

Project is preparing a Minnesota Soil Atlas in 11 sheets to provide maps of soil-landscape units on scale of 1:250,000 usable for state planning. A two-level legend has been adopted. Level I showing geomorphic regions and Level II showing soil landscapes in which the Taxonomy unit is the family phase of a subgroup. The delineations are mostly greater than one square mile in area and include more than one series.

Missouri (U. of MO.)

Special Reconnaissance Soil Association maps are being started in urban regions based upon existing maps where available, and some new mapping. Interpretive reports will accompany maps for use by regional planning councils.


APPENDIX 1 (Continued)

Wisconsin (U. o f Wis.)

Studies have been made on soil absorption of septic tank effluents with emphasis on pedon characteristics. Ratings are being made for soil units in the state soil map on suitability for liquid waste absorption, suitability for urban expansion, and erodibility.

North Dakota (N.D. State U.)

A Resource Inventory and Monitoring System is being developed. Emphasis is on the study of lands in relation to coal mining development and strip mine reclamation.


APPENDIX 1 (Continued)

B. WESTERN REGION, W-125: Title:

Soil Interpretations and Socio-Economic Criteria for Land Use Planning.

Objectives: 1.

Determine consequences of urban encroachment


Organize soils data and interpretations for potential clienteles


Evaluate adequacy of present soil survey data with a view to development of additional data and procedures

States Contributing to Each Research Objective: Objective 1:

Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and California are conducting study of changes in pattern of land use and are selecting areas to study rate of conversion, development, location analysis, and natural resource features. Alternate land uses are postulated and conflicts analyzed.

Objective 2:

Nevada, Montana, Oregon, California, Colorado, and Hawaii are preparing a regional interpretation manual to inform users about land use problem solutions.

Objective 3:

California, Montana, Hawaii, and Washington are determining physical criteria which influence land use choice.

Six states are integrating soil and other resource data to facilitate display and use. Five states are measuring inherent soil-behsviorrelated properties, such as water logging or shrink swell potential and others. Colorado and Nevada are investingating the significance of taxonomic categories to interpretive uses. Oregon and Nevada are defining mapping units in terms of landscape variability to assist in making interpretive maps. Three states are accelerating mapping in areas where land use planning is imminently needed.


EXTENSION SOIL SURVEY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS I/ It is a pleasure to visit with you about Extension soil survey educational programs and activities and to participate in this 1975 National Soil Survey Conference during this week. It gives me an opportunity to gain more familiarity with your programs and activities related to soil surveys and their use and it helps us in the Extension Service to gather some new and developing techniques that will make for improvements in educational programs to increase the effective use of soil surveys. I plan to visit with you today about some of the educational programs and activities carried out by the Cooperative Extension Service to improve the use of soil surveys. Usually these activities are planned and carried out in cooperation with the experiment stations and the Soil Conservation Service and others such as the Soil and Water Conservation Districts and Extension councils and committees. The overall objective of the Extension educational e f f o r t i s , “The effective use of soil surveys.” In this presentation today I will focus on educational programs and activities related to the distribution and usa of the soil survey report. I would have you note that there are other educational activities at different stages of the report such as before and during the time of the field work in preparation for the report and also there are educational activities of a followup nature carried on after the publication and distribution of the report.


We look to the State Extension specialist in soil conservation, agronomy, and/or soils to take the lead for the Cooperative Extension Service. The specialist working with the representative of the experiment station and usually the state soil scientist of the Soil Conservation Service assist the local county or area Extension agents and district conservationist to plan and carry out the educational activities. To illustrate how this is cooperatively planned and carried out, I would like to discuss with you an example. This is the approach used in Mississippi. At the state level the Mississippi state staffs have developed and entered into a memorandum of understanding. This is between the Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service relative to responsibilities to introducing and using published soil surveys. The memorandum of understanding provides for assignments of responsibilities for each of the agencies; it includes what each party agrees to do in each of the activities. For example. the Extension Service agrees to make arrangements for county meetings including the program, to participate and assist in the planning and conducting the meeting for the introduction and distribution of the soil survey, participate in conducting any plarlned field tours, furnish publicity for introducing the soil survey and to assist other agencies in providing instruction on the uses of published soil surveys.




l/ Prepared by Harold I. Owens, Agronomist and Soil Conservationist, Extension Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and presented at the National Soil Survey Conference, January 27, 1975, Orlando, Florida. 103

The Soil Conservation Service agrees to advise other agencies prior to receiving publications to participate and assist in planning and conducting the meeting for the introduction and distribution of the soil survey, to participate in conducting any planned field tours , to assist In furnishing publicity for introducing soi~l surveys, to assist in making arrangements for county meetings, to provide cooperatively with other agencies instructions on the uses of the published soil survey. The experiment station agrees to participate and assist in planning and conducting the meeting for introduction and distribution of the soil survey , to participate in conducting any planned field tours, and to provide cooperatively with other agencies instructions on the uses of published soil surveys. At the county level it is suggested that one or two meetings be held to introduce the soil survey. People attending the meeting should include farmers, soil conservation district commissioners, county supervisors, farm leaders, farm business leaders, farm credit groups, agricultural workers, business leaders, bankers, engineers, contractors, real estate developers, planning commissioners, and other users of the soil surveys. When two meetings are held it is suggested that one be for the farm and the other for non-farm. In addition, a followup series of meetings by communities might be desirable. The memoradnum of understanding includes joint responsibilities of the county agent and the district conservationist. It includes a list of groups, organizations, officials, agencies, and individuals to whom notification of publications and release of the sol1 survey report should be made and invited to the meeting or meetings. The county meeting for introducing the new soil survey report in Pontotoc County, Mississippi, was held November 21, 1974. It was sponsored by the Pontotoc County Soil and Water Conservation District cooperating with the Cooperative Extension Service , the Mississippi Experiment Station, and the Soil Conservation Service. Appearing on the program were the soil scientist, the agronomist, Mississippi Experiment Station representative, the soil correlator, the Extension agronomist and the state conservationist. They dealt with the subjects on work involved in prepsing a soil survey report, the soils of Pontotoc County, soils interpretations for Pontotoc County, making use of soil survey reports, and the soils and the future. In 1972, training meetings were held for the county Extension agents in each of the Extension districts called “land use planning seminars.” To help with these agent training meetings expertise was drawn from the State Extension staff,from the Soil Conservation Service and the experiment station. I am sure that these training meetings gave a boost to carrying out the charges and responsibilities included in the Mississippi memorandum of understanding and gave a boost to effective educational activities In Mississippi related to the use of soil surveys. I would like to move now to pointing out some of the informational pieces, tools, and methods used to encourage the effective use of soil surveys. In Missouri the state Extension specialist in land use has developed an exercise called “Soil Survey Exe&ise” which is designed to help familiarize landobmers and operators with soil survey data and how to use the data contained in the soil survey report. The specialist uses this exercise 104


I am sure that he makes the exercise with groups in educational meetings. available to the county Extension staff and area agronomists so they can use it in followup a c t i v i t i e s . Some soil testing laboratories ask for the soil type on the soil sample information form. This supplements the chemical tests data and makes for improved soil treatment recommendations. States publish maps and narrative data on the status of soil surveys in t h e s t a t e . An example is the March 1974 Research Report published by Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station. South Dakota has delineated 39 soil associations using the Earth Resources In addition, tables are printed Technical satellite (ERTS) mosaic base map. on the back of the map containing soil test results for the 39 soil associations. The legend shows the general soil textures, soil slopes, and land forms of South Dakota. Smaller maps on the handy folder delineate soil parent materials, physical division, dominent s o i l t e x t u r e s , g r o w i n g d e g r e e d a y s , The Extension agronomists and average annual precipitation and mean temperature. report that they plan to use this pamphlet as an educational tool.


This is Indiana is rating the productivity of the soils of the state. a cooperative activity between the Soil Conservation Service and the Cooperative Extension Service personnel. They report that with the “productivity index” they have a good method of comparing the net value of one soil to another, the productivity indices can form the basis for improved agricultural and open lands assessment. It gives the local assessor a ready opportunity to equate the soil resources of one farm to the soil resources of another. Oklahoma State University Extension has published the circular Soil and Its Relation to Urban Development In the Tulsa County Area, which is designed to guide teachers of science, conservation. geography. and environmental studies as well as home owners, b u i l d e r s , l a n d d e v e l o p e r s , p l a n n i n g and zoning comnissions, and other concerned with the use of land resources. In the Washington office of the Extension Service we have worked cooperatively with the SCS soil survey publications staff to notify the state Extension specialists of soil survey reports to be published in the near future. This notification reminds them to initiate plans for introducing the survey to the local people in the county or area. It suggests that they consult with the SCS state conservationist and their experiment station and others and ask them to participate in the planning process. We indicate some of the different audiences that should he interested in the soil survey publication. We then mail them a copy of the newly published report. This is their notification that it is published.


During the three month period from October to December 1974, we have recieved 24 new soil survey reports and distributed them to the state Extension specialists who have educational responsibilities related to the distribution and use of soil surveys. 105

The state Extension specialists have expressed their gratitude for the advance notice and the copy of the report. We have generally had good results with this procedure. Occasionally we do have a problem of delay in the publication which causes some frustration in the field. Also, on the opposite end of the scale, we have experienced receiving the publication with only about two weeks notice which also causes some frustration and surprise, with cranking up plans for educational activities in connection with the distribution of the report. We continue to work closely with the Washington SCS soil survey staff to make this procedure work as well as possible and be of assistance to the field staff. Thank you for this opportunity to visit with you.


National Soil Survey Conference Orlando, Florida January 26-31, 1975 W.A. Wertz Forest Service, USDA For some years, the U.S. Forest Service has been reporting to this conference to emphasize mainly our concerns for devising best ways to collect, evaluate, and use soils information for the management of our National Forest System lands. We have stressed our need for a soil survey system geared to imnediate and practical use, and we have highlighted also the interdisciplinary nature of our approach to soil survey.


These concerns still apply, but we think we can say now that we have a program for soil survey in the Forest Service which is fully operational, and which is effective in meeting our needs. We have a skilled staff of at least moderate size. We have a sound background of success in soil survey and its application, and we experience a very satisfying demand for our product. Let me comment briefly on these three points For soil survey operations, usina soil survey in its broadest context to include all soils activities of our National Forest System, we now employ 165 Soil Scientists. This is not a large number of scientists, but it represents a steady qrowth from our beqinninq in 1955. to a staff of 10 in 1956, 80 in 1966, and a doubling of our staff since 1966 in the face of some very severe manpower ceiling and dollar limitations. Our staff of soil scientists is organized on a decentralized basis working out of nine Regional headquarters and approximately 110 National Forest locations. Our first line field soil sdentists have responsibility for the total soils program at these National Forest locatlons as they provide the full ranqe of expert soils consultant service to a multi-resource land management effort, and conduct the necessary soil survey field work and coordinating activities as well. Many of you have a personal acquaintance with our soil survey experiences. We have completed over 24.000,OOO acres of soil survey on National Forest lands as a part of the National Cooperattve Soil Survey. This work has been correlated in partnership with the agencies here at the standard detailed level of soil inventory. Additionally, and in direct response to our needs as I noted earlfer; best methods, tamedlate and practical use, and interdfscip1inar.y requirements; we have completed over 65,000,OOO acres of Soil Survey at the "reconnaissance level." These surveys in total represent our Soil Resource Inventory program 107

which is aimed specifically at providing soils information in a manner commensurate with other data inouts for completing the comprehensive land use plannin9 for all Rational Forest System lands within a desiqnated time frame. Our report to you this year is given with a flavor of optimism and a good deqree of satisfaction. Our Soil Scientists do indeed share a great pride of accomolishment in having pained recoqnition throughout the Forest Service of the value of their product. We define this product as a response to demonstrated needs for soil information along with a comnleted follow through for its use in the long range and short term land use and resource planning as well as for imnediate implementation at the operational project level. We take special oride in noting that the demand for our product qrows faster where it has been tested under the most adverse conditions. We feel we have gained our recognition through a qood mixture and careful balance of adherence to the profession of soil science in concert with a response to immediate and practical needs. We look forward to a continued and 9rowing success in bringing the application of our soil science to bear in the day to day management of the National Forest System lands and resources. I want to again express our appreciation in the Forest Service for the benefits which accrue to us from the Coonerative Soil Survey. We think some very helpful progress has been made recently for example, b.v the committee on kinds of soil survevs to facilitate better expression of our work and we are anxious as well to receive the new soil taxonomy publication and the revised Soil Survey manual. We intend to continue to make our meaningful contribution for the soil survey of wildland areas as a part of this national effort.

In lookinq ahead, we see a need to speed up the construction and use of our computer oriented technical information processing systems and of remote sensinq techniques for soil survev. We see also a need for an expanded research and far better quantification of soil survey interpretations to meet the requirements of the fast qrowing sophistication of management on the National Forests.and other forest and rangelands. We remain concerned about the recruitinq, initial training, and continued education of our Soil Scientists. We are especially anxious to see an increased integration of the earth sciences and related disciplines for a sophisticated use of the soil survey for natural ecosystem identification, analysis, and management. These kinds of accomplishments will truly tax the ability of the National Cooperative Soil Survey to adapt to our chanoinq times. William Johnson, Assistant Administrator for Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service, expressed this thouqht well at the 1974 Western Regional Work planning Conference when he said in part, "We have improved our efficiency greatly, and have expanded the number and varieties of interpretations of the Soil 108

Survey, but this is not good enough. We still have a large backlog of unpublished soil surveys. Our technology is till too traditional, too slow, and too narrow. There are too many people who do not know that the soil surve.v exists and too many who fail to see the need to base their land use decisions on facts about the soil. How can we overcome these difficulties? What is our objective and what is our timetable?" We in the Forest Service agree with Mr. Johnson, and we hope this aroup can answer his questions. We think the key does in fact lie in our ability to adapt to the chanqinq times.


SOIL SURVEY OPERATIONS Dr. John E. McClelland* Soil survey operations has experienced some changes since the last conference and I expect they will continue. Many of the changes are a result of procedures specifically designed to accelerate the publication of soil surveys. Some have been under consideration for a longer time and just recently approved for use. All are intended to improve the usefulness of soil surveys and help make the information available in a more timely manner. A backlog of unpublished surveys has accumulated and has continued to increase, This backlog must be greatly reduced during the next few years. I have heard some concern expressed about maintaining high quality of soil surveys with the implementation of procedures to accelerate publication. Quality is still a primary objective of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Quality and acceleration need not be incompatible. We can have both; each must receive the proper emphasis. Experience has shown, for example, that a soil survey completed in 5 to 7 years has a greater potential for higher quality and more utility to the user than a comparable survey that takes 12 to 15 years to complete. The new procedures should give us the opportunity to take the more desired course. The acceleration of soil survey publication requires greater emphasis on effective long-range planning in soil survey operations. ‘lhe large backlog of completed surveys must be reduced, but not at the expense of greatly curtailing the start of new soil surveys needed to meet current program commitments. The accelerated program is designed to facilitate publication Broader coorof soil surveys in progress as well as those being started. dinated planning and programs for advance scheduling will need to be implemented. Presently, only those surveys on the 3-year publication schedule are closely monitored. This schedule will need to be lengthened to accommodate the timespan of all active soil surveys. To meet long-range planning needs a soil survey operations management system is being designed. The system will list all soil survey areas in which soil mapping is expected to be completed in the next 10 years and those in various stages of completion. This system will permit more effective planning and It will scheduling of all steps leading to publication of soil surveys. also provide information needed to evaluate progress toward completion of field activities and publication, and pinpoint problem areas. It will indicate where adjustments are needed early to forestall major setbacks. 1n some states, agencies urgently in need of soil surveys to assist in carrying out land use planning programs are now employing soil scientists. A large share of this effort contributes to the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Where needed, the training requirements of these soil scientists must be met to maintain the overall quality of soil surveys. Within the SCS many states are increasing their training efforts. A coordinated effort by all cooperators in meeting training needs can improve effectiveness.


*Director, Soil Survey Operations Division, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D. C.

I would have liked to have bee” able to show you today a published copy of T Soil a x o n o m y . Although that is not quite possible, I can assure you that progress is being made and in the “ear future ,it will be published. The page proofs have been edited and are in the process of being returned to the printer. Although I cannot definitely say it will be out by February 14, as a happy valentine, it will be available soon. I’m sure all of you will be as happy as I will be when it is published. I recognize that its limited availability has presented many difficulties to our cooperators, Teaching of soil classification has been difficult. Publication of soma bulletins and papers in scientific journals also has been difficult because of the lack of this reference source. Your patience and assistance with the publication of Soil Taxonomy is greatly appreciated. --_Procedures have been developed and circulated for proposing, reviewing. approving and publishing changes to Soil -I_Taxonomy. We welcome suggestions from all sources for improving the system. We recognize that much of m Taxonomy needs to be more fully tested. This can be done more readily when it is published and more widely available. Some suggestions have already been made, more are encouraged. Additional copies of the “Procedures for Amendments to Soil Taxonoay” are available on request to my office. The SCS is developing a National Soils Handbook stating policy and procedures for the soil survey program, including land inventorying and monitoring, and cartography. The policy and procedures covered will affect both the SCS, and all others who cooperate in the National Cooperative Soil Survey. It is essential that all cooperators have the opportunity to contribute, review, and comnent on the material in the handbook before it is issued. Ihe SCS at all organizational levels is responsible for encouraging participation of cooperators.


The National Soils Handbook is intended to be separate and distinct fron the +il Survey Manual. Some duplication may be necessary, however, until the revised -Manualcpublished. The handbook will cover current policy and operational procedures much as the Soil Memoranda have done in the past. As the sections of the handbook are completed and issued, Soil Memoranda will be canceled. ‘Ihe handbook will be amended as policy or procedures change. We will brief you on the status of the revised Manual later today. As I mentioned in opening, soil survey operations is in a period characterized by many changes, During this period, it is more essential than ever that good communications be actively encouraged among all participants of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Occasionally, changes in procedures must be made quite rapidly. Good coannunications can contribute significantly to reducing or eliminating misunderstandings and difficulties. More states are becoming actively involved in soil surveys by financing or hiring directly soil scientists for field mapping. North Dakota, Maine, and South Carolina have enacted legislation for the registration of soil classifiers or soil scientists. More states will follow in the “ear future. As the rate of publication increases, the need for good coordination in all phases of the soil survey will also increase. In the next several years, we in soil survey operations, will place increased emphasis on maintaining quality of soil surveys, long-range planning and management, training of soil scientists, and good cmnications between our cooperators. 112


Soil Survey Interpretations - A Look Ahead -Linda J. Bartelli' Developing better soil surveys for Improving production and the environment is both a challenge and an opportunity for making more effective use of soil surveys. Our objective is to make soil maps more useful. We want to use a language that is well understood by the user. This is difficult, for the great variety of usem require us to use many languages. In addition to text, we must use maps - simple soil interpret&on maps. We must use simple terms and stop confusing our We need to tell people users with the complex jargon of soil groups. what the soil is good for, ve should be able to point to the good corn As Steinbrenner of Weyerhaeuser land or to the good cotton land. advertises, we need to knw the wood growing potential of every acre. Also, we must must be able to identify soil that is suitable for urban development and also recognize those measures required to make the site B pleasant and healthy place to live. Most important, the soil information must be provided in a timely manner. Our goal is to provide a published soil survey within 12 months after the field work is completed. Coordinated soil information should become available as the field work progresses. The following objectives will guide the implementation of a more active soil survey interpretation program. 1. Adopt a more positive approach for presenting soil interpretations, including analysis of potential for given land

uses. 2. Develop guidelines that can be used to predict the impact that various uses of soil, with improvements, will have on the environment. To adopt a more positive approach for presenting soil behavior predictions we need to emphasize degree of suitability. These kinds of predictions allw for an arrsy of mapping units on the basis of degree of suitability within the soil survey area. Soil potential is a means for expressing this comparison. It is defined as the ability of a soil to produce, yield or support a given structure or activity at a cost expressed in economic, social, or environmental units of value. SOil potential ratings presents a comparison of land-use alternatives in simple quantitative terms. The most suitable soils, e.g., soils with limitations easiest to overcome, will rate higher than soils with complex interacting limitations. When completed the system looks simple, but the process for rating is complex. It involves physical. economic

The effects of interactions among the and social considerations. factors must be considered. The rating procedure requires a multi-discipline approach. Director, Soil Survey Interpretations Division, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 20250 113

The development of soil potentials is the first step in the evaluation of "land suitability." Soil potential analysis differs from an analysis of the land suitability for a particular use. The suitability of land involves, in addition to soil potential ratings, an assessment of location, distance to markets, market demands, transportation facilities and the skills of the tiller or developer. The array of soils on the basis of degree of suitability helps the decision maker seek the "best fit" between soil and use. The impact that a use has on the environment is governed, in many cases, by how good a fit occurs between use and soil. This does not necessarily mean that use should be restricted to what the soil is best suited for in its natural state, but rather, the use selected is based on the behavior after limitations are overcome. A prime example is the vast areas of poorly and somewhat poorly drained soils of the midwest that were considered worthless swamps in the initial land survey but now rate as prime corn land of the world. We have formulated some provisional guidelines that will serve as a framework for developing soil potential ratings. They are: 1. Soil potential ratings are developed within the context of the soil mapping unit. They do not consider location, market trends or socio-political forces. Ratings can be developed for all kinds of soil maps. Potential ratings will reflect the soil taxonomic unit in detailed soil surveys, but, will be based on an evaluation of the interations among the soils in a multi-taxa mapping unit of the more general soil maps. 2. The rating for a soil will not be standardized, country wide. The same soil may have a different rating within two separate soil survey areas. Its position in order of degree of suitability is determined by the ratings of other soils in the area. Soil potential ratings for individual kinds of soil are in relation to all other soils in the area covered. Soil potential ratings, however, can be developed for any size area. 3. Supporting text is required to further define and explain the procedures used and to present the basic data upon which the evaluation is founded. Explain, also, the extent to which ratings reflect quantitative rather than qualitative data. Improvements for overcoming soil limitations are considered where feasible. This points out the need for collecting qualitative data on overcoming soil limitations and maintenance on improvements. Local information about "what works" in overcoming soil limitations must be recorded by kinds of soil.


4. Define clearly the land use classes. Soil potential should be developed for the broader land use classes. For example, a rating is more applicable to a soil's suitability for urbanization than for the various elements - dwellings, streets, shallow excavations, etc. - that are considered in arriving at the final rating. Soil, Potential for streets may have little meaning separate from the rating of potential for urbanization, especially where the streets only purpose is to support the urban development. There are cases, however, in which finer subclasses msy be recognized, especially in farm related uses. 5. Identify the practices that might be used to overcome soil limitations. Also, include a general idea of their cost and an estimate of any continuing limitations after they are installed. Pilot studies are developing models for formulating potential ratings and devising ADP techniques for presenting this information in graphic and tabular forms. The committee on organic soils, a committee of the southern work planning conference and several states are working on this problem. We hope to formalize procedures for collecting and documenting experiences on overcoming soil limitations in the near future. We will increase our application of soil potentials as we gain confidence through the data thus recorded about our experiences. Soil potentials provde a valid basis for a positive approach to making land use decisions that will help insure the prudent use of the vast land resources of this country. A distinct change in philosophy is identified. We believe the prospect for continuing success in land use planning for soil resource development is much greater when the effort is centered around the positive objective of maximizing the net productivity of the land rather than around the objective of avoiding problems or nuisances. As we gear our programs for the increasing needs of a public that is cognizant of land and its value, we turn our attention to more efficient and effective methods for delivering complex soil information. This is our challange. We must accurately predict the consequences of land use decisions in a more positive manner.


Soil Survey Investigations Dr. Klaus W. Flach* The properties of each kind of soil recognized by the National Cooperative Soil Survey have to be defined so that they can be identified uniquely and their potential for a great many uses accurately predicted. And, for efficient mapping and for the correct classification and interpretation of the many soils that have not been studied in detail, soil scientists must be able to predict from their knowledge of the effect of soil forming factors. Most of the investigations needed to achieve these goals are being conducted by soil scientists in the field as part of operational soil surveys. Specialists in soil survey investigations at the soil survey laboratories and the soil-geomorphology teams at the Technical Service Centers and specialists in data management and climatology at the Washington office assist them with hardware and expertise. Until recently the soil survey laboratories were concerned primarily with developing criteria for soil taxonomy and with providing the data needed for placing soils in the taxonomic system. Similarly, the soil geomorphology teams were concerned primarily with basic work on soil properties and processes of soil formation and their work was concentrated in areas where little basic information was available, such as upland desert areas, or in areas where old concepts needed to be reexamined, such as in the coastal plain of the southeastern states. Now that Soil Taxonomy is completed and soil surveys are being used increasingly for a great variety of purposes, the emphasis in Soil Survey Investigations is shifting. The goal of "Better Soil Surveys for Improving Production and the Environment"--the theme of this conference--requires relevant quantitative information for kinds of soils and the interaction of soils and management systems. Particularly, we need hard data on the behavior of water in the soil landscape, the interaction of kinds of soils with fertility tests and crop response, and the interaction of kinds of soils and potential pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides, or components of municipal, agricultural, or industrial wastes. We need this kind of information not only for areas with ongoing soil surveys but for areas with completed soil surveys as well. Hence, our efforts, more than in the past, will be concerned with the recorrelation, the reinterpretation, and the updating of old soil surveys.

*Director, Soil Survey Investigations Division, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D. C. 117

In order to meet these new challenges we need a versatile and flexible staff, more specialization than we have had in the past, and more specific assistance to individual problem areas. Also, the soil survey investigations staff needs to make sure that we make full use of our own data and the data generated by our cooperators in states and in other federal agencies. Increasingly, the Soil Survey Investigations staff will be devoted to relating these findings to named kinds of soils. At the same time we will need to continue work needed for soil classification, for the improvement of Soil Taxonomy, and for a better understanding of processes in soils that help us predict the occurrence and behavior of soils. In order to meet these challenges we will be combining our present three small laboratories into one centrally located unit at Lincoln, Nebraska. This laboratory will be large enough to take full advantage of modern equipment and automated data processing methods, thus speeding up the flow of data to the field and releasing the staff for some of the tasks mentioned before. The laboratory in Beltsville will move during the summer of 1975; the Riverside laboratory during the summer of 1976. The timing of the move was largely controlled by the move of the laboratory at Lincoln to a new Federal Center. Also, we will create soil survey investigations positions at the Technical Service Centers. These positions will be staffed by a geologist or a soil scientists with a strong background in geology, primarily in geomorphology. They will be working with party leaders and soil scientists at the state and TSC staffs on applied and basic problems of soil mapping, soil survey interpretations, and soil formation. They also will work closely with soil scientists at the soil survey laboratory who have responsibility for individual TSC's. These positions will, in part, be filled with staff members of the present soil-geomorphology teams.

0 _

In the area of data management we are improving the accessibility of our store of laboratory data through conventional publication in Soil Survey Investigations Reports and through automatic data processing. We have nearly completed the first set of Soil Survey Investigations Reports. Supplements to some of the earlier reports are being prepared. Some of the new reports and supplements will include data that had been generated by our cooperators at the Experiment Stations. They also will include the taxonomic placement of the pedons for which data were published in the previ&s SSIR for the state. An automated "Index of Soil Laboratory ‘Data” is ready for implementation. This indexing system provides an inventory and cross reference system for use with conventional filing systems.



The implementation of the pedon data subsystem--a fully computerized file of pedon descriptions and laboratory data--had been held up by the high cost of coding the pedon descriptions. We are hopeful that a second generation mark sense coding system will make it possible to code descriptions at a reasonable cost. A portion of our laboratory data already is in computer compatible form. The remainder will be entered through a universal program that can be used with a great variety of data sheets. Finally, the ADP staff of the Soil Survey Investigations Division is developing a soil survey management system for use at the national, the TSC, and the state level that will be basic to the success of the accelerated publication program and project soil surveys.


LANE INVEKCORY AND MONITORING R. I. Dideriksen* The Washington office Soil Survey Staff was reorganized in July 1973 to include a Land Inventory and Monitoring Division. The overall responsibility of the division is to plan, organize, coordinate, and give technical guidance to SCS inventory and monitoring programs including conservation needs. Scope of SCS Efforts in Inventorying and Monitoring There is marked increase in demand to provide data to users on (1) the kind, location and extent of soil, water, vegetation and related resources; (2) the potential of these resources for various uses; and (3) the changes and trends in the extent, use and condition of these resources. On-going and proposed programs of agencies, universities, and others reflect this need. Some of the inventory programs that SCS is involved in are as follows:



Wind Erosion Conditions in the Great Plains States


River Basin Studies


Conservation Needs Inventory (CNI)

4. Recreation Inventory 5.

Shoreline Erosion Study

6. Floodplain Mapping 7.

Sedimentation Studies in 420 reservoir sites


Resource Plans


Special Inventories - conversion to cropland; estimating cropland



The wide variety of SCS programs that use or generate resource inventories requires planning and coordination of activities carried out by the units, branches and divisions.


*Director, Land Inventory and Monitoring Division, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C. 121

LIM Division Activities No monies have been appropriated to implement a national land inventory ana monitoring program. However, there are a number of items that needed staff attention. Some have been completed and others are under study and evaluation. These are mentioned primarily to inform non-SCS representatives attending this conference. The activities are as follows: 1.

Identify USDA needs for data - Advisory LIM-4.


Provide definitions of and criteria and procedures for inventorying prime and unique farmlands, wetlands, flood-prone areas, and monitoring erosion and sedimentation - (Advisory LIM-12.


Make new cropland and erosion estimates for 1974 crop year (Advisory LIM-11).


Revise wind erosion condition report t