v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Acid Deposition,
Environmental Monitoring and
Quality Assurance
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/4-87/030a
September 1987
Research and Development
Direct/Delayed Response
Project: Field
Operations and Quality
Assurance Report for Soil
Sampling and
Preparation in the
Northeastern United
States
\
Volume I. Sampling
-------
EPA/600/4-87/0303
September 1987
Direct/Delayed Response Project:
Field Operations and Quality Assurance
Report for Soil Sampling and Preparation
in the Northeastern United States
Volume I: Sampling
by
D.S. Coffey
M.L. Papp, J.K. Bartz, and R.D. Van Remortel
J.J. Lee and D.A. Lammers
and
M.G. Johnson and G.R. Holdren
A Contribution to the
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
^ch ¥*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
[Environmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis, OR 97333
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas, NV 89193
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under contract number 68-03-3249 to Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Company, and under contract number 68-03-3246 to Northrop Services, Inc. It has been subject
to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA
document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is one volume of a set which fully describes the Direct/Delayed Response
Project, Northeast and Southeast soil surveys. The complete document set includes the major data
reports, quality assurance plans, analytical methods manuals, field operations reports, and quality
assurance reports. Similar sets are being produced for each Aquatic Effects Research Program
component project. Colored covers, artwork, and the use of the project name in the document title
serve to identify each companion document. The proper citation of this document remains:
Coffey, D. S1., M. L Papp2, J. K. Bartz2, R. D. Van Remortel2, J. J. Lee3, D. A. Lammer3, M. G.
Johnson*, and G. R. Holdren4. 1987. Direct/Delayed Response Project: Field Operations and
Quality Assurance Report for Soil Sampling and Preparation in the Northeastern United States,
Volume I: Sampling. EPA/600/4-87/030a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. 146 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc.; Bellevue, Washington 98005
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company; Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory; Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Northrop Services, Inc.; Corvallis, Oregon 97333
-------
Abstract
The Direct/Delayed Response Project is designed to address the concern over potential
acidification of surface waters by atmospheric deposition within the United States. The
Northeastern soil survey was conducted during the autumn of 1985 as a synoptic physical and
chemical survey to characterize watersheds located in a region of the United States believed to be
susceptible to the effects of acidic deposition. This document describes the planning activities and
summarizes field operations and quality assurance/quality control activities associated with soil
sampling activities of the Northeastern soil survey.
Prior to the regional soil survey, a pilot study was conducted to develop and test site location
protocols and field sampling procedures and to assess logistical constraints associated with
implementing these procedures. Twenty-five soil series and 51 pedons were sampled in New York,
Maine, and Virginia. From this study, a sampling site selection algorithm was developed to select
soil and vegetation classes for sampling activities in the Northeastern region. A total of 306
pedons were described and sampled in the Northeastern soil survey.
In general, soil sampling activities during the survey proceeded as planned. Pertinent
observations, problems, and concerns are discussed in this report and recommendations are made
for modification and improvements. These recommendations may be valuable to planners of similar
projects.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of contract number 68-03-3249 by Lockheed
Engineering and Sciences Company under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report covers a period from July 1985 to December 1986, and work was completed
as of September 1987.
HI
-------
Contents
Section Page
Abstract ii
Notice iii
Figures vii
Tables viii
List of Abbreviations ix
Acknowledgments x
1. Introduction 1
Background 1
Soil and Vegetation Surveys 2
Quality Assurance/Quality Control 2
Field Operations Documentation 2
The Northeastern Soil Survey 2
Mapping of Soils and Vegetation 2
Survey of the Surface Water 4
Pilot Soil Survey 4
Watershed Selection for the Soil Survey 4
Soil Mapping and Development Sampling Classes 4
Computer Program for Selection of Sampling Sites 5
Field Selection of Sampling Locations 5
Coordination of Sampling Activities 6
Exit Meeting 6
2. Field Operations 7
Preparation for Field Operations 7
Preparation Laboratories 7
Procurement of Equipment and Supplies 7
Protocol Development 7
Sampling Crew Training 8
Crew Assignment for Special Interest Watershed Sampling 8
Changes to Sampling Protocols 8
Soil Sampling 9
Site Selection 9
Site Restrictions 10
Sampling Difficulties Relating to Soil Characteristics 12
Equipment for Pedon Description and Sampling 13
Sample Sieving Protocol 16
Sample Labeling Discrepancies 16
Clod Sampling for Determination of Bulk Density 16
Field Data Forms and Codes for Pedon and Site Descriptions 17
Entry of Field Data by the Sampling Crews 18
Sample Transport and Storage 18
Preparation Laboratory Interactions and Responses 19
-------
Contents (continued)
Section Page
3. Quality Assurance Program 20
Data Quality Objectives 20
Sampling Objectives 20
Fulfillment of Objectives 22
Quality Assurance Evaluations and Audits 22
Evaluations by the Regional Correlator/Coordinator 23
Evaluations by the Soil Conservation Service State Staff 24
Audits by Quality Assurance Staff 24
Review of Log Books 25
Review of Sampling Log Books 25
Review of Sample Receipt Log Books 26
Collection of Field Duplicates 33
Review of Profile Descriptions 35
Paired Pedon Descriptions 35
Independent Pedon Descriptions 37
Data Entry and Management 39
Soil Mapping Data Files 39
Soil Sampling Data Files 40
4. Recommendations and Conclusions 41
Recommendations 41
Site Selection 41
Sampling Difficulties 41
Equipment 41
Sample Sieving 42
Clod Sampling for Determination of Bulk Density 42
Field Data Forms and Codes 42
Regional Correlator/Coordinator Evaluations 42
Soil Conservation Service State Staff Evaluations 43
Quality Assurance Staff Audits 43
Sampling Log Books 43
Sample Receipt Log Books 44
Independent Pedon Descriptions 44
Conclusions 44
References 45
Appendices
A. Sampling and Preparation Laboratory Protocols for the Direct/Delayed
Response Project Soil Survey 47
B. Changes to Protocols 117
C. Letter to Landowner 124
D. Sampling Class Information 126
E. New York Sampling Phase Outline and Checklist 139
VI
-------
Figures
Number Page
1 Design for the Direct/Delayed Response Project Soil Survey 3
2 Recommended title page for sampling log books 27
3 Recommended index page for sampling log books 28
4 Recommended format for site location notes 29
5 Recommended format for sampling notes 30
6 Recommended format for slide key 32
7 Recommended format for sample receipt log books 34
VII
-------
Tables
Number Page
1 Summary of Routine Soil Sampling during 1985 9
2 Pedons Disqualified from Sampling 11
3 Pedons Sampled under a Vegetation Class Different from that Specified 11
4 Pedons with Possible Contamination or Other Characteristics that may
Affect Analytical Results 14
5 Summary of On-Site Evaluations and Audits 23
6 Summary of the Qualitative Differences Between Paired Pedons 36
7 Summary of Independent Pedon Descriptions Evaluated 38
VIII
-------
List of Abbreviations
DDRP Direct/Delayed Response Project
DQO Data quality objective
ELS Eastern Lake Survey
EMSL-LV Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas, Nevada
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERL-C Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis, Oregon
FD Field duplicate
GIS Geographic Information System
NADSS National Acid Deposition Soil Survey
NAPAP National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
NCSS National Cooperative Soil Survey
NSWS National Surface Water Survey
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
QA Quality assurance
QAMS Quality Assurance Management Staff
QC Quality control
RCC Regional Correlator/Coordinator
SAF Society of American Foresters
SCS Soil Conservation Service
IX
-------
Ackno wledgments
Critical reviews by the following individuals are gratefully acknowledged: D. E. Corrigan,
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; J. S. Lohse, Illinois Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Farmland Protection, Springfield, Illinois; and C. J. Palmer, Environmental
Research Center, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.
A draft of this report was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., under the direction of D. S. Coffey,
for Northrop Services, Inc. in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 450084356. R. Barrick of Tetra Tech,
Inc. was the project manager. The draft was edited by W. J. Erckmann.
Information or review was provided by R. E. Cameron, K. A. Cappo, and Sevda Drouse,
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company, Las Vegas, Nevada; R. D. Schonbrod, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas,
Nevada; J. Warner, Naples, Florida; L. Liegel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon; M. Morrison and J. Sprenger, Northrop Services, Inc,
Corvallis, Oregon; and the following staff of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service: R. Babcock (Maine), D. Grice and S. Hundley (Massachusetts), G. Lipscomb (Pennsylvania),
F. Gilbert (New York), K. Wheeler (New York), E. Sautter (Connecticut), and S. Pilgrim (New
Hampshire).
The assistance of L. A. Stanley, Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company, Las Vegas,
Nevada, in preparing the figures for publication is appreciated.
Finally, the assistance of the Technical Monitor, L. J. Blume, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring System Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada is gratefully
acknowledged.
-------
Section 1
Introduction
Background
The Direct/Delayed Response Project
(DDRP) is an integral part of the acidic deposi-
tion research program of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA
program is conducted under the federally
mandated National Acid Precipitation Assess-
ment Program (NAPAP) which addresses the
concern over potential acidification of surface
waters by atmospheric deposition within the
United States. DDRP is administered by the
EPA Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon (ERL-C).
The overall purpose of DDRP is to
characacterize geographic regions of the
United States by predicting the long-term re-
sponse of watersheds and surface waters to
acidic deposition. Two regions were selected
for study because of their apparent history of
sensitivity to acidic deposition: the North-
eastern region of the United States and the
southwestern portion of the Blue Ridge
Province. Based on the results of previous
surface water surveys conducted by EPA and
on data from DDRP, each watershed system
in these two regions will be assigned one of
the following three classifications. Each cate-
gory is defined according to the time scale in
which the system is assumed to reach steady-
state conditions at current levels of acidic
deposition:
• Direct Response - Watersheds with
surface waters that are either pres-
ently acidic (alkalinity is less than 0)
or will become acidic within a few (3
to 4) mean water residence times
(less than 10 years).
• Delayed Response - Watersheds in
which surface waters will become
acidic after a period of from a few
mean water residence times to sev-
eral decades (within 10 to 100 years).
Capacity Protected - Watersheds in
which surface waters will not become
acidic for centuries to millennia.
Two specific objectives of the
regional soil surveys are as follows:
DDRP
• To characterize the variability of the
physical, chemical, and mineralogical
properties of soils sampled in water-
sheds in the regions of concern.
• To define other descriptive watershed
characteristics, e.g., vegetation type
and depth to bedrock, of the regions
of concern.
Data from the DDRP research will be
collected and analyzed at three levels:
• Level I - System description and sta-
tistical analysis.
• Level II - Single factor response-time
estimates.
• Level III - Dynamic systems modeling.
Field and laboratory data collected in the
aquatic, soil, and vegetation surveys will com-
prise the system description in Level I. Next,
these data will be used in Level II to develop
single factor estimates of the response time
of watershed properties, e.g., sulfate adsorp-
tion capacity, to acidic deposition. Finally, the
detailed data from special interest watersheds
will be used in Level III to calibrate three
dynamic simulation models, MAGIC (Cosby et
al., 1984), ILWAS (Chen et al., 1984), and
-------
Trickle-Down (Schnoor et al., 1984), that predict
regional ecosystem response to acidic deposi-
tion. The response-time estimates developed
in Level II will be used in these calibrated
simulation models to predict regional
responses to acidic deposition.
Soil and Vegetation Surveys
DDRP is comprised of three component
survey activities: soil mapping, vegetation
mapping, and soil sampling. The soil mapping
and vegetation mapping tasks were the
responsibility of ERL-C. The soil sampling was
conducted as a cooperative effort of two EPA
laboratories under the management of the
technical director at ERL-C. The soil sampling
task leader at ERL-C had overall responsibility
for the soil sampling including quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for the site
selection and profile descriptions. Logistical
support and sampling, preparation, and analyt-
ical QA/QC support were provided by the EPA
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
located in Las Vegas, Nevada (EMSL-LV).
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
A QA/QC program was developed to
assure the validity of the profile description
and sampling efforts of the DDRP Soil Survey.
The integrity of the sampling activities affects
the ultimate quality of data derived from the
physical, chemical, and mineralogical analyses
of the samples. The QA/QC program was
designed to assess data quality so that poten-
tial users of the data may determine if the
data meet their project needs.
In addition, the QA/QC program was
designed to assure that the data are compar-
able. To achieve comparability, soils were
described and sampled according to docu-
mented protocols (see Appendix A), although
special interest watersheds were sampled
using slightly modified protocols. Laboratory
analyses were conducted according to docu-
mented protocols (Cappo et al., 1987).
Field Operations Documentation
This report documents field operations
during sampling activities in the Northeastern
Soil Survey, and evaluates compliance with the
protocols provided to the sampling crews.
Deviations from the protocols are documented,
data for profile descriptions are reviewed, and
an evaluation is made of the potential effect of
these deviations on the validity of the sampling
and the integrity of the samples. In addition,
this report recommends modifications to the
sampling protocols that should be considered
for future surveys.
This report was primarily developed from
the following sources of information:
• Documents referenced in this report.
• Sampling log books.
• Field data forms.
• Photographic slides of each pedon
sampled.
• Audit reports by QA/QC staff.
• Sample receipt log books.
• Project reports to EPA management.
• Interviews of project participants.
• Notes from the meeting held at the
close of the sampling and preparation
activities.
The Northeastern Soil Survey
The Northeastern Soil Survey included the
states of Maine, New York, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Massachusetts. In New York
and Massachusetts, special interest water-
sheds were sampled as part of this survey.
The design of the soil survey is presented
schematically in Figure 1.
Mapping of Soils and Vegetation
Soil mapping and vegetation mapping
were conducted in accordance with the proto-
cols described in Lammers et al. (in prepara-
tion). Mapping was conducted primarily by
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil scientists
under interagency agreements between EPA
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
In some states, SCS subcontracted cooper-
ators at land-grant universities and private
-------
SAMPLING DESIGN
PILOT SOIL SURVEY
(ERL-C)
WATERSHED SELECTION
(ERL-C1
WATERSHED MAPPING
SELECTION OF SOILS
SOIL SAMPLING AND
FIELD MEASUREMENTS
SOIL PREPARATION
(EMSL-LV)
CONTRACT LABORATORY
ANALYSES
DATA VERIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT
(ORNU
ANDREPORT.NG
DATA VALIDATION
Figure 1. Design for the Direct/Delayed Response Project Soil Survey.
-------
consultants, and temporarily hired other indi-
viduals for staffing the sampling crews.
Survey of the Surface Water
The National Surface Water Survey
(NSWS) is a NAPAP program designed and
implemented by EPA to conduct a chemical
survey of lakes and streams located in regions
of the Eastern United States believed to be
susceptible to the effects of acidic deposition.
Phase I of this program included the Eastern
Lakes Survey (ELS), conducted in the fall of
1984. Of the 1,763 lakes visited during the
survey, 1,612 were sampled. Chemical charac-
terizations were performed on 2,399 samples
from these lakes. Sampling was not undertak-
en if lakes were ice covered or thermally
stratified, the specific conductance of the
water exceeded 1,500 ^S/cm, or landing condi-
tions for the sampling helicopters were
hazardous.
Pilot Soil Survey
Concurrent with ELS in 1984, a pilot soil
survey was conducted in Maine and New York
in the northeastern region and in Virginia in the
southeastern region. The pilot study provided
information for planning and designing the
Northeastern Soil Survey. Complete details of
the pilot survey are provided in Chapter 3 'of
the DDRP Action Plan/Implementation Protocol
(U.S. EPA, 1985) and in Reuss and Walthall
(1987).
Watershed Selection for the Soil
Survey
The 773 watersheds included in the
northeastern region of the ELS were used to
determine possible watersheds to be sampled
in the Northeastern Soil Survey. A stratifica-
tion model based on alkalinity was used to
examine physical and chemical data from the
ELS and to set boundaries for the strata.
Lakes were grouped into three strata, defining
149 possible low alkalinity watersheds for
mapping and Soil Sampling activities for the
Northeastern Soil Survey. The watershed
selection method is detailed in chapters 2, 3,
and 4 of the DDRP Action Plan/Implementation
Protocol (U.S. EPA, 1985).
Soil Mapping and
Sampling Classes
Development
The objective of the soil mapping was to
identify soil types occurring within the water-
sheds, so that similar soils could be grouped
into sampling classes. Mapping for the North-
eastern Soil Survey was conducted from April
through July, 1985. The protocols used in
mapping are detailed in Chapter 7 of the DDRP
Action Plan/Implementation Protocol (U.S. EPA,
1985). A separate field operations report
discusses mapping activities in the northeast-
ern region (Lammers et al., in preparation).
Initial criteria for the development of the
sampling classes were as follows:
• Group similar soils so that the varia-
bility within a sampling class is less
than the variability between sampling
classes.
• Restrict the number of sampling
classes that have limited occurrence
in the watersheds studies, i.e., that
occur only in less than 5 percent of
the watersheds.
• Restrict the number of sampling
classes having a total mapping area
of less than 200 acres, i.e., 83
hectares (ha) or about 0.1 percent of
the overall area mapped in the region.
The final step was to identify sampling
classes in specific watersheds for sampling.
The sampling classes were selected to satisfy
the following criteria:
• Characterize all sampling classes at
similar levels of precision.
• Include the variation in soil character-
istics over the watersheds selected
for sampling.
• Include the variation in soil character-
istics over the clusters developed from
the ELS data.
The definition of sampling classes was
accomplished at the soil correlation and sam-
pling class selection workshops at Saranac
-------
Lake, New York, July 9 through 11, 1985, and
at Corvallis, Oregon, July 16 through 18, 1985.
The procedures developed to satisfy the sam-
pling objectives are presented in the QA plan
(Bartz et al., 1987) and are detailed in the
Definition of Soil Sampling Classes and
Selection of Sampling Sites for the Northeast
(U.S. EPA, 1986).
Computer Program
of Sampling Sites
for Selection
The algorithm for watershed and sam-
pling site selection was applied using a per-
sonal computer programmed to obtain a list of
possible sampling classes for each watershed.
The subsequent steps were performed manu-
ally by ERL-C staff.
A watershed map with soil mapping
units delineated by sampling class was used
in conjunction with a 1-ha by 1-ha mylar grid
overlay. Random coordinates were generated
by a computer program, and located on the
grid. If the resulting point did not fall within a
soil mapping unit containing the sampling
class chosen for that watershed, then another
random coordinate point was chosen using
the program. If the point fell on a mapping
unit that was a soil complex, a random proce-
dure was used to ensure that the probability
of accepting the point was approximately
equal to the proportion of the sampling class
within the complex (see Appendix A, Section
2.5.2, Step 4).
This process was repeated until five
random points located within mapping units
containing the correct sampling class were
designated in the watershed. The points were
numbered 1 through 5, in the order of selec-
tion, and plotted on the base map. In addi-
tion, a vegetation class associated with the
sampling class was defined for each point.
Copies of the resulting maps and lists of the
assigned sampling and vegetation classes
were then given to the SCS for site selection
purposes.
The method for sampling site selection
as described above presented problems when
applied to sampling classes that occur as a
long, narrow component on the landscape.
For these sampling classes, fifty or more
random coordinates were often generated
before five points were located within the area
of the sampling class. Therefore, a second
selection method was developed by ERL-C
statisticians to reduce the time required to
choose five points while satisfying the re-
quirements for a random selection. This
second method involved the following steps:
(1) overlaying the 1-ha by 1-ha mylar dot grid
on the watershed map; (2) numbering all
points that fell into mapping units contained in
the selected sampling class consecutively from
1 to n; (3) defining the appropriate random
number window size which was dependent on
the number of points in the sampling class
delineations; and, (4) selecting sampling sites
1 through 5 using a five-digit random number
table.
For cases in which complexes were
under consideration for sampling, an additional
keep/reject criterion was applied. Usually the
final two, or occasionally three, digits were
used for the selection process. However, in
complexes, using the occurrence of the sam-
pling class within the sampling unit to the
nearest 10 percent as an index, the sampling
point was incorporated as a selected site only
if the occurrence was greater than or equal to
the first digit of the random number. There-
fore, the point was rejected as a sampling site
when the occurrence was less than the ran-
dom number with 0 representing 10, because
only the major soils were sampled.
Field Selection of Sampling
Locations
The sampling crews used the watershed
base map and the protocol presented in the
field manual (Appendix A) to locate the sam-
pling locations. This system assured a high
probability for locating a point within the
correct sampling class and vegetation class.
Routine soil sampling conducted by the
SCS characterizes soils on the landscape by
using descriptive soil series characteristics
based on a non-random, highly selective sam-
pling design. The DDRP Soil Survey differs
from this routine in that it is based on the
random selection of sampling locations within
a region of concern. This experimental design,
i.e., random sampling of soil pedons, allows
derivation of statistically valid inferences
concerning watershed responses to acidic
deposition. These data can then be applied in
the Level III modeling effort.
-------
To fulfill the data requirements for
calibration of the acid deposition response
models, sampling sites in special interest
watersheds were not selected randomly.
Instead, the sampling crew was sent to a
specified point and instructed to sample a soil
that was intended to represent the specific
watershed or portion of the watershed from
which it was obtained.
Coordination of Sampling
Activities
Weekly conference calls between SCS
and EPA staff were used to discuss and
resolve matters involving sampling protocols
and site location difficulties, as well as to
review the status of sampling operations and
to identify access difficulties, e.g., the need for
a helicopter or pontoon plane to access a
watershed. In addition, the conference calls
also provided regular communication to ensure
that all SCS staff were informed of protocol
modifications and issues of concern. Major
issues resulting from these discussions were
documented in the DDRP team reports by the
soil sampling task leader.
Exit Meeting
Following soil sampling activities in the
northeastern region, an exit meeting was held
January 6 through 7, 1986, in Las Vegas,
Nevada. Meeting participants included SCS
staff from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania;
representatives from the sampling crews;
ERL-C and EMSL-LV DDRP staff; representa-
tives from Northrop Services, Inc. (technical
and support staff for ERL-C), Lockheed Engi-
neering and Sciences Company, (technical and
support staff for EMSL-LV), Oak Ridge Nation-
al Laboratory (ORNL), and the Northeast
National Technical Center; and a representative
of the Tennessee SCS state office staff (pro-
viding Southern Blue Ridge Province represen-
tation).
-------
Section 2
Field Operations
Preparation for Field Operations
EMSL-LV was responsible for contracting
preparation laboratories, procuring equipment
and supplies, and developing sampling proto-
cols prior to the initiation of soil sampling
activities. The approach to these tasks is
summarized in the following sections.
Preparation Laboratories
Preparation laboratory staff were
responsible for storing samples received from
the sampling crews, preparing soils for analy-
sis (i.e., drying, sieving, and shipping samples
to the analytical laboratories), determining the
percentage of rock fragments, testing for the
presence of carbonate, and determining the
bulk density of clod samples. In addition,
preparation laboratory staff initially distributed
field equipment and supplies, received re-
quests from the sampling crews for additional
equipment and supplies, and inventoried the
equipment returned by the sampling crews at
the end of the sampling effort.
Four preparation laboratories were con-
tracted by EMSL-LV to provide the services
summarized above. The laboratory locations
and states assigned to each laboratory are
provided below:
Preparation Laboratory State Assignments
University of Massachusetts MA, VT, NH
Stockbridge Hall
Amherst, Massachusetts
University of Connecticut CT, RI
Plant Science Department
Soil Characterization Laboratory
Storrs, Connecticut
University of Maine ME
Department of Soil Science
Orono, Maine
Cornell University NY, PA
Department of Agronomy
Ithaca, New York
Procurement of Equipment and
Supplies
A detailed listing of equipment and
supplies is presented in Section 8.0 of Appen-
dix A. Most of the materials were provided by
EPA, although SCS personnel used their own
equipment and supplies in some cases.
Most equipment and supplies were
procured under the direction of EMSL-LV. Cost
estimates were obtained from at least three
suppliers. The overall cost, shipping charges,
and delivery of the purchase within the re-
quired time frame were considered prior to the
initiation of a support contractor purchase
request for each item. For some specialty
supplies, e.g., clod storage boxes, a sole
source justification was required.
EMSL-LV was responsible for shipping
equipment and supplies to the preparation
laboratories via air courier, and the preparation
laboratory personnel distributed the materials
to the sampling crews. Other equipment was
supplied directly to SCS personnel by ERL-C.
Protocol Development
A detailed manual was developed to
emphasize and modify SCS National Coopera-
tive Soil Survey procedures for accomplishing
the objectives of the soil survey. This
-------
document includes procedures for samp-
ling, describing, and preparing soils (see
Appendix A).
Sampling procedures for the special
interest watersheds were modified by ERL-C
and provided directly to the sampling crew
assigned to special interest watersheds.
These modifications were necessary because
of the intended use of the data for model
testing and calibration. Protocol modifications
for site selection of the special interest water-
sheds resulted in the collection of representa-
tive, but not random, samples.
The intensity of horizon sampling was
also modified for the special interest water-
sheds, as follows. Horizons in the pedon
normally were subdivided for sampling if they
were greater than 20 cm (8 inches) in thick-
ness. In no case should sampling intervals
have exceeded 20 cm (8 inches) in thickness,
regardless of the perceived uniformity of the
horizon or its position within the pedon.
Although in some cases it may have been
necessary to deviate from these guidelines,
sampling crews were encouraged to follow
them as carefully as possible, because a
primary objective of the special interest water-
shed study was to intensively sample the
pedons for within-profile variations. The ideal
sample would have contained all soil materials
from the horizon within the pedon, but in
actuality this was not a practical measure.
Sampling Crew Training
EPA personnel involved in the sampling
effort, SCS personnel, and others contracted
by the SCS participated in a sampling work-
shop in Orono, Maine, from August 7 through
8, 1985. The purpose of the workshop was to
review the sampling protocols, to review the
field data forms and codes used for pedon
description, and to participate in a field exer-
cise following the specified protocols. Two
soils were sampled: a typical Northern forest
soil (Spodosol) and a wet, bog soil (Histosol).
Sampling crew identification numbers and the
preparation laboratory to which each crew was
to submit samples were assigned during the
workshop. Questions pertaining to protocols,
particularly sample labeling, were discussed.
Some protocols were revised as a result of
this workshop. A revised field sampling manu-
al was prepared to incorporate the appropriate
modifications that were discussed at this
workshop, and the manual was sent to the
sampling crews on September 18, 1985. Sam-
pling was underway at that time.
The New York and Maine sampling crews
spent additional days training in the field as a
group before sampling was initiated. This
allowed the crews within a state to develop
consistent methods and to review the proto-
cols, particularly for labeling samples and
using the field data form codes.
Crew Assignment for Special
Interest Watershed Sampling
Special interest watersheds in New York
(Woods Lake, Clear Pond, and Panther Lake)
and Massachusetts (Caldwell Creek) were
sampled by the members of the New Hamp-
shire sampling crew (NH01). This crew was
assigned the designations NY04 in New York
and MA03 in Massachusetts to differentiate it
from the routine sampling crews.
Changes to Sampling Protocols
Prior to the initiation of sampling, the
field manual was reviewed by the sampling
crews and SCS state staff. Procedures were
field tested during the first few weeks of
sampling, and some modifications were sug-
gested. This review subsequently resulted in
editorial changes and two major protocol
modifications for using the field data forms
(DDRP Team Report No. 3, September 20,
1985):
• The field data form required entry of
latitude-longitude. There was some
confusion whether this referred to the
latitude-longitude for the lake on the
watershed or to the latitude-longitude
of the sampling site. The sampling
crews were instructed via the SCS to
enter the latitude-longitude of the
sampling site.
• For some thick soil horizons, separate
samples were obtained from the
upper and lower portions. Originally
the protocol was interpreted that both
samples were to be given the same
sample code, and were to be distin-
guished by an additional code (U or L)
on the sample label. This protocol
-------
was clarified such that the sample
code was recognized as the identifica-
tion of a unique sample, i.e., the
sample code identified a separate
sample rather than a specific horizon.
Therefore, each portion of the thick
horizon was assigned a different
sample code, and the sample code
for two samples would appear on
different lines of the field data form.
In addition, two minor changes in proto-
col were adopted (DDRP Team Report No. 1,
September 9, 1985):
• Because sampling to a depth of
150 cm was impractical in C horizons
composed of dense, compact till, the
crews were instructed to sample near
the top of the horizon and to verify,
e.g., by a soil core, that the horizon
was unchanged to 150 cm.
• Original protocol had required photo-
graphs of soil profiles to be taken
with either a macro or wide-angle
lens. This requirement was changed
to specify a wide-angle lens only.
As mentioned above, a revised field
sampling manual (Appendix A) incorporating
the appropriate changes from the sampling
workshop (Appendix B) was sent to the sam-
pling crews on September 18, 1985 (DDRP
Team Report Number 3, September 20, 1985).
Soil Sampling
Soil sampling operations cover a wide
range of activities including site selection, pit
excavation, photographic documentation,
pedon description, and soil sampling. Sam-
pling protocols are described in Appendix A.
The following sections discuss problems and
concerns associated with the implementation
of the required sampling protocols. Recom-
mendations are also presented to modify and
improve the protocols for use in future region-
al soil surveys.
Sampling activities were initiated during
the week of August 12, 1985, in Maine; the
week of August 19, 1985, in New York; and the
week of August 26, 1985, in Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Pennsyl-
vania (DDRP Team Report No. 1, September 9,
1985). All 306 routine pedons had been
sampled by November 15, 1985. This met the
target date for completion of sampling. A
summary of soil sampling activities is provided
in Table 1.
The special interest watersheds were
sampled during the fall: from October 26
through November 2, 1985, in New York; and
from November 15 through 18, 1985, in
Massachusetts.
It should be noted that soil sampling
activities were begun during unusually dry
conditions. Then, cyclonic activity, accentuated
by Hurricane Gloria, resulted in excessive
rainfall within a short time period during the
week of September 23, 1985. Locally, this
caused treef alls and road washouts restricting
site access and precluding sampling for
several weeks.
Site Selection
One of the initial responsibilities of the
sampling crew leader was to assess sampling
site locations. The watershed maps provided
by ERL-C were reviewed to determine the
physical accessibility of each site and whether
it was located on private or public land.
Table 1. Summary of Routine Soil Sampling during 1985
States
Number of Pedons
Designated Sampled
TOTAL
319
306
Dates of Sampling
Initial Final
Connecticut, Rhode Island
Massachusetts, Vermont
Maine
New Hampshire
New York
Pennsylvania
26
58
86
30
88
31
23
54
83
30
85
31
8/26
8/26
8/12
8/26
8/19
8/26
10/29
10/7
10/30
10/8
11/1
11/7
8/26
11/7
'' Determined from a review of sampling log books.
-------
On one watershed, sampling sites had to
be reassigned. In this case, only the
upperreaches of the South Lake watershed in
New York were originally mapped. When
sampling site locations were assigned, it was
unclear as to whether the whole watershed or
only the mapped subcatchment was to be
considered for sampling. When the rest of the
watershed was mapped, new sampling sites
were selected; however, the newly mapped
area did not contain any soils of the desired
sampling class. Therefore, the newly selected
sites were located in the upper reaches of the
South Lake watershed as originally assigned
(DDRP Team Report No. 5, October 3, 1985).
Site Restrictions
Physical Inaccessibility--
Sites were defined as physically inacces-
sible if all alternatives for approaching the
area were eliminated or if the site were under
water. Most sampling points were physically
accessible. Pontoon helicopters and fixed-
wing aircraft support were available for diffi-
cult sites, but could not be used within the
wilderness areas of the Adirondacks. If a lake
were of sufficient size and presented no dis-
cernable obstacles, pontoon planes were
landed on the lake. No information was avail-
able regarding the use of fixed-wing aircraft
for access to specific sites. Helicopters were
reserved as a vehicular option for watersheds
containing smaller lakes. Helicopters were
used for access to the following three water-
sheds in New York:
• Cheney Pond (watershed identification
1A3-042).
• North Branch Lake (1A2-042).
• South Lake (1A3-065).
There were no identifiable problems associated
with this operation.
Access Denied--
In some cases sites were not sampled
because access was denied by private land-
owners. Early in the survey it was suggested
that an official letter to the landowners on EPA
letterhead (see Appendix C) would be helpful
to explain why access was necessary and to
assure landowners that the sampling crews
were representing the EPA in a national
environmental research program. Subse-
quently, sampling crew leaders reported that
the letter was helpful in gaining access and
permission to obtain samples on privately
owned land.
In Pennsylvania it was found that
many sites were located on private land.
Accordingly, Pennsylvania SCS staff de-
termined ownership and requested access for
all sites before the initiation of sampling in
that state. However, access was often
granted for only two or three of the selected
starting points for the assigned sampling
class on a watershed. This consequently
limited the number of potential starting points
available for site selection.
In other states, access was requested
just before the sampling crews prepared to
sample each watershed. Four pedons were
eliminated because access was denied for all
sites which met the predetermined soil and
vegetation criteria (see Table 2).
Inappropriate Site Conditions-
Occasionally a pedon was eliminated
from the list of selected pedons because of
unfavorable conditions observed at the site.
These conditions included flooded sites and
highly disturbed areas, e.g., parking lots or
housing developments built on fill. These
locations were considered inappropriate for the
DDRP regional characterization of soils (see
Table 2).
Vegetation Class Considerations--
Vegetation classes were determined from
data obtained during the watershed mapping.
Vegetation classes recorded during this map-
ping activity were identified using Society of
American Foresters (SAF) cover types (Eyre,
1980); however, vegetation classes specified
for the soil survey were based on an aggrega-
tion of SAF cover types (see Appendix A,
Section 2.1). In some cases the cover types
selected from the mapping could not be found
at the site during sampling. Discrepancies
were attributed to the method used to group
mapping units into sampling classes, mapping
error, or vegetative changes at the site be-
tween the time of mapping and sampling.
Table 3 provides a list of all identified sites
that were sampled under a cover type other
10
-------
Table 2. Pedons Disqualified from Sampling"
Watershed
ID
1C2-048
1C2-048
1D1-031
1D1-068
1D2-049
1D2-093
1D3-033
1E1-061
1E 1-077
1E1-123
Name
Cranberry Pond
Cranberry Pond
Kings Pond
Little Sandy Pond
Spring Grove Pond
Ashland Reservoir
No name
Little Seavy Lake
Long Pond
First Pond
State
NY
NY
MA
MA
RI
MA
CT
ME
ME
ME
Sampling
Class
121
121
H3
H3
E6
140
E6
138
S01
138
Reason
Access denied
Access denied
Seasonal flooding
Access denied
Disturbed soil
Routine pedon
not requested
Disturbed soil
Access denied
Wrong sampling class
Flooded by beaver
Pedon Type6
R.P
R
R
R,P
R,P
P
R
R
R
R
a Modified from DDRP Team Report No. 8, October 31, 1985.
b Pedon type: R = routine, P = paired.
Table 3. Pedons Sampled under a Vegetation Class Different from that Specified
Watershed
ID
1A3-048
1B3-052
1C2-050
1C2-054
1C3-063
1D3-002
1D3-003
1E2-038
Name
Grass Pond
No Name
Moore's Pond
Lake Wampanoag
Martin Meadow
Pond
Dyke's Pond
Sandy Pond
Nelson Pond
State
NY
NY
MA
MA
NH
MA
MA
ME
Sampling
Class
12
125
140
S01
138
E6
141
S11
Vegetation Class
Requested Sampled
Open, wetland
Open, dry
Mixed
(Pine-Hemlock)
Hardwood
Hardwood
mapped as conifer
Mixed
Open, Wetland
Hardwood
mapping
Conifer
Mixed hardwood
Conifer
Mixed
Hardwood
Open
Mixed hardwood
Open, logged since
than the vegetation class originally specified.
In some instances, permission to alter the
specified vegetation class was obtained from
ERL-C or EMSL-LV staff prior to sampling.
In other instances, the sampling crews
sampled the required sampling class, but
noted difficulties in locating the appropriate
sampling class beneath the specified vege-
tation type.
It should be noted that the vegetation at
a sampling site might be nominally different in
terms of percentage from the required vegeta-
tion class and still fit the class. This is be-
cause the vegetation mapping units were not
pure for a given vegetation class, e.g., a coni-
fer class could contain a mixture of up to a 20
percent stand of hardwoods and still meet the
criteria for a conifer mapping unit. Sampling
crews were instructed to consider vegetation
located in the proximity of the site in order to
meet suitable sampling criteria. Comments
made at the exit meeting indicated that this
assessment was not performed consistently
by all sampling crews, i.e., some crews con-
sidered only the vegetation directly above the
point to be sampled.
Effect of Disqualification on the
Number of Pedons Sampled for Each
Sampling Class-
Of the six sampling classes from which
pedons were disqualified (see Table 2), only
sampling class 121 appears to be underrepre-
sented with regard to samples with three
pedons disqualified and only two pedons
sampled. It is likely that not enough samples
exist to characterize the variability of this
sampling class. Three pedons each were
disqualified from sampling classes E6 and H3;
however, six pedons were sampled for each
sampling class. Two pedons were disqualified
from 138, one from 140, and one from S01; the
number of pedons sampled for those
sampling classes were seven, nine, and
seven, respectively.
11
-------
Protocol Adherence--
A problem was identified at the exit
meeting that affected sample class determina-
tions because the crews had varying percep-
tions of what constituted a sampling class.
Some decided, erroneously, that sampling
classes were restricted to specific soil series.
This interpretation would lead to rejection of
pedons that met the broad criteria for a sam-
pling class but not the narrow criteria for a
series. The correct approach should be em-
phasized in the protocols for future surveys by
providing a specific definition of "sampling
class", a flowchart indicating soils included in
the sampling class (see Appendix D), and
instructions on the use of the flowchart. It
should be stated that series criteria are not an
overriding factor for selecting a site within the
sampling class.
The site selection protocol was adhered
to by all sampling crews except MA01. Proto-
col deviations by MA01 were noted in the
sampling log book entries and QA auditor's
report. The primary protocol deviation was
failure to observe the 20-foot interval require-
ment along random transects from the origi-
nally specified sampling point to an acceptable
sampling point. The following are excerpts
from the MA01 sampling log book (pp. 16 and
17) and from an audit report, respectively:
"There were two points designated within
this watershed for the 140 sampling
class. They were both in the same map
unit. This map unit has several homes
and roads within it and two marsh
symbols. There is a limited area suitable
for sampling, so I decided to locate the
sampling site within a wooded, vacant
lot."
"The protocol deviations used by the
crew are as follows. The first involved
site selection. Protocol was followed-
up until pacing the transects at 20-foot
intervals. As vegetation was important
in the selection, pacing proceeded until
the correct vegetation was located."
Additional MA01 logbook entries did not indi-
cate any obvious site selection protocol devia-
tions. The entry corresponding with the audit
visit did not detail site selection procedures or
provide evidence of the incorrect site selection
protocols observed by the auditor.
Often insufficient information was pro-
vided in the log books to determine what site
selection procedures were used. Conversely,
highly detailed site selection discussions were
provided in the sampling log books for some
pedons. It appears that the auditor did not
discuss these protocol deviations with the
MA01 sampling crew or mention the impor-
tance of randomized site selection.
Recommendations for Site
Selection-
In Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Maine, the SCS state office staff
determined the sampling site locations for
many pedons. The sampling crews were
directed to a flagged location. This procedure
enabled the field crew to sample two pedons
per day. Sampling crews were also able to
label sample bags and fill out a portion of the
field data form before arriving at the site. This
was not the routine procedure for other states,
but it is recommended that this procedure be
considered as an option to facilitate sampling.
Sampling Difficulties Relating to
Soil Characteristics
Histosols-
In many instances where the sampling
class required that a Histosol be sampled,
inherent difficulties in description and sampling
were encountered. In these wet organic soils,
excavating a pedon for description and
sampling was not possible. Therefore, sam-
ples were obtained using an auger or post-
hole digger, and placed on plastic sheets for
description.
In one instance, the sampling log book
stated that the sampling crew had to remove
the organic borings by hand because the
material would not remain in the auger. The
primary concern in sampling these soils is the
possibility of contaminating subsurface sam-
ples, because the deeper horizons must neces-
sarily be recovered through the surface hori-
zons. Additional difficulties can occur in
reconstructing the soil profile and determining
12
-------
accurate horizon designations and boundaries.
Variability in horizon thickness further compli-
cates the collection of discrete, uncontami-
nated samples.
Wet or Saturated Mineral Soils-
A number of pedons were sampled at
locations that were extremely wet or subject
to a high water table. These sites included
pedons with water seepage that advanced into
the bottom of the pit, as well as those with
partial or complete saturation of the profile.
A number of measures were implemented
for sampling wet soils in order to reduce the
likelihood of sample contamination. As dis-
cussed in the previous section, boring was one
method used to collect wet samples. In less
extreme situations, water could be removed
from the bottom of the pit by hand bailing or
by the use of mechanical and hand pumps. In
addition, sampling was initiated at the bottom
of the pit and progressed upward in an effort
to avoid sample contamination as water rose
in the pit. From an assessment of log book
comments, all crews seemed cognizant of the
need to prevent sample contamination.
The protocols for sampling saturated
soils were discussed at the exit meeting. It
was agreed that, whenever possible, ground-
water should be removed from soil pits before
sampling. When no other sampling method is
feasible, a bucket auger or post-hole digger
can be used to obtain satisfactory soil sam-
ples. In future surveys, the use of bucket
augers or post-hole diggers should be docu-
mented on the field data form and in the log
book.
It was recommended that EMSL-LV pro-
vide hand pumps to the sampling crews for
future surveys. In addition, it was suggested
that future field sampling manuals include the
following recommendations for draining wet
soil pits:
• Dig a sump hole in a corner of the pit
away from the face to be described.
Bail or pump water from the sump
hole as necessary.
• Dig sump holes upstream of the
groundwater flow, if the direction can
be determined, to intercept or divert
the groundwater flow.
• In level areas, dig a number of sump
holes around the pit to temporarily
intercept the groundwater flow.
It is possible that none of the above sugges-
tions will work in situations where the soil
materials are coarse-textured and lateral
groundwater movement is rapid. One soil
scientist participating in the soil survey stated
that collecting uncontaminated samples from
high water table soils is an impossible task
given the use of standard field sampling
equipment such as that employed in this
project.
Later during a conference call on
December 20, 1985, ERL-C and EMSL-LV staffs
agreed that an effort would be made to deter-
mine which pedons were sampled using
bucket augers or post-hole diggers. In the
data base, these pedons would be tagged
with a data qualifier "W" to identify samples
that may have been contaminated because of
the sampling method. Those suspect samples
are listed in Table 4, although there may be
others that were not identified in the log
books or on the field data forms. Samples
that may have been contaminated because of
other conditions observed during sampling are
also listed in Table 4.
Other Problem Soils--
In some cases, soil pits could not be
excavated to the required 1.5 m depth. Large
rock fragments or dense substrata were often
the limiting factor rather than lithic or para-
lithic bedrock contacts. These situations were
evaluated by the sampling crew leader, who
determined the feasibility of further manual
excavation. The protocols required that all on-
site decisions regarding excavation depths be
documented on the field data form.
Equipment for Pedon Description
and Sampling
The success of pedon excavation and
description, photographic documentation, clod
sampling, sample storage and transportation,
and other field activities was dependent on
13
-------
Table 4. Pedons with Possible Contamination or Other Characteristics that may Affect Analytical Results
Watershed
ID
1A1-012
1A1-020
1A1-064
1A2-048
1A3-043
1B1-043
1B1-043
1B3-021
1B3-032
1B3-041"
1B3-051
1B3-052
183-053
1B3-056
1B3-0623
1C1-009
1C2-021"
1C2-057
1C2-057
1C2-0573
1C2-062
1C2-062
1C3-031
1D1-054
1 02-093
1D3-020
1E1-082
1E2-002
1E2-063
Name
Whitney Lake
Fourth/Bisby Lake
Mt. Arab Lake
No Name
Unknown
Penn Lake
Penn Lake
Lii Butler
Wixon Pond
East Stroudsburg
Reservoir
Barret Pond
No Name
No Name
Riga Lake
Bassett
Upper Baker Pond
Clear Pond
Babbidge Reservoir
Babbidge Reservoir
Babbidge Reservoir
Pemigewasset
Pemigewasset
Sadawaga Lake
Upper Mill Pond
Ashland Reservoir
Little Alum Pond
Stevens Pond
No Name
Kaler's Pond
State
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
New York
Pennsylvania
New York
New York
Pennsylvania
Connecticut
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
Maine
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Maine
Maine
Maine
Sampling
Class
SOS
H3
E02
H2
E02
130
E6
133
H2
H2
H2
E6
133
H2
125
137
S12
E02
101
101
137
138
H3
H3
no
19
S11
146
E2
Reason for Concern
C horizon saturated
Limed
Bucket auger used for 3C
Auger sample
Wet, pH higher than expected
Strip mine
Strip mine
Manure, fertilizer
Wet, required laying out to describe
Bucket auger and post-hole digger used
Wet, required laying out to describe
Parking lot, fill
Wet
Wet, interhorizon contamination, auger and spade
used
Hayfield, limed
Sampled Cg2 with bucket auger
Auger sample, standing water at 28 cm
Sampled Cg2 with bucket auger
Bucket auger used for lower C (113 to 150 cm)
Sampled Cg and Cg2 with bucket auger
Sampled Cg3 and Cg4 with, bucket auger
Sampled Bg and 2Crg with bucket auger
Quaking mat, hand-collected Histosol
Post-hole digger from 38 to 150 cm
Manure, fertilizer
Auger used from 125 to 150 cm
Field burned, treated with herbicide (Velpar)
Auger used from 108 to 135 cm
Sampled HCg and IIC with bucket auger
Paired pedon.
the equipment supplied to the trained sam-
pling crews. The immediate availability of
equipment to the sampling crews was an
important factor. The utility, reliability, dura-
bility, and efficiency of the equipment had a
major effect on the quality of the sampling.
Recommendations of the sampling crews to
modify, eliminate, or procure equipment for use
in future surveys are discussed below.
Plastic Sample Bags--
Observations were made early in the
survey regarding the use of plastic sample
bags. The sampling crews noted that when
heavy, wet samples were obtained, double-
bagging was necessary to avoid bag breakage
during transport. Dry samples usually did not
require the same precautions and no more
than one plastic bag was needed. Some
crews routinely double-bagged all samples as
a precautionary measure.
Staplers-
Small, hand-held staplers that use stan-
dard staples were supplied for securing the
plastic bags. Several sampling crews com-
mented that heavy duty staplers with large
staples would be more durable in the field,
although some crews preferred the small
staplers because they were light weight and
more convenient for carrying to remote
sampling sites. It is recommended that both
types of staplers be made available to the
sampling crews for future surveys, and then
crews can use the type they prefer.
Sharpshooter Shovels--
A number of sampling crews noted that
sharpshooter shovels, also known as tile
spades, had a short life span when subjected
to frequent use. The primary difficulty was
that these shovels broke or dented easily.
14
-------
However, they did appear to be especially
effective in pit excavation. For that reason,
sampling crews recommended that a number
of backup sharpshooters be made available to
sampling crews when replacement was
necessary.
Styrofoam Coolers-
Samples were typically stored in local
cold storage facilities at the end of the day or
transported directly to the preparation labora-
tory. Styrofoam coolers containing gel-pacs
were used only when samples could not be
placed in cold storage within 24 hours after
collection, or when samples could not be
transported directly to the preparation labora-
tories. For the New York crews, sufficient
coolers were not always available. To meet
this deficiency, 40-gallon plastic garbage pails
were substituted when necessary.
Thermometers--
Sampling crews were supplied with
thermometers to monitor the temperature in
the Styrofoam coolers during sample transport
and storage. Temperature data were desired
to assess the efficiency of the gel-pac cooling
system. It was found that the Styrofoam
coolers in conjunction with the gel-pacs main-
tained temperatures at or below ambient soil
conditions. However, when soils were sam-
pled on very cold days, some crews reported
that the samples were colder than the partially
thawed gel-pacs, and the samples were re-
sponsible for maintaining the temperature in
the Styrofoam coolers.
Measurement of the internal temperature
of the coolers is not recommended for
future surveys, provided sample delivery
within 24 hours is guaranteed and the coolers
are protected from direct sunlight at all times.
Gel-Pacs--
Many gel-pacs initially supplied by EMSL-
LV had been used previously in ELS, and
leaked electrolyte solution upon thawing.
Generally, samples were thought to be pro-
tected, because they were contained in plastic
bags within cloth sample bags. However,
many samples contained angular rock frag-
ments that were capable of puncturing the
plastic bags.
Because of the unreliability of the gel-
pacs, sampling crews double-bagged the gel-
pacs in plastic zip-lock bags to limit the possi-
bility of sample contamination. As the survey
progressed, gel-pacs subject to leakage were
replaced.
The sampling log books did not identify
any samples that had been contaminated by
gel-pac leakage. The sample receipt log books
kept at the preparation laboratories did not
note any problems related to gel-pac leakage.
Photographic Equipment--
Sampling crews were asked to provide
35-mm cameras for photographic documenta-
tion. Fast (ASA 400) slide film was recom-
mended for photography in the understory
when a flash was not used; however, sam-
pling crews were encouraged to evaluate the
quality of the initial slides and subsequently to
change film speed or film type, if necessary.
At the exit meeting, the following recom-
mendations were given to improve the quality
of the photographic documentation for future
surveys.
• EMSL-LV should supply a compact,
35-mm camera with a built-in hash
and a wide-angle lens to each sam-
pling crew.
• ASA 400 film should be used, regard-
less of light conditions.
• A standard metric scale should be
used in all pedon and understory
photographs.
• A standard gray card for pedon and
understory identification should be
supplied to all sampling crews. The
crew will be responsible for the black
lettering.
• Pedon faces that are partially shaded
shouid be photographed when fully
shaded to provide uniformly lighted
exposures.
• Horizon boundaries should be marked
with golf tees to make them more
visible in the photographs.
15
-------
Hand Pumps-
Hand pumps were not supplied by EPA
for this survey; however, the experiences with
sampling wet soils indicate that hand pumps
should be supplied in the future. Sampling
crews that used hand pumps indicated that
some models deteriorated quickly because of
suspended sand and silt in the water being
pumped from the soil pit. An appropriate
model would be one, e.g., the Beckman
Gusher, that does not wear rapidly in the field
environment.
Sample Sieving Protocol
In general, sieving at the sampling site
to remove rock fragments greater than 20 mm
in diameter was implemented successfully.
However, two preparation laboratories indi-
cated that samples containing rock fragments
greater than 20 mm were processed at the
laboratories on several occasions. The sample
bags were not labeled with this information,
and the information was not entered in the
sample receipt log book at the time samples
were submitted to the preparation laboratories.
This deviation from protocol has several
implications. First, for those samples, the
sampling crew's estimate of the volume of
rock fragments is suspect. Secondly, it must
be presumed that the sampling crew collected
a sufficiently large sample so that the amount
of fine earth material is representative of the
pedon. Finally, the corresponding determina-
tion of percentage rock fragments in the 2- to
20-mm fraction, which is performed at the
preparation laboratory, is suspect.
Sampling crew NY03 did not sieve samples
from the four pedons because the sieve was
not taken to the field when those samples
were collected. The sampling log book noted
that the following samples had not been
sieved:
Watershed
Identification Name
IB3-052
IB3-052
AI-003
No Name
No Name
Nawk Pond
Sampling Class
E6 (sampled
in duplicate)
125
305
This protocol deviation was not recorded
in the sampling log books or on the field data
forms of other crews, although another prepa-
ration laboratory received some unsieved
samples. The personnel at that preparation
laboratory commented that unsieved samples
could not be identified at the time samples
were submitted by the sampling crew. While
the unsieved samples were within the plastic
bags, large rock fragments were not visible.
For future surveys, the protocols should
be written to emphasize that the sampling
crew is responsible for noting any unusual
sample conditions or protocol deviations in the
sampling log book, on the field data form,
directly on the sample bags, and in the sample
receipt log book. The preparation laboratory
should note unsieved samples in the sample
processing log book.
Sample Labeling Discrepancies
During the initial days of sampling, a
number of samples were mislabeled by the
crews. Normally, preparation laboratory per-
sonnel were able to identify and correct mis-
labeled samples at the time the sample code
and horizon interval (Label A) data were veri-
fied against the corresponding field data form.
It was very important that each sampling crew
submit the field data forms to the preparation
laboratory with the samples, but this was not
done consistently. Often the preparation
laboratories waited several weeks before
receiving the field data forms.
After these initial difficulties were re-
solved, the frequency of labeling errors de-
creased with time. Sample labeling errors did
not result in any serious identification prob-
lems for the preparation laboratory personnel,
therefore, no samples will be tagged as sus-
pect in the data base because of mislabeling.
Clod Sampling for Determination
of Bulk Density
Sampling crews were instructed to
collect three clod samples from each horizon
if it were physically possible to obtain them.
Sampling crews were instructed to prepare
clods by immersing them in a Saran:acetone
solution of 1:4 or 1:7 by weight, depending on
16
-------
the stability of the clod. The sampling crews
were instructed to record the number of times
the clod was dipped into the Saran:acetone
mixture. This information was used in the
calculation for bulk density. [Please note that
the equation for calculating the weight of air-
dry Saran as stated on Page 3 of 5, Section
7.0 of Appendix A is incorrect. Refer to Papp
and Van Remortel (1987) for the correct equa-
tion.]
The clod sampling procedure is compli-
cated by horizon thickness, soil structure and
consistence, cohesion/adhesion properties, soil
texture, root density, and the field moisture
content of the soil. Because clods were not
expected to be collected from every horizon,
the projected success rate for sampling was
50 percent. EMSL-LV QA staff assessed that
the success rate for excavating clods from
mineral horizons was 48 percent. Comments
by sampling crews indicated that clod sam-
pling was more successful after the soils had
been moistened by precipitation associated
with Hurricane Gloria.
In one situation, the clods collected were
too wet to retain their integrity in the Saran
mixture. This information was recorded in the
MA02 sampling log book for watershed ID3-
020, sampling class 137, but there was no
corresponding entry in the sample receipt log
book. No other difficulties or unusual situa-
tions were recorded concerning clod sampling
or the Saran treatment.
The following observations resulted from
comments made at the exit meeting and the
review of audit reports, field data forms,
sampling log books, and sample receipt log
books. The Saran:acetone ratios varied be-
tween 1:4 and 1:7. The number of Saran
coatings varied between one and two, and
may not have been reported to the preparation
laboratory. The duration of the immersion of
clods sampled from one pedon varied from
less than 10 seconds to about 80 seconds. It
should not be assumed that the coatings of
Saran were uniform from clod to clod or from
sampling crew to sampling crew.
For future surveys, it is recommended
that one standard Saran:acetone solution be
used. However, because acetone is volatile,
the sampling crew will have to carry a sepa-
rate container of acetone for maintaining the
solution at a nearly constant viscosity. Clods
should be immersed in the Saran:acetone
solution only once and for a set period of time.
If a clod is dipped more than once, this must
be recorded on the clod label and in the sam-
pling log book. Also, safety precautions must
be taken because acetone is flammable, and
both Saran and acetone are carcinogens.
Field Data Forms and Codes lor
Pedon and Site Descriptions
No major difficulties were encountered in
filling out the SCS-developed field data forms.
Audit reports indicated that a number of the
sampling crews drafted a final version of the
field data form derived from a rudimentary
version that had been completed on-site. The
intended protocol was to use the field data
forms to document activities as they occurred
in the field, without regard for generating a
second, neater copy.
An audit report mentioned one case in
which sampling crew ME02 had difficulty
completing digits 1 through 17 of the free-form
notes, i.e., watershed identification, unit, sam-
pling class, and pedon azimuth. The audi-
tor assisted the crew in completing the
information.
Field data forms were reviewed in detail
by EMSL-LV staff. Discrepancies on the field
data forms were identified by EMSL-LV, and
subsequently were corrected by the SCS state
staff or by the sampling crews. This confirma-
tion process is detailed in the QA/QC section
of this report under the heading "Field Data
Form Discrepancies".
The following problems concerning the
codes used on the field data forms were
discussed during the exit meeting:
• Microrelief-Pattern (P) - Many sam-
pling crews were not familiar with the
microrelief codes, and did not provide
this information. For future surveys,
this category will not be used.
• Parent Material - Degree of Weather-
ing and Bedding Inclination (W) -
Again, many sampling crews were
unfamiliar with this characteristic. For
future surveys, this category will not
be used.
17
-------
• Size - Two different sets of codes
were provided for this category, one
set on the form, and one set in the
manual. It was decided that the
codes indicated below would be the
most useful for future surveys, and
should replace those on the field data
form:
Size (Roots, Pores, Concentrations)
M Micro
M1 Micro and fine
2 Medium
23 Medium and
coarse
V1 Very fine 3 Coarse
11 Very fine and fine 4 Very coarse
1 Fine 5 Extremely
coarse
12 Fine and Medium 13 Fine to coarse
• pH - There were no codes provided
for the bromocresol green and chloro-
phenol red indicators. Sampling
crews adopted the following abbrevi-
ated codes for each indicator:
Bromocresol Green = BG
Chlorophenol Red = PR
These codes will be placed on future
field data forms.
• Diagnostic Features -- There was
some disagreement regarding whether
a iithic contact qualified as a diag-
nostic feature. Some sampling crews
used it as such, while others did not.
The consensus suggested that in
most cases a Iithic contact is not a
diagnostic feature, therefore it will not
appear on future field data forms.
• Land Use - A code for cropland
abandoned less than 3 years before
sampling was recommended as an
additional code.
Sampling crews used code descriptions
from two sources during the survey, those
given in the sampling manual (Appendix A) and
those given on the back of the field data
forms. As mentioned above, the two sets of
codes were not identical. The approximately
10 percent discrepancies between the two
sources were rectified by EMSL-LV QA staff
during data verification.
The final recommendations for future use
of the field data form were the following:
• Coordinate with the SCS to redesign
the format of the field data form.
• Allow space on the field data form for
all codes and their definitions.
• Add necessary codes and definitions
that are currently missing.
• Correct errors in codes and definitions
before using them on the revised
form.
Entry of Field Data by the
Sampling Crews
The use of the SCS-developed software
package for data entry from the SCS-SOI-232
form was discussed at the exit meeting. New
Hampshire was the only state that used this
software package, which generates detailed
tabular descriptions. The New Hampshire SCS
staff used the printout to verify the data on
the field data forms before the forms were
mailed to EMSL-LV and ORNL.
Connecticut staff pointed out some
shortcomings in the software package. For
example, Histosol descriptions could not be
generated. Also, some pH values were not
accepted by the software, but were valid
measurements for that sampling class. It was
recommended that the software be revised
concurrently with the field data form. For
future surveys, it was suggested that informa-
tion from the field data forms be entered by
the SCS state staff. The data could be en-
tered independently by ORNL, and then the two
files could be compared as an error checking
mechanism. Data entry operations performed
by ORNL are discussed in the QA/QC section
of this report under the heading "Error Check-
ing Procedures".
Sample Transport and Storage
Samples were required to be placed in
cold storage at 4 °C within 24 hours after
sampling. As previously mentioned, some
sampling crews rented cold storage facilities
near the sampling sites and stored samples
until delivery to the preparation laboratory
could be made at the end of the week.
18
-------
Overall, this system was found to be efficient.
Cold storage near sampling sites was an
improvement over the styrofoam cooler/gel-pac
system for three reasons:
• Sampling crews did not have to be
concerned about refreezing gel-pacs
while in the field.
• Sampling crews could consolidate the
samples and make one trip to the
preparation laboratory each week
rather than one trip each day. In
many cases, the watersheds were too
far from the preparation laboratory to
allow samples to be transported there
each day.
• Temperatures in cold storage facilities
were more stable, and were less
affected by ambient air temperatures.
One pedon, watershed identification ID2-
025, sampling class 16, was resampled be-
cause the temperature of the cold storage
facility exceeded the protocol requirement
because of a power failure.
Preparation Laboratory
Interactions and Responses
All four preparation laboratories were
responsive in accommodating the schedules of
the sampling crews. This was necessary
because a sampling crew often delivered
samples to a preparation laboratory following
a long field day or at the end of a week.
Delivery time often could not be arranged
during conventional work hours. In some
cases, the sampling crews were given keys to
the preparation laboratory and the cold stor-
age facilities. In addition to delivering sam-
ples, sampling crew personnel obtained equip-
ment and supplies at the preparation
laboratory.
As part of their responsibilities, labora-
tory personnel were required to check the
incoming samples against the listing recorded
by the sampling crew in the sample receipt log
book. This was done as soon as possible to
ensure that sample sets were complete and
labels were filled out properly. Occasionally
the laboratory staff were able to inventory the
samples while a sampling crew member was
present to assist in resolving any problems.
Weekly conference calls including ERL-C
and EMSL-LV staff and preparation laboratory
personnel aided in the distribution of supplies
and equipment, resolved issues requiring input
from project management, and allowed the
laboratory personnel an opportunity to share
information. Discussion items from these
conference calls were documented in the DDRP
team reports by the project officer for the
preparation laboratories.
19
-------
Section 3
Quality Assurance Program
EPA has mandated that the Quality
Assurance Management Staff be responsible
for providing technical guidelines to ensure
that adequate planning and implementation of
QA/QC occurs in all EPA-funded programs that
involve environmental measurements. In
support of this responsibility, data quality
objectives (DQOs) are developed as the initial
step in the process leading to the preparation
of the QA project plan. The QA project plan
specifies the policies, organization, objectives,
and QA/QC activities needed to achieve the
DQOs.
Data Quality Objectives
The application of DQOs increases the
likelihood of collecting data that will meet the
needs of data users as well as providing for
greater efficiency and success in data collec-
tion activities. The EPA Quality Assurance
Management Staff has defined guidelines and
specifications for developing DQOs. The
inherent quality of a data set is represented in
terms of five characteristics: precision, accu-
racy, representativeness, completeness, and
comparability. Brief explanations of these
characteristics follow:
• Precision and accuracy - quantitative
measures that characterize the vari-
ability and bias inherent in a given
data set. Precision is defined by the
level of agreement among repeated
measurements of the same character-
istic. Accuracy is defined by the
difference between an estimate based
on the data and the true value of the
parameter being estimated.
• Representativeness - the degree to
which the data collected accurately
reflect the population, group, or medi-
um being sampled.
• Completeness - the quantity of data
that is successfully collected with
respect to that amount intended in
the experimental design. A certain
percentage of the intended data must
be successfully collected for valid
conclusions to be made. Complete-
ness of data collection is important
because missing data may reduce the
precision of estimates or may intro-
duce bias, thereby lowering the level
of confidence in the conclusions
drawn from the data.
• Comparability - the similarity of data
from different sources included in a
single data set. Because more than
one sampling crew was collecting
samples and more than one labora-
tory was preparing and analyzing the
samples, uniform procedures must be
used. This ensures that samples are
collected in a consistent manner and
that data from different laboratories
are based on measurements of the
same parameter.
Sampling Objectives
The DQOs presented in this section were
developed by the ERL-C project staff. That
development included the preparation of a
detailed DQO document which received exter-
nal peer review, and was approved by the
technical director of the Aquatic Effects Re-
search Program before the initiation of
sampling activities.
DQO concepts that had been developed
for analytical laboratory operations were
difficult to apply to soil sampling activities.
DQOs for soil sampling were developed to
ensure that field operations, e.g., sampling site
location, profile description, and sampling,
20
-------
would be conducted in a consistent manner.
These objectives were intended to reduce the
error inherent in collecting soils data and to
provide an indication of the variability among
sampling crews.
The following paragraphs contain infor-
mation from the QA project plan (Bartz et al.,
1987). Also, where the QA project plan differs
in conceptual approach, the information from
the draft DQO document is presented in brack-
ets. Additional explanations appear in
parentheses.
Precision and Accuracy--
The regional correlator/coordinator (RCC)
must be a qualified soil scientist with several
years experience in soil profile description and
soil mapping. The RCC monitors one site per
sampling crew [monitors 6 to 10 percent of the
sampling units] for adherence to SCS stan-
dards, procedures, and sampling protocol
modifications, and performs an independent
duplicate profile description. At least one site
in each state is [3 to 5 percent of the sites
are] monitored with the SCS state staff repre-
sentative while the remaining sites may be
monitored independently. The RCC also in-
sures that SCS state staff performs duplicate
profile descriptions. During this process, the
RCC identifies, discusses, and resolves any
significant problems. Written reports are
submitted to the sampling task leader at
ERL-C within two weeks. The resolution of
major problems is reported verbally within two
working days.
A representative of the SCS stale staff
independently describes a minimum of one site
per sampling crew [5 to 10 percent of the
sample pedons]. These independent pedon
descriptions are used to assess the variability
in site descriptions among soil scientists. The
SCS representative monitors adherence to
protocol for site selection, labeling, and sam-
pling. The soil profile is described on the
same face of the pit described by the sam-
pling crews. The representative makes the
assessment while the crew is describing and
sampling the pedons. Written reviews are
submitted to the sampling task leader at ERL-
C within two weeks. Major problems are
reported verbally within two working days.
The QA representative audits each sam-
pling crew at least once [5 percent of the
sampling units] to ensure adherence to sam-
pling protocol. Written reports are submitted
to the QA manager at EMSL-LV within two
weeks. Major problems are reported verbally
within two working days. The QA manager is
responsible for conveying any major problems
to the technical monitor or technical director.
A small percentage of the sampling units
is selected randomly by EPA for sampling to
determine the within-sampling class variability.
These replicate pedons, called paired pedons,
are selected before sampling begins. (Note:
The paired pedon [see Appendix A, Section 2.7]
and the routine pedon from a representative
site for each selected sampling class are
sampled on the same day by the same field
crew. The criteria for the paired pedon are the
following:
• Establish sufficient distance between
the two sampling locations to avoid
disturbing the paired pedon because
of the sampling of the routine pedon.
• Use the same sampling class and
vegetation class as for the routine
pedon.
• Use the same slope position as for
the routine pedon.)
Sample pits are located accurately on the
soil survey maps, and the pit dimensions and
the long azimuth are recorded. The pit face
from which samples are removed is recorded,
and the location of the pit in the field is
flagged or identified so that the site can be
revisited. The soil profile is described
according to SCS protocols.
One horizon per day is sampled in dupli-
cate by each field crew. (Note: The choice is
made at the discretion of the field crew; how-
ever, an attempt is made to sample across the
range of horizon types. The sample is taken
by placing alternate trowelsful of sample into
each of two sample bags [see Appendix A,
Section 3.5].) One field duplicate is included in
each set of samples sent to a preparation
laboratory.
21
-------
Representativeness--
The primary concerns in the selection
of sampling sites are: (1) to assess soil
characteristics, (2) to integrate information on
parent material, internal drainage, soil depth,
slope, and vegetative cover, and (3) to deter-
mine representative sampling classes. Soils
which have been identified in the study regions
have been combined into groups, or sampling
classes, which are either known to have or are
expected to have similar chemical and physical
characteristics. Each of the sampling classes
can be sampled across a number of water-
sheds in which they occur. In this approach,
a given soil sample does not represent the
specific watershed from which it came. In-
stead it contributes to a set of samples which
collectively represents a specific sampling
class on all watersheds within the sampling
region. The lead soil scientist of the sampling
party selects a sampling site representing the
designated sampling class and vegetation
class within the designated watershed
according to the DDRP soil sampling protocols
(see Appendix A).
Completeness--
Soil sampling protocols require the
sampling of 100 percent of the designated
pedons and of the prerequisite number of
horizons. If samples are lost, spilled, or
mislabeled, it is possible to return to the field
and resample the same site. If a sampling
site is inaccessible, the reason for excluding
the site must be formally documented by the
sampling crew.
Comparability--
The use of standard SCS methods,
protocols, and forms for the sampling phase
provides field and analytical data that are
comparable to data generated from SCS
investigations and other studies which have
utilized these standardized methods.
Fulfillment of Objectives
Precision and Accuracy—
Twenty-six paired pedons were sampled
to provide information on variability between
morphologically matched pedons. Horizon
types were not equally represented by the field
duplicates that were sampled. Of the 526 field
duplicates, A and E horizons comprised 17
percent; B horizons, 57 percent; C horizons, 16
percent; and organic horizons, 10 percent.
Representativeness--
All pedons sampled were within the
range of morphological characteristics as
assigned for their respective sampling classes.
Validation activities should assess whether or
not the sampling classes, as defined by the
physical, chemical, and mineralogical data, are
separate populations.
Completeness--
A total of 306 pedons were sampled of
the 319 pedons initially selected, resulting in 96
percent completeness. Although this does not
meet the 100 percent goal, the number of
samples collected will provide sufficient data
for valid conclusions to be made for all sam-
pling classes with the exception of 121. For
this sampling class, three pedons were dis-
qualified from sampling (see Table 2 and
discussion on page 11), and only two pedons
were sampled. It is likely that sample size is
insufficient to characterize the variability of this
sampling class.
Comparability--
The comparability of morphological
characteristics is discussed in detail under the
heading "Review of Profile Descriptions". The
comparability of physical, chemical, and miner-
alogical data obtained from different analytical
laboratories under several contracts and
method versions will be addressed in forth-
coming quality assurance reports.
Quality Assurance Evaluations
and Audits
The objective of on-site observations is
to assess the quality of sampling activities
performed by the sampling crews. Three
categories of observations were conducted for
the sampling activities by the RCC, SCS state
staffs, and EMSL-LV QA auditors. Included in
this section are the activities observed, the
level of effort for each category, deviations
22
-------
from protocol, difficulties identified, and recom-
mendations for future surveys.
Evaluations by the Regional
Correlator/Coordinator
EPA contracted a former SCS soil scien-
tist to serve as the RCC. All sampling crews,
except NY02 and ME04, were evaluated.
However, the records reviewed for this report
indicate that the members of sampling crew
ME04 may have been evaluated during on-site
visits with the other Maine sampling crews,
because crew members were often rotated.
Crews sampling the special interest water-
sheds were evaluated by the RCC during the
sampling of routine pedons. The activities of
PA01 were evaluated twice by the RCC.
A summary of the level of RCC evalua-
tion activities is presented in Table 5.
Although the overall 3.9 percent level of effort
did not meet the DQO goal of 6 to 10 percent,
the evaluations conducted were not neces-
sarily unproductive. Rather, it seems that the
DQO goal was set too high. A more realistic
objective would have the RCC evaluate the
activities of each sampling crew only once,
unless a second evaluation is necessary to
observe the implementation of corrective
action. The DQO should be revised to reflect
this recommendation.
Written reports prepared by the RCC
included the following information:
Watershed name.
Date of review.
Watershed identification.
Sampling class.
Cover type.
Table 5. Summary of On-Slte Evaluations and Audits
• Soil series name.
• Sampling crew.
The RCC evaluated and briefly described
the manner in which the crew located the
sampling site, labeled the samples, and ad-
hered to the sampling protocols. The names
of sampling crew members and SCS state
staff reviewing the site were included in each
report. Detailed discussions of protocol
questions and suggestions made by the RCC
were not provided.
The reports identified only two issues
related to protocol. During the evaluation of
NH01, the RCC expressed concern that
samples might not be cooled adequately
before arrival at the preparation laboratory.
However, according to the state soil scientist,
USDA Forest Service cold storage facilities
were used for all samples except those ob-
tained on September 3, 4, and 5, 1985. Those
samples were cooled using the gel-pac system
(S. Pilgrim, August 3, 1987, personal communi-
cation). The other concern was related to
sampling site location by CT01. It was deter-
mined that all possible pedon sites at the first
sampling point were underwater. Therefore,
the first location was not sampled, and the
sampling crew proceeded to the next sampling
point.
It is recommended that the RCC should
evaluate only the sampling site location and
soil characterization activities and that the
evaluations should be performed as early in
the survey as possible. This would allow the
RCC an opportunity to clarify the protocols
with each crew. The clarifications should be
written, and after the approval of the sampling
task leader and the QA staff, the information
State
NY
NH
CT, RI
MA, VT
ME
PA
Routine
Pedons
Sampled
85
30
23
54
83
31
Evaluations
RCC
number
3
2
1
2
3
2
%
3.5*
6.6
4.3"
3.7a
3.6"
6.4
SCS State
number
5
2
2
3
6
3
Staff
%
5.8
6.6
8.6
5.5
7.2
9.6
Audits
QA Staff
number
3
1
1
2
2
0
%
3.5*
3.3*
4.3*
3-7*
2.4*
0.0*
Total
306
13
4.2"
21
6.9
; Did not meet the DQO lower limit of 6 percent.
Did not meet the DQO lower limit of 5 percent.
23
-------
should be provided to all crews early enough
in the survey to benefit the sampling effort.
The RCC should assess the procedural varia-
tions among sampling crews, and include the
assessment in the final written report. Difficul-
ties and concerns should be discussed andany
recommendations for corrective action should
be provided. When corrective action is neces-
sary for a given crew, a subsequent evaluation
should be made to verify that the corrective
action was implemented.
A standard questionnaire should be
developed to ensure that all field operations
and sampling crews are evaluated according
to uniform criteria. The questionnaire also
would provide better documentation of areas
reviewed during the evaluation.
Evaluations by the Soil
Conservation Service State Staff
SCS state staffs were responsible for
evaluating the sampling crews in their respec-
tive states. It was desirable for these evalua-
tions to be conducted by SCS staff who were
not members of the sampling crews so that
evaluations would be as objective as possible.
In some cases, however, SCS state staff were
also sampling crew members.
Written reports were submitted from all
states. All crews except ME03 were evaluated
by the SCS state staff; however, each member
of ME03 was evaluated while serving on other
Maine sampling crews. MA03 was evaluated
during the sampling of special interest water-
sheds. Special interest watershed sampling
by MA02 was not reviewed independently, but
sampling was conducted with a member of the
SCS state staff as crew leader.
A summary of the level of SCS evalu-
ation activities is presented in Table 5. The
6.9 percent level of effort was within the DQO
goal of 5 to 10 percent. No difficulties were
mentioned in the written reports. Most reports
were very brief with few details concerning the
activities evaluated. Site selection and sam-
pling protocols were not discussed for every
crew.
It is recommended that the SCS state
staffs be provided with a detailed question-
naire to ensure that all sampling site selection
and soil characterization activities are
evaluated and that detailed, written documen-
tation is produced. Standard questionnaires
are particularly important for these evaluations
which, unlike the RCC evaluations, are per-
formed by different individuals. It is important
that all sampling crews, within and among
states, are evaluated according to uniform
criteria to assure the comparability of the
evaluations.
Like the RCC evaluations, the SCS state
staff evaluations are most useful when per-
formed as early in the survey as possible. The
procedural variations among sampling crews
should be assessed and included in the writ-
ten report. Difficulties and concerns should be
discussed and any recommendations for
corrective action should be provided. In addi-
tion, when corrective action is necessary for a
given crew, a subsequent evaluation should be
made to verify that the corrective action was
implemented.
Audits by Quality Assurance Staff
EMSL-LV QA staff audited the activities
performed by the sampling crews, primarily to
evaluate adherence to sampling protocols.
Written audit reports were provided for all
sampling crews visited. Audits were not
conducted for sampling crews ME03, ME04,
and PA01. MA03 was audited during special
interest watersheds sampling. MA02 was
audited during routine sampling operations.
A summary of the level of audits con-
ducted by QA staff is presented in Table 5.
The 2.9 percent level of effort did not meet the
DQO goal of 5 percent. Even if all sampling
crews had been audited once by the QA staff,
the overall level of effort would still fall below
the DQO goal of 5 percent. The DQO for
auditing activities should be modified so that
all sampling crews are audited once at the
outset of the soil sampling operations and a
second time only if corrective action is neces-
sary. In the future, funding should be
arranged to ensure that the audit program is
not interrupted by "freezing" of EPA travel
funds because the new fiscal year budget has
not received Congressional approval.
The audit reports contained a summary
of activities and difficulties encountered during
the on-site visit. A standard check sheet was
also included in each report. A summary
24
-------
report comparing the variability observed
among sampling crews within each state and
the variability among all sampling crews was
not provided.
Concerns identified during the audits
include the following:
• One sampling crew deviated from the
protocol for site location procedures.
• Samples were possibly contaminated
by use of a bucket auger.
• The amounts of time that bulk density
clods were immersed in the
Saran:acetone solution varied.
• Field data forms were not completed
by one sampling crew at the time of
soil description and sampling.
• One crew used the sampling log book
in the field during the site selection
process, but not during soil sampling.
Instead, notes were collected in the
field, and the log book was completed
at the office.
Auditors observed some modifications to
the protocols that should be considered for
future surveys:
• All members of CT01 participated in
the determinations of particle size
class and percent rock fragments. A
consensus of the group reduced the
personal bias of the data.
• A windshield snowbrush was used by
CT01 for cleaning sieves and plastic
sheets.
• A checklist and outline developed by
the New York SCS staff were used in
the field by NY02. The checklist
(Appendix E) summarized the sam-
pling activities sequentially, and
recorded activities as they were per-
formed. The outline (Appendix E) was
available for reference as a further
explanation of sampling protocols.
• Each member of ME01 was assigned
responsibility for specific tasks during
the sampling activities which resulted
in a well-organized, efficient operation.
Audits should be performed as early in
the survey as possible. This would identify
initial difficulties and allow for corrections and
clarifications to the protocols to be made early
in the survey. Clarifications should be ap-
proved by the QA staff, and then written and
provided to all crews early enough in the
survey to be of benefit to the sampling effort.
When corrective action is necessary, the
activities of the sampling crew should be
reaudited to assure that protocols are being
followed as specified. Comprehensive docu-
mentation of the audits and any corrective
actions will assure that a complete assess-
ment of sampling operations is available at
the end of the survey.
Reports were written for each audit, but
were not submitted to the sampling task
leader during sampling. Rather, the reports
were submitted to the QA technical monitor,
and forwarded to the sampling task leader
after the close of the sampling activities.
The soil sampling task leader suggested
a modification in the timeframe for the sub-
mission of audit reports and the implemen-
tation of corrective action. The auditor should
bring any deficiencies in the sampling proce-
dures to the QA manager's attention. If a
problem is observed that might seriously com-
promise data quality, the QA manager should
send a written report to the sampling task
leader or designees within one week, preceded
by telephone contact. Routine written reports
should be submitted within two weeks.
Review of Log Books
Review of Sampling Log Books
Sampling log books maintained by all
crews were reviewed to identify, evaluate, and
summarize the following information:
• On-site observations by the RCC, SCS
state staff, and QA staff, including
documentation of concerns discussed
with the evaluator or auditor.
• Difficulties encountered in locating any
sampling site.
25
-------
• Site conditions or soil characteristics
that could have an adverse effect on
the analytical results.
• Sampling procedures that might affect
the quality of the samples collected.
• Difficulties with equipment or supplies.
• Comments regarding adherence to
protocol, including any procedural
modifications or recommendations for
future surveys.
An examination of sampling log books
indicated a wide range in the amount of detail
recorded, which can be attributed partially to
the lack of a specified format for log book
entries. It is recommended that several forms
be developed as a basis for detailed documen-
tation of daily sampling activities, and be hard-
bound as a sampling log book for future
surveys. Suggested forms are provided in
figures 2 through 6.
A title page identifying sampling crew
personnel is provided in Figure 2. Several
sampling log books contained no record of
sampling crew members. A number of sug-
gested formats for summarizing the contents
of the sampling log books are provided in
Figure 3. A more structured format would
ensure that all necessary information is en-
tered in the sampling log books as a better
record of field activities. Suggested formats
for site location and soil sampling entries are
provided in figures 4 and 5, respectively.
The completeness of the photographic
record obtained by the sampling crews was
difficult to evaluate. A master list of the
exposures would have been helpful. A slide
key such as that outlined in Figure 6 would
provide an easy reference for sampling crews
to use in labeling processed slides. A master
slide list could be generated by each sampling
crew, and could be included in each slide
catalog submitted to the project management
at the conclusion of the survey.
Sampling log books could also contain
the following types of information to further
increase their value as reference documents:
• Notes detailing equipment and supply
needs.
• Notes on the function and use of field
equipment.
• Phone numbers of all sampling crew
members, SCS state staff, and others
associated with the sampling
operations.
• Complete records of the clod sampling
procedure, including horizons success-
fully sampled, the number of clods
obtained from each horizon, and
reasons clods could not be obtained
from unsampled horizons.
Review of Sample Receipt Log
Books
Sample receipt log books were reviewed
to identify, evaluate, and summarize the follow-
ing information:
• Condition of samples upon arrival at
the preparation laboratory.
• Labeling errors and correction of
mislabeled sample numbers.
• Sampling difficulties or protocol devia-
tions identified in sampling log books
and documented upon receipt of the
sample at the preparation laboratory.
• Level of field duplicates for compari-
son with DQO goals.
• Level of paired pedon samples for
comparison with DQO goals.
The sample receipt log books did not
provide all information expected. However,
each preparation laboratory may maintain
other notebooks containing this information
that were not reviewed for this report.
Log Book #1--
Log book #1 followed a column and row
format. Set identification, site identification,
sample code, condition, and time/date were
used as the column headers. A column header
for noting the individual who delivered the
samples was included for entries between
August 21, 1985 and September 19, 1985, but
26
-------
Field Crew Members;
Field Crew Leader:
Routine Staff:
Additional
Participants:
Notes:
Audit Visits:
Who:
Date:
Field Crew:
Page in Logbook of
Notes Taken During
Audit
Figure 2. Recommended title page for sampling log books.
27
-------
Pedon
Number
County
Sampling
Class
Pag
Site
Selection
Notes
e
Sampling
Notes
Lake Name
Lake ID
Location
Page
Set
ID
Date Where
Used used
Page
Figure 3. Recommended Index page for sampling log books.
28
-------
Watershed No.:
Location:
County:
Map:
Sampling Class: .
Vegetation Class:
Site Selection
Site Location Notes:
Point 1:
Pedon No.:
Lake Name:
Date:
Crew ID:
Additional Participants:
Figure 4. Recommended format for site location notes.
29
-------
Watershed No.:
Location:
County:
Map:
Sampling Class: _
Vegetation Class:
Weather:
Soil Sampling
Pedon No.:
Lake Name:
Date:
Crew ID:
Additional Participants:.
1
'1mi> of Arrival :
Time of Departure:
Samples Collected
Sample Code
Horizon
Depth
# Clods
Figure 5. Recommended format for sampling notes.
30
-------
Notes:
Sample Storage:
Sample Transport to Prep Lab:
Figure 5. (Continued).
31
-------
Film
Roll I
Slide *
WS ID
WS Name
Sampl1ng
Class
SI Ide Description
Figure 6. Recommended format for slide key.
32
-------
was omitted from entries after September 19,
1985. The condition of samples was noted as
good for all samples received, and wet sam-
ples were indicated. Sample labeling errors
were corrected by a line running through the
incorrect entry with the correction made above
the entry. These corrections were not initialed.
No unique conditions or protocol deviations
were recorded in the log book. No data for
the number of horizons sampled for clods or
the number of clods collected were provided.
Log Book #2-
The format of the sample receipt log
book submitted by Laboratory #2 followed a
column and row organization. Column headers
were the following: code, batch number, crew
identification, site identification, set identifica-
tion, date received, received by, delivered by,
and comments. A weekly summary of the
number of samples received, total number of
samples collected, the number of pedons
sampled for the week, and the total number of
pedons sampled were provided. Mislabeled
samples were identified, as were wet samples.
Clod samples and horizons from which these
were collected were identified in a few cases,
but not routinely. Cases where no field dupli-
cate was collected were noted.
Log Book #3--
The log book reviewed for this report
was the preparation laboratory's sample
processing log book rather than the sample
receipt log book. It is a compilation of the
sampling labels received by the preparation
laboratory. The labels were affixed to the
pages of the log book near the left-hand
margin of the page. On the right the sample
condition, number of sample bags received,
sample weight, and percent rock fragments
were recorded. Sample labeling errors were
corrected in the right margin. The laboratory
began recording the date of sample receipt as
of September 13, 1985. No unique conditions
or protocol deviations were noted in the log
book. No data for the number of horizons
sampled for clods or the number of clods
collected were provided.
Log Book #4--
The log submitted by Laboratory #4 was
a computer-generated list of data under the
following headings: set identification, sample
code, date sample was collected, date and
time the sample was received, and initials of
the recipient. This log provided no record of
the condition of the samples upon receipt at
the preparation laboratory, the number of
horizons sampled for clods, or the number of
clods collected. No mislabeling errors were
indicated, although a few lines were crossed
out in the lists with no explanation for the
changes.
The variability of the information recorded
in the sample receipt log books suggests that
a standard format would be desirable to
ensure that useful sample receipt information
is recorded. This documentation includes the
date, time, and person delivering the sample in
addition to information identifying each sample
as a unique entity. All samples delivered to
the preparation laboratory should be logged in,
including clod samples. A record of field
duplicates and paired pedon samples would
also be useful for later data summary. A
suggested format for sample receipt log books
is provided in Figure 7. The many column
headers needed to record all necessary data
suggest that an 11- by 14-inch notebook would
be most useful. Columns must be wide
enough to allow data to be entered legibly.
Sampling crews should record directly on
the sample bag label any information that may
be important in the handling of the sample by
the preparation laboratory (e.g., unsieved
samples) or that may affect the quality of the
sample (e.g., leaking gel-pacs contaminated
samples stored in the styrofoam coolers).
This information should then be recorded in
the sample receipt log book under "Sample
Condition".
Collection of Field Duplicates
The number of field duplicates (526)
obtained during sampling satisfied the DQO
goal, which specified that each sampling crew
was to collect one horizon in duplicate on each
day of sampling. The level of field duplicate
collection was evaluated by the number of
pedons sampled per day. Horizon types were
not equally represented by the samples
collected (see page 21).
To facilitate the evaluation of field dupli-
cate collection, sample receipt log books
33
-------
CO
i~*l. M**r
Crew
1C
Silt
ID
ID
Dltt
Collected
D>U
IrctUtd
Tlx
iT
•/
Swle
Condition
Wtl/Drj |W/0)
Jleved/Uiultrtd IS/IP)
MI Split IK)
Under Volwt (W)
Md
(Utter ol
Clod S«wln
Collected
lor C*ch terllon
tlonil Matet
riell
Dupl Icttct
Mired
Figure 7. Recommended format for sample receipt log books.
-------
should record the date of sample collection so
that a determination of the number of field
duplicates that should have been collected can
be made easily. The sample receipt log book
at one preparation laboratory did not contain
the dates of sample collection, and the log
book of another did not record the receipt of
any special interest watershed samples.
Review of Profile Descriptions
Paired Pedon Descriptions
The DQO target level for paired pedon
description and sampling was 30 paired
pedons of the initial 313 pedons to be sam-
pled, or a level of 9.4 percent. Four paired
pedons were eliminated from consideration
because access was denied or soils were
highly disturbed at the sampling location, or, in
one instance, because a matching routine
pedon was not chosen by the computerized
site selection process (see Table 2, page 11).
A summary of the 26 paired pedons sampled
and their distribution among the states is
given in Table 6. Twenty-six paired pedons out
of the 306 total pedons sampled resulted in an
8.5 percent level of replication.
Paired pedons are the geostatistical
equivalent to field duplicates. The location of
the paired pedons is determined using the
following criteria:
• Sufficient distance between the rou-
tine and replicate pedon must be
allowed to avoid disturbance from the
excavation of the replicate pedon
affecting the sampling of the routine
pedon.
• The replicate pedon must satisfy the
same sampling and vegetation class
requirements as the routine pedon.
• The replicate pedon must occupy the
same slope position as the routine
pedon.
• Both the replicate and routine pedons
must be described and sampled using
the same protocols used for all rou-
tine pedons.
The objective of paired pedon description and
sampling is to gain some indication of the
variability of field-observed characteristics and
physical and chemical soil properties over
short distances. The determination of physical
and chemical parameters will yield quantitative
data that may be used in statistical compari-
sons during data validation.
The qualitative components of the paired
pedon descriptions were evaluated for this
report. Differences in horizon designations
and other descriptive parameters, e.g., pH,
color, roots, and rock fragments, constitute
the basis for comparison in this report. Analy-
sis of profile descriptions for paired pedons
may give a different picture of similarity than
analysis based on the results of physical and
chemical data. Any qualitative differences
determined in the comparison of paired pedon
descriptions are not intended to be used for
any specific purpose other than documenting
the variability observed during the Northeastern
Soil Survey.
The paired pedon descriptions were
systematically reviewed by comparing the field
observations of descriptive parameters, such
as horizon boundaries, horizon thickness,
color, texture, roots, and pH, between the
routine and paired pedons. Acceptable ranges
of differences for descriptive parameters were
included in the comparison. Subsequently, the
paired pedons were classified as similar,
moderately different, or very different based
primarily on the soil morphology, but with
consideration of other descriptive parameters.
Of the 26 paired pedons compared, 38 percent
of the pairs were evaluated as similar, 31 per-
cent were moderately different, and 31 percent
were very different.
Paired pedons may be compared with
respect to both the correlation of the horizon
designations and the correlation of field-
measured characteristics of horizons identified
for both pedons. When there is little
agreement in the horizon designations for the
routine and paired pedons, quantitative com-
parisons of field-measured characteristics are
not possible.
An attempt at qualitative comparisons of
the characteristics for pedons classified as
very similar revealed that no additional infor-
mation on variables within pedon pairs was
gained above that derived by determining the
proportion of horizon designations in common
35
-------
Table 6. Summary of the Qualitative Differences Between Paired Pedon*
Watershed
ID
Sampling
Class
Crew
ID
Pedon
Comparison
Total
Horizons
Horizons Described Differently
number
Massachusetts
1C2-050
1D1-034
1D2-094
1D3-003
140
106
109
141
MA02
MA01
MA01
MA02
M"
Ma
S*
Dc
10 „
9(10)"
5
5
5
2(3)tf
1
5
%
50
30
20
100
Maine
1C1-021
1E1-077
1E 1-092
1E1-123
1E1-069
1E1-022
S12
S10
102
142
SOS
S05
ME02
ME03
ME01
ME01
ME02
ME02
0
S
M
S
0
M
8(9)
8
6
7
6(5)
9(10)
7(8)
0
0
0
5(4)
6(7)
Pennsylvania
1B3-012
1B3-041
1B3-060
1B3-062
129
H02
133
125
PA01
PA01
PA01
PA01
S
S
S
M
4
3
6
7
New Hampshire
1C2-057
1C3-063
1D1-067
1A1-012
1A2-002
1A2-037
1A2-045
1A2-052
1A3-040
1A3-046
1B3-004
1B3-052
101
138
101
E02
SOS
S05
S13
S02
101
EOS
130
E06
NH01
NH01
CT01
NY03
NY03
NY01
NY02
NY01
NY02
NY03
NY02
NY03
D
S
Rhode
D
New
M
D
D
M
M
D
S
S
S
7(6)
6
Island
9
York
6
8(6)
7(8)
7
9(7)
8(7)
4
6
5
0
0
0
0
5(4)
0
6
0
5(3)
4(5)
0
7(5)
6(5)
0
0
0
89
ofl
0"
0
80
70
0
0
0,
o'
67
0
67
Q
o3
50
63
f\n
0
71
71
0
0
0
a Moderately different (M).
b Similar
(S).
c Very different (D).
" The number of horizons described for the routine
pedon are given
first, followed
by the number of horizons described
for the paired pedon in parentheses.
8 Horizon
' Horizon
thickness, boundary,
thickness, boundary,
and pH differed.
and color differed.
3 Color, pH, degree of weathering, and morphogenesis differed.
" Horizon
thickness, color, pH,
and rock fragments
differed.
for those pairs. Even when the paired descrip-
tions were similar,, the field-measured proper-
ties, e.g., horizon, thickness, were found to
differ considerably. This provided the addition-
al justification for considering the routine and
replicate pedons as unmatched pairs.
The qualitative classification of the
paired pedons is summarized in Table 6. A
comparison of the horizon designations shared
by paired pedons is a crude analysis of the
integrated sum of differences of all field-
measured characteristics. The number of
horizons shared by each pair and the number
of those described differently within each pair
are also provided in Table 6.
The pedons classified as very different
were those that exhibited differences in hori-
zon designations between 50 and 100 percent.
Generally, the surface horizons of those
pedons were more similar than were the
subsurface horizons. Differences in horizon
designations and characteristics became
greater with depth.
36
-------
Paired pedons that were classified as
moderately different were those that differed
from each other for up to 78 percent of the
total number of horizon designations. In
situations where the horizon designations were
the same, i.e., 0 percent difference, there were
still three or more horizon properties, specifi-
cally horizon thickness, depth, boundary, color,
or pH, that were variable enough to justify a
conclusion that the paired pedons were quali-
tatively different.
Comparison of paired pedons at the
qualitative level appears to be a useful exer-
cise only for describing the inherent natural
variability of the sampling classes. The value
of this comparison for future surveys can only
be determined after the analytical data are
complete, and has been analyzed statistically.
The low correlation values between the routine
and replicate pedons suggests difficulty in
sampling qualitatively similar pedons utilizing
the sampling design employed in this survey.
The lack of qualitative similarity between
paired pedons does not necessarily mean
these soils are dissimilar for the purposes of
this project, because in this project similar
soils are defined by sampling classes. In
every case, paired pedons fell into the same
sampling class, and were identified as the
same soil series.
The results of the laboratory analyses for
paired pedon samples should be analyzed and
reviewed before a final determination of the
variability between paired pedons and, thereby,
within sampling classes, is assessed. The
conclusion that only 38 percent of the paired
pedons were rated as similar should be con-
sidered when examining the laboratory data.
It may also be difficult to quantitatively or
qualitatively evaluate the variability of the
paired pedons and the sampling classes
based on the analytical results only.
In summary, this examination of the
field-described characteristics points out the
difficulty in matching horizon-for-horizon and
the associated field characteristics over the
distance of a few meters for soils identified as
the same series. Matching data for all pedons
within a sampling class over the entire region
is expected to be even more difficult. The
paired pedons are true field duplicates, but the
examination of the data should be considered
a validation activity. Paired pedons should be
included in future surveys to describe the
variability of soils within a sampling class over
a distance of a few meters.
Independent Pedon Descriptions
In addition to the RCC and SCS state
staff evaluations previously discussed, inde-
pendent pedon descriptions occasionally were
made (see Table 7). These were compared
with the sampling crews' pedon descriptions.
A total of 23 independent descriptions were
made by either the RCC and the sampling
crew or by the sampling crew and the SCS
state staff, and in five cases both evaluators
made independent descriptions of the same
pedons.
The purpose of performing independent
pedon descriptions is to provide a basis for
qualitatively evaluating the variability that
occurs when two or more soil scientists de-
scribe the same pedon. Although the stan-
dards and guidelines routinely used by the
SCS are often based on precisely defined
terms, the consistency in application is not
always perfect. A certain degree of subjec-
tivity is inherent in this process, creating some
variability between individuals making observa-
tions on the same soils. For example, the
color of one horizon may be described in three
different ways by as many describers. The
precision of comparing a soil sample with a
Munsell color chip is primarily influenced by the
amount of sunlight present, the moisture
content of the sample, and the ability of the
describer to distinguish hue, value, and chroma
differences.
Independent pedon descriptions are
useful for comparing notes on measuring
subjective field characteristics, such as horizon
boundaries, soil texture, or color. Usually,
horizon designations are determined by evalu-
ating a range of physical characteristics and
interpreting their relationship to soil develop-
ment. Independent pedon descriptions are
comparable only where the describers focus
on the same face or portion of the pedon.
Independent pedon descriptions made by
two describers are summarized in Table 7.
The horizon designations for each pedon
description were evaluated with respect to all
field-measured variables recorded on the field
37
-------
Table 7. Summary of Independent Pedon Descriptions Evaluated
Describers
Watershed
ID
1A2-052
1D3-044
1A3-040
1A2-002
1A2-054
1A2-012
1E2-049
1E3-042
1E2-038tf
1E1-054
1E2-069
1E2-007
1E1-074
1E1-062
1B2-028
1B3-041
1B3-053
1B3-053
1C3-031
1D2-094
1 03-020
1D1-031
1D3-053
1D1-034
1B3-056
1D3-033
1D3-025
1D3-025
1C2-037
1C2-037
1C2-057
Sampling
Class
S02
140
101
SOS
S14
E2
S13
S13
S13
S14
S18
S02
E5
12
133
129
125
133
.
141
15
E3
.
E3
H2
110
106
.
105
109
E02
Crew
ID
NY01
NY01
NY02
NY03
NY02
NY03
ME01
ME02
ME04
ME02
ME02
ME02
ME03
ME02
PA01
PA01
PA01
PA01
,
MA01
MA02
MA01
.
MA01
CT01
CT01
CT01
.
NH01
NH01
NH01
Evaluator
RCC SCS
X
.
.
-
X
X
X
.
.
.
.
X
X
.
-
X
X
X
.
X
.
.
X
.
.
.
X
X
"
,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
.
.
X
.
X
X
.
X
.
X
Horizons Described
Differently
Total
11
8
7(8)
7(8)
-
-
.
7(6)
-
8(7)
5(4)
9
5
7(8)
8
6
-
7(5)
.
9
5
.
9
9(10)
4
.
8
6
.
8(7)
6(5)
number
3*
f\o
nb.C
gftC
-
-
-
AC
7
1*«r.
^c'e
AC
Q»'a
gfl,/
0
0
-
4
-
Ofi,
0
-
2&.c
Sa
Q9
.
0
0
-
•I/),/
5ft«/
%
27
0
29
0
-
-
-
14
0
13
20
11
0
43
0
0
-
57
-
0
0
-
22
56
0
-
0
0
-
13
83
Horizon designations.
Soil color.
Field-observed pH.
Horizon designations were determined by both describers together.
Texture.
Structure.
Lithologic discontinuity.
Horizon thickness.
Horizon boundary.
data forms, according to the same procedure
used for paired pedon descriptions. Soil
colors were the most often noted differences
between the descriptions. These may be
related to variability in the describers' vision or
actual color variability in the samples. Soil pH
differences may have been due to differences
between soil samples or the types of pH
reagent, as well as differences in perception of
the pH color charts.
Unless it was certain that the descrip-
tions were made within a specific, delineated
area of the exposed soil profile, independent
pedon description comparisons were only
qualitative. It was not possible to conduct a
more detailed comparison of the field descrip-
tions because only one pedon (watershed ID
1A1-012) seemed to have been described by all
three describers for a specific portion of the
pedon.
It is recommended that the protocols for
future surveys specifically indicate that all
independent pedon descriptions must be
performed in the same portion of the pedon.
The pedon should be marked to clearly delin-
eate the profile for description. If descriptions
are not performed in the same locations, it
should be clearly noted on the field data form.
Independent pedon description comparisons
38
-------
yield little useful information unless the exact
portion of the same profile is described.
It is also recommended that the indepen-
dent field descriptions be reviewed among all
participants while still in the field so that
differences and discrepancies can be
discussed and documented at that time for the
benefit of the data users. The objective is not
to reach a consensus on the best description,
but is to provide an exchange of information
concerning the inherent variability among
describers and the characterization of soil
development features.
Data Entry and Management
This section describes the software,
procedures, and QA/QC measures used during
the development of the computerized data
base. Data entry protocols included visual
scanning of the data forms, computer entry,
entry checking, and editing. The specific
software, procedures, and checks varied
according to data type and also evolved
through time because of adjustments in the
data collection protocols, reporting forms,
available computer software and equipment,
and personnel.
Soil Mapping Data Files
During the spring and summer of 1985,
SCS soil scientists mapped 145 watersheds in
eight northeastern states. Transects were
made on the mapped watersheds to determine
mapping unit composition. SCS state staffs
prepared watershed attribute maps that delin-
eated soil types, vegetation cover types,
bedrock geology, and depth to bedrock at a
scale of 1:24,000. Bedrock geology deline-
ations were derived from existing geological
maps. The other maps were derived from
data collected as part of this project.
Preliminary map legends and mapping
unit descriptions were prepared by SCS state
staffs using existing soil surveys, topographic
maps, and aerial photography. After mapping
was completed, the provisional legends and
mapping unit descriptions were correlated at a
workshop held in Saranac Lake, New York, in
July 1985. Using data from field transects, the
workshop participants applied a consistent
mapping unit nomenclature and composition
from state to state. Most of the mapping
units were described as consociations or
complexes of soil series, although a few
mapping units were defined as consociations
or complexes at a higher taxonomic category
e.g., Great Group.
Each mapping unit description form
included the mapping unit name, slope, land-
scape position, landform, parent material,
depth to bedrock, taxonomic classification, and
inclusions of unnamed soils occurring in the
mapping unit. The map legends and mapping
unit description forms were scanned for legi-
bility, completeness, and accuracy. Any dis-
crepancies were resolved through communica-
tion with the SCS state staffs.
Following the workshop, both ERL-C and
ORNL entered the watershed map attributes
and mapping unit description data into their
respective computer systems. Data entry at
ORNL was performed by an in-house data
entry center and the resulting files were trans-
ferred to SAS files (SAS Institute Inc., 1987) on
the IBM 3033 system. ERL-C input the data
using dBase III software on an IBM personal
computer. The ERL-C files were transferred to
ORNL in an ASCII format, were uploaded to
SAS files on the IBM 3033 system, and the
two entries were compared for discrepancies.
Transect data were computerized by an in-
house data entry center using a double entry
procedure, and were uploaded to SAS files on
an IBM 3033 system.
Discrepancies in watershed attributes
were resolved through legend corrections and
some remapping by the SCS state staffs, and
the revised data were entered into the data
base. ERL-C used the ARC-INFO geographic
information system (GIS) to digitize the water-
shed attribute files. Then ERL-C compared the
updated watershed attribute data with the
digitized watershed attribute data, and re-
solved any inconsistencies. Finally, the GIS-
derived mapping unit areas were adopted as
the most reliable.
The mapping unit data were separated
into three files: mapping unit legend file,
mapping unit composition file, and mapping
unit component file. The mapping unit legend
file contains data pertaining to the identifica-
tion of the mapping unit, including the symbol,
name, and physiographic information. The
mapping unit component file contains data on
39
-------
each named soil or inclusion, such as slope,
drainage class, and taxonomic classification.
The mapping unit composition file contains the
percentage of individual components found in
each mapping unit. The reasons for splitting
the data into three files were to reduce the
amount of redundant information stored in a
single file and to facilitate the review and
comparison of the mapping unit components.
ERL-C sent listings of the computerized
mapping unit files to the SCS state staffs for
review and resolution of apparent inconsisten-
cies. Several iterations of updates were
entered into the SAS files at ORNL. The cor-
rections were entered into a change file which
contained the record identifier, the variable
name, the old value, and the new value. The
change file was then compared with each
record in the data base. Only when all three
items matched an observation in the data
base was the new value inserted. This
method of updating the data base virtually
eliminated the possibility of adjusting the
wrong observation or variable.
After the updates were made, ORNL
generated frequency tables of the coded
variables and compared these tables with lists
of valid codes. The frequency tables were
used to build code translation tables contain-
ing the codes and definitions. The code trans-
lation tables are stored as SAS format libraries
in the data base.
The final step in editing the mapping
data files involved the labeling of variables
and, where necessary, the modification of
variable names and labels to ensure con-
sistency among the data files. The complete
contents of the mapping files are given in
Turner et al. (1987).
Soil Sampling Data Files
Each sampling location and soil profile
were described in conjunction with soil sam-
pling. During the training workshop at the
University of Maine-Orono, the sampling crews
were instructed in uniform procedures for
describing the soils and recording data on the
field data forms.
Upon completion of sampling in the fall
of 1985, copies of the data forms were sent to
ORNL, ERL-C, and EMSL-LV. At ORNL, the
forms were scanned visually for completeness,
legibility, and the validity of code entries.
ORNL personnel noted any missing, illegible, or
suspect data.
Following resolution, the data were
computerized at ORNL by an in-house data
entry center using double entry procedures and
were then transferred to SAS files on the IBM
3033 computer system. The data were entered
as two linked files. The base file, designated
232 BO, contains one record for each pedon.
Data pertinent to the entire pedon such as
identifier, date sampled, location, taxonomic
classification, and physiographic information,
are stored in this file. These data were taken
from the first page of the field data form. The
horizon file, designated 232 HO, contains the
horizon characteristics, such as horizon depth,
thickness, color, structure, and other specific
horizon features. These data were reported on
pages 2 through 4 of the field data form.
The EMSL-LV staff developed and imple-
mented procedures to evaluate the data
recorded on the field data forms (Bartz et
al., 1987). Following receipt of the field data
forms, EMLV-LV examined the forms for sus-
pect data and sent a list of discrepancies to
the SCS state offices for resolution. SCS
returned the confirmed or corrected data.
These data were entered into a change file,
and were integrated into the data base.
ORNL generated frequency tables of
coded variables and compared them against a
list of valid codes. Invalid or suspect codes
were identified and sent to EMSL-LV for reso-
lution. This resulted in another round of up-
dates which were incorporated into the data
base.
As with the mapping data, labels were
assigned to all field variables and, where
necessary, variable names and labels were
modified to ensure consistency among the
various data files. The complete contents of
the field data files are discussed in Turner et
al. (1987).
40
-------
Section 4
Recommendations and Conclusions
Recommendations have been provided
throughout this report to resolve issues and
concerns stemming from the Northeastern Soil
Survey sampling operations. These recom-
mendations are summarized in this section to
aid in the design of future surveys. Although
the detailed discussions provided in the text of
this report are not reproduced in this section,
the appropriate sections are referenced, and
the recommendations are presented in the
order of occurrence in the text. A summary
assessing the overall quality of the soil sam-
pling operations concludes this report.
Recommendations
Site Selection
• As an alternative to site selection by
the sampling crew, SCS state staff
could identify and flag sampling site
locations before soil sampling. Then
sampling crews could be sent to
sites that have been previously evalu-
ated to meet soil and vegetation class
requirements.
Samp/ing Difficulties
• If possible, groundwater should be
removed from saturated soils before
sampling. This could be accomplished
by digging a sump pit upstream of
groundwater flow or by digging a
number of sump holes around the pit.
• Methods for draining wet soil pits
include digging a sump hole in a cor-
ner of the pit away from the face to
be sampled or using a mechanical
pump.
• Bucket augers or post-hole diggers
should be used to collect soil samples
only if no other sampling technique is
feasible. The use of bucket augers or
post-hole diggers should be docu-
mented on the field data form.
• Adequate time should be taken to
carefully sample each pedon. All
necessary sampling equipment should
be available for use on-site.
• Sampling should not be performed
during severely inclement weather if it
can be avoided.
• Data from samples obtained via
bucket augers or post-hole diggers
should be tagged with "W" in the data
base.
Equipment
• Extra sharpshooter shovels should be
procured as replacements for those
damaged during pit excavation.
• Monitoring the temperatures of styro-
foam coolers should not be necessary
in future surveys.
• A 35-mm camera with a flash unit and
wide-angle lens should be provided to
each sampling crew.
• ASA-400 film provided the highest
quality of exposures during the sam-
pling period.
• A standard scale for soil depth demar-
cations should be used in all pedon
photographs.
41
-------
• A standard card to identify pedons
should appear in all photographs.
• Pedon faces should be photographed
either in complete sunlight or complete
shade, using a flash unit where
necessary.
• Horizon boundaries should be marked
with golf tees for greater visibility in
the photographs.
• Hand pumps should be supplied to all
sampling crews.
Sample Sieving
• Sampling crews should note any pro-
tocol deviations (e.g., unsieved soils)
in the sampling log books and directly
on the sample labels to ensure that
the preparation laboratory receives
this information.
• Preparation laboratory personnel
should note any unusual sample con-
ditions or protocol deviations in the
sampling receipt log books.
Clod Sampling for Determination
of Bulk Density
• Greater consideration should be given
to the use of a standard Saran:ace-
tone mixture for the coating of clods.
Information on the viscosity of the
solution and the dipping procedure
should be noted in the sampling log
books.
Field Data Forms and Codes
• Codes to be eliminated from future
versions of the field data form include
the following:
- Micro-relief - pattern (P).
- Parent material - degree of weath-
ering and bedding inclination (W).
- Diagnostic features - lithic sub-
groups (L).
• Codes selected to characterize size
are the following:
Size (Roots, Pores, Concentrations)
M Micro 2 Medium
M1 Micro and fine 23 Medium and coarse
V1 Very fine 3 Coarse
11 Very fine and fine 4 Very coarse
1 Fine 5 Extremely coarse
12 Fine and medium 13 Fine to coarse
• Codes to be added to future versions
of the field data form include:
- Field-measured properties - Soil pH:
BG = bromocresol green
PR = chlorophenol red
- Land use - cropland abandoned
less than 3 years.
• Recommendations for future use of
field data forms include:
- Assist the SCS in redesigning the
format of the computerized SCS-
SOI-232 field data form.
- Allow ample space on the field
data form for all codes and their
definitions.
- Add, correct, or delete codes and
their definitions, as necessary.
• Use the SCS-developed software
package to enter field data into the
computer. Revisions of the data entry
package should be concurrent with
revisions of the field data form.
Regional Correlator/Coordinator
Evaluations
• The RCC should evaluate all sampling
crews at least once, as early as
possible in the soil sampling period.
Follow-up reviews should be con-
ducted where necessary.
• A standard format should be devel-
oped for written evaluations per-
formed by the RCC.
42
-------
• Variation among sampling crews
within and among states should be
evaluated.
Soil Conservation Service State
Staff Evaluations
• All crews should be evaluated at least
once, as early as possible in the soil
sampling period. Follow-up reviews
should be conducted where necessary.
• SCS state staffs should be provided
with a specific evaluation form to
ensure that detailed, written documen-
tation of each site visit is provided.
• Site selection and soil description
methods within and among each
state's crews should be evaluated.
Quality Assurance Staff Audits
• All sampling crews should be audited
as early as possible in the sampling
operations.
« Before leaving the sampling site, the
auditor should inform the sampling
crew of discrepancies identified during
an audit.
• Detailed audit reports should be sub-
mitted to the sampling task leader
within two weeks following the com-
pletion of the audit. If major audit
discrepancies are noted, telephone
contact should be made within two
days following the completion of the
audit.
• A summary report should be provided
comparing the variability observed
among sampling crews, both within
and among the states.
• Where the quality of certain samples
is seriously questioned, the suspect
pedon should be resampled. The new
set of samples should be analyzed
and the corresponding data output
compared to that from the original
samples.
• Audit reports should contain enough
detail to fully document the areas
evaluated. Issues identified during
the audit should be listed and their
resolution described. Follow-up re-
views to ensure protocol adherence
should also be provided.
• The QA staff representative should
ensure that each sampling crew is
audited, and that evaluations by the
RCC and SCS state staffs are made.
« Information from audit reports and
evaluations should be used to assess
the ability of contract bidders, e.g.,
private consultants, to accomplish
sampling under strict specifications,
before the awarding of sampling
contracts.
Sampling Log Books
• Several formats for documentation of
field information by the sampling
' crews were presented as examples
(see figures 2 through 6). A pre-
printed sampling log book in stan-
dardized format should be provided to
each sampling crew.
• Sampling log books should contain
information concerning:
- Visits by RCC, SCS state staff, and
QA auditors, including documenta-
tion of issues and concerns
discussed.
- Difficulties encountered in site
location activities.
- Difficulties encountered during soil
sampling operations.
- Irregular site conditions or charac-
teristics that could have an adverse
effect on the resulting analytical
data.
- Sampling activities that could have
an adverse effect on the quality of
samples collected.
43
-------
- Documentation of equipment
deficiencies.
- Comments concerning protocol
adherence or modification.
- Comparisons of paired pedon de-
scriptions, noting similarities and
differences.
- Phone numbers of the preparation
laboratory, the SCS state staff, and
others associated with the DDRP
Soil Survey.
- A record of clod samples collected,
including documentation when clod
samples were not collected.
Sample Receipt Log Books
• Each sampling crew should record
sample information upon delivery of
the samples to the preparation labora-
tory, and the laboratory personnel
should verify the information as soon
as possible. A suggested format
containing the necessary information
to assess sample condition and
initiate sample tracking is provided in
Figure 6.
Independent Pedon Descriptions
• The protocols should require that all
independent pedon descriptions are
made along the same profile face.
• All independent pedon descriptions
should be reviewed among the partici-
pants while still in the field, in order to
provide a comparison of variability
among the describers.
Conclusions
Generally, soil sampling activities pro-
ceeded as planned within the expected time
frame. The sampling methods and quality
assurance activities developed for use in the
Northeastern Soil Survey sampling activities
ensured the collection of soil samples of
known and documented quality. The coordina-
tion of sampling activities among the many
participants was a large-scale, complex task
that was successfully performed as originally
conceived with a minimum of unanticipated
difficulties and modifications. A number of
conclusions and recommendations have been
made in this report to assist planners of
similar projects.
44
-------
References
Bartz, J. K., S. K. Drouse, M. L Papp, K. A.
Cappo, G. A. Raab, L. J. Blume, M. A.
Stapanian, F. C. Garner, and D. S. Coffey.
1987. Direct/De/ayecf Response Project:
Quality Assurance Plan lor Soil Sampling,
Preparation, and Analysis. EPA/600/8-
87/021. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. 438 pp.
Cappo, K. A., L. J. Blume, G. A. Raab, J. K.
Bartz, and J. L. Engels. 1987. Analytical
Methods Manual for the Direct/Delayed
Response Project Soil Survey. EPA/
600/8-87/020. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. 318 pp.
Chen, C. W., S. A. Gherini, J. D. Dean, R. J. M.
Hudson, and R. A. Goldstein. 1984.
Development and Calibration of the
Integrated Lake-Watershed Acidification
Study Model, pp. 175-203 In: Schnoor, J.
L. (ed.) 1984. Modeling of Total Acid
Precipation Impacts. Butterworth Pub-
lishers, Boston, Massachusetts. 999 pp.
Cosby, B. J., R. F. Wright, G. M. Hornberger,
and J. N. Galloway. 1984. Model of
Acidification of Groundwater in Catch-
ments. Internal project report submitted
to EPA/North Carolina State University
Acid Precipitation Program.
Eyre, F. H. 1980. Forest cover types of the
United States and Canada. Society of
American Foresters, Washington, D.C.
Lammers, D., D. Cassell, J. J. Lee, J. Ferwerda,
D. Stevens, M. Johnson, R. Turner, and B.
Campbell. (In preparation.) Field Opera-
tions and Quality Assurance/Quality Con-
trol for Soil Mapping Activities in the
Northeast Region. EPA/600/3-87/017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon. 127 pp.
Papp, M. L and R. D. Van Remortel. 1987.
Direct/Delayed Response Project: Field
Operations and Quality Assurance Report
for Soil Sampling and Preparation in the
Northeastern United States, Vol. II:
Preparation. EPA/600/4-87/030. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, Nevada. 142 pp.
Reuss, T. O., and P. M. Walthall. 1987. Final
report on interpretation of U.S. EPA pilot
soil survey. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
SAS Institute Inc. 1987. SAS Applications
Guide, 1987 Edition. SAS Institute Inc.,
Gary, North Carolina. 272 pp.
Schnoor, J.S., W. D. Palmer, Jr., and G. E.
Glass. 1985. Modeling Impacts of Acid
Precipitation for Northeastern Minnesota.
pp. 155-173 In: Schnoor, J. L (ed.) 1984.
Modeling of Total Acid Precipitation
Impacts. Butterworth Publishers, Bos-
ton, Massachusetts. 222 pp.
Turner, R. S., J. C. Goyert, C. C. Brandt, K. L
Dunaway, D. D. Smoyer, and J. A. Watts.
1987. Direct/Delayed Response Project:
Guide to Using and Interpreting the Data
Base. Draft ORNL/TM-10369. Environ-
mental Sciences Division Publication No.
2871. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985.
Direct/Delayed Response Project. Long-
term Response of Surface Waters to
Acidic Deposition: Factors Affecting
Response and a Plan for Classifying that
Response on a Regional Scale. Volume
V: Appendix B.2 Soil Survey-Action
Plan/Implementation Protocol. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
Oregon.
45
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986.
Definition of Soil Sampling Classes and
Selection of Sampling Sites for the North-
east. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Corvallis, Oregon.
46
-------
Appendix A
Sampling and Preparation Laboratory Protocols
for the Direct/Delayed Response Project Soil Survey
The following protocols were used by the sampling crews and the preparation laboratory
personnel participating in the Northeastern DDRP Soil Survey. The draft manual was revised using
the information obtained from the sampling and preparation laboratory training workshop held on
August 7 and 8, 1985. The draft did not undergo external review and was not formally released by
EPA. It is presented here without editorial correction. Note that various Soil Conservation Service
documents were used in the preparation of this draft; however, because no editorial corrections
have been made, those documents are not cited.
47
-------
Field Sampling Manual for the
National Acid Deposition Soil Survey
by
L J. Blume1, D. S. Coffey2 and K. Thornton3
'Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
2Northrop Services, Inc.
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
3FTN and Associates
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Contract No. 68-03-3249
Project Officer
Phillip A. Arberg
Exposure Assessment Research Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
48
-------
Notice
This document is a preliminary draft. It has not been formally released by the y.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent Agency
policy. It is being circulated for comments on its technical merit and policy implications, and is for
internal Agency use/distribution only.
The mention of trade names or commercial products in this manual is for illustration
purposes, and does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
49
-------
Contents
Revision 2
« Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 2
Contents
Section Page Revision
Notice 1 of 1 2
Figures 1 of 1 2
Tables 1 of 1 2
Acknowledgments 1 of 1 2
1.0 Introduction 1 of 2 2
1.1 Scope 1 of 2 2
1.2 Personnel 1 of 2 2
2.0 Site Selection 1 of 8 2
2.1 Watershed Selection 1 of 8 2
2.2 Watershed Mapping 1 of 8 2
2.3 Sampling Classes 2 of 8 2
2.4 Watershed and Sampling Class Selection 3 of 8 2
2.5 Final Selection of Sampling Locations 5 of 8 2
2.6 Special Conditions 8 of 8 2
2.7 Paired Pedons 8 of 8 2
3.0 Site and Profile Description 1 of 5 2
3.1 Scope 1 of 5 2
3.2 Field Properties 2 of 5 2
3.3 Profile Excavation 2 of 5 2
3.4 Photographs of Profile and Site 3 of 5 2
3.5 Important Points Concerning Horizon Descriptions 3 of 5 2
3.6 Field Data Form-SCS-232 4 of 5 2
4.0 Sampling Procedures 1 of 5 2
4.1 Scope 1 of 5 2
4.2 Sampling the Pedon 1 of 5 2
4.3 Delivery 5 of 5 2
5.0 Soil Preparation Laboratory 1 of 8 2
5.1 Scope 1 of 8 2
5.2 Sample Storage 1 of 8 2
5.3 Sample Preparation 1 of 8 2
5.4 Shipment of Subsample to Analytical Laboratories 5 of 8 2
5.5 Sample Receipt by the Analytical Laboratory from the
Preparation Laboratory 6 of 8 2
5.6 Shipment of Mineralogical Samples 6 of 8 2
6.0 Summary of Physical and Chemical Parameters and Methods 1 of 3 2
6.1 Physical Parameters 1 of 3 2
6.2 Chemical Parameters 1 of 3 2
50
-------
Contents
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 2
Contents (continued)
Section Page Revision
7.0 Bulk-Density Determination 1 of 5 2
7.1 Scope 1 of 5 2
7.2 Apparatus and Materials 1 of 5 2
7.3 Procedure 1 of 5 2
3.0 Crews, Supplies, and Equipment 1 of 3 2
8.1 Scope 1 of 3 2
8.2 Equipment Notes 2 of 3 2
9.0 References 1 of 1 2
Appendices
A. Field Data Forms and Legends 1 of 22 2
51
-------
Figures
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 1
Figures
Figure Page Revision
4-1 NADSS Label A 4 of 5 2
5-1 National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 101 2 of 8 2
5-2 NADSS Label B 4 of 8 2
5-3 National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 102 7 of 8 2
5-4 National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 115 9 of 8 2
52
-------
Tables
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 1
Tables
Table Page Revision
2-1 Comparison of Coniferous, Deciduous, and Mixed Vegetation
Types to Society of American Foresters (SAP)
Forest Cover Types 7 of 8 2
4-1 Visual Estimate of Percent Volume of Rock Fragments Greater
than 75 mm Correlated to Percent Weight 4 of 5 2
7-1 Specific Gravity of Water 5 of 5 2
53
-------
Acknowledgments
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 1
Ackno wledgments
Contributions provided by the following individuals were greatly appreciated: 0. Lammers,
B. Jordan, M. Mausbach, R. Nettleton, W. Lynn, F. Kaisacki, B. Waltman, W. Hanna, B. Rohrke,
G. Raab, J. Bartz, B. Blasdell, and R. Harding.
The following people were instrumental in the timely completion and documentation of this
manual: Computer Sciences Corporation word processing staff at the Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas, C. Roberts at the Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis, and
M. Faber at Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company.
54
-------
Section 1.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 2
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Scope
This field sampling manual is written to guide personnel involved in the collection of soil
samples for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Direct/Delayed Response Project
(DDRP) Soil Survey. All field and laboratory personnel must be trained by a field manager or
another person knowledgeable in the procedures and protocols detailed in this manual. The scope
of the field sampling manual covers field operations, shipping of samples from the preparation
laboratory to the analytical laboratory, and sample receipt by the analytical laboratory.
This manual is a companion to the [laboratory] methods manual for the National Acid
Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) and the quality assurance plan for the National Acid Deposition
Soil Survey (NADSS). There is some repetition among the manuals which is necessary to maintain
continuity and to document concisely the methodology of the soil survey.
The basic goals of the NADSS procedures are to collect representative samples without
contamination, to preserve sample integrity for analysis, and to analyze samples correctly.
Analytical methods have been chosen that offer the best balance between precision, accuracy,
sensitivity, and the needs of the data user.
The overall objective of NADSS is to predict the long-term response of watersheds and
surface waters to acidic deposition. Based on this research, each watershed system will be
classified according to the time scale in which it will reach an acidic steady state, given current
levels of deposition. Three classes of watershed systems are defined:
Direct response systems: Watersheds with surface waters that either are presently acidic
(alkalinity <0), or will become acidic within a few (3 to 4) mean water residence times (<10
years). NOTE: Most lakes in the northeast have relatively short residence times, i.e., less
than 2 to 4 years.
Delayed response systems: Watersheds in which surface waters will become acidic in the
time frame of a few mean residence times to several decades (10 to 100 years).
Capacity protected systems: Watersheds in which surface waters will not become acidic for
centuries to millennia.
The objective of this manual is to define the means by which to characterize and sample soil
mapping units using U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS)
descriptive techniques.
1.2 Personnel
1.2.1 Field Sampling Crews
The field sampling crews will consist of soil scientists experienced in the National Cooperative
Soil Survey. Crews will be numbered consecutively beginning with 01. For example, if Maine has
three crews, they will be ME01, ME02, and ME03. These crews will be responsible for selecting the
pedon location, sampling the soil, and describing the profile. The field crew leader will have
ultimate responsibility for each crew's daily activities, such as placement of the pedon within each
sample class, correct labeling of sample bags and forms, and prompt shipment of samples.
55
-------
Section 1.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 2
1.2.2 Regional Coordinator/Correlator
The Regional Coordinator/Correlator (RCC) will monitor six to ten percent of the sampling
units to ensure adherence to SCS standards and field sampling protocol. Three to five percent of
the sites will be monitored in conjunction with the monitoring responsibilities of the SCS staff of
each state. The remaining sites will be monitored independently of the state SCS staff. Monitoring
will include a review of profile descriptions and selection of sites for sampling. The RCC will be
a qualified soil correlator with many years of experience with soil profile description and soil
mapping. He will also ensure that the SCS State Office Staff perform duplicate profile descriptions.
In this process, he will review these descriptions and point out potential problems.
1.2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Representative
The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) representative will review five percent of the
sampling units to ensure adherence to sampling protocol as specified in this manual.
1.2.4 SCS State Office Staff
Members of the SCS State Office Staff will independently describe five to ten percent of the
sample pedons and site descriptions and will monitor field sampling protocol. At least one site per
state will be audited by the RCC representative. The use of duplicate profiles, determined prior to
sampling, will assess variability in site description and sampling techniques between soil scientists
and will check adequacy of site selection and labeling. This process requires that the staff perform
their assessment while the crew is describing and sampling the pedons. NOTE: Reviews by the
RCC, QA/QC representative, and the SCS State Office Staff should be documented and all reports
should be submitted to the EPA-Las Vegas QA Manager.
1.2.5 Soil Preparation Laboratory
Four soil preparation laboratories will participate in NADSS. These laboratories include the
Cornell University Characterization Laboratory at Ithaca, New York, the University of Maine Soils
Laboratory at Orono, Maine, the University of Connecticut Soil Testing Laboratory at Storrs,
Connecticut, and the University of Massachusetts Soil Testing Laboratory at Amherst,
Massachusetts.
Small bags, data forms, labels, audit samples, shipping containers, and other equipment will
be shipped to these soil preparation laboratories by EPA-Las Vegas. The field soil scientists will
use these laboratories as sample drop-off points and supply pick-up points.
1.2.6 Analytical Laboratories
Routine and QA samples will be shipped in batches to each analytical laboratory from the
preparation laboratory. Each batch will consist of a maximum of 39 routine samples and field
duplicates, 2 audit samples, and a preparation laboratory duplicate.
56
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 8
2.0 Site Selection
2.1 Watershed Selection
Because the objectives of DDRP are focused on making regional inferences, it was critical that
the 150 watersheds selected for mapping of soils and watershed characteristics constitute a
representative sample of the region. The 773 watersheds included in Region I of the National
Surface Water Survey (NSWS) provided an excellent starting point from which to draw a subsample
of 150 for the northeastern portion of DDRP, because: (1) the NSWS lakes were selected according
to a rigorous probability sampling method (stratified by five subregions and three alkalinity classes
within each subregion), and (2) water-chemistry information was available from NSWS for these
lakes.
The 150 watersheds to be studied in DDRP also are part of the Phase II lake-monitoring
program of NSWS that will provide a data set that contains both water-chemistry and watershed
information. Therefore, the procedure used to select these watershed incorporated criteria relevant
to both DDRP and NSWS. The procedure consisted of five steps, which are summarized as
follows:
Step 1: Lakes of low interest (too shallow, highly enriched, capacity protected, polluted by
local activities, or physically disturbed) were excluded.
Step 2: Lakes too large to be sampled (>200 ha) were excluded.
Step 3: A cluster analysis was performed on a set of chemical and physical variables to
group the remaining 510 lakes into three clusters of lakes with similar characteristics.
Step 4: A subsample of 60 lakes was selected from each cluster, then the three subsamples
were weighted to represent the overall population of lakes in the northeast.
Step 5: Lakes with watersheds too large to be mapped at the required level of detail
(watersheds >300 ha) were excluded from the subsamples.
This procedure identified 148 lakes and watersheds, spread across the three clusters. Note
that the three groups differ primarily in their alkalinities, pH levels, and calcium concentrations. To
maintain the ability to regionalize conclusions drawn on the sample of 148 watersheds, the
precision of information characterizing each of these watersheds should be comparable, and each
cluster should be described at the same level of detail as the others.
2.2 Watershed Mapping
During the spring and summer of 1985, 145 of the 148 watersheds were mapped. The
logistics and protocols of the watershed mapping are described in chapters 6 and 7, Volume 5,
Appendix B.2 Soil Survey -- Action Plan/Implementation Protocol.
A total of about 440 mapping units were identified in the 150 watersheds. Sampling each of
the 440 mapping units would not necessarily be the best way to describe adequately the chemistry
of the region's soils. A better procedure is to combine the identified soils into groups, or sampling
classes, which are either known or expected to have similar soil-chemical characteristics. Each of
these sampling classes can then be sampled across a number of watersheds in which they occur,
and the mean characteristics of the sampling class can be computed. These mean values and the
57
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 8
variance about the mean can then be used to build "back-up" area- or volume-weighted estimates
of each watershed's characteristics.
For this procedure to work, it is critical that a sufficient number of samples are taken (five
or more) to characterize the variability of each sampling class. This necessitates aggregating the
number of mapping units into a reasonable number of sampling classes, given budgetary
constraints. Thus, the central goal is to develop a method of grouping the large number of soils
into a reasonable number of sampling classes.
2.3 Sampling Classes
2.3.1 Data Base
The data base contains about 2200 observations that were recorded on the field forms during
the soil mapping of 145 watersheds selected as part of the DDRP and the Phase II lakes survey.
This information includes:
Taxonomic class (series, subgroup, great group).
Parent material.
• Origin.
• Mode of deposition.
Drainage class.
Slope class.
Slope configuration.
Family texture.
Geomorphic position.
Dominant landform.
Surface stoniness.
Percent inclusions.
Percent complexes.
Estimated depth to bedrock.
Estimated depth to permeable material.
This information was considered in aggregating similar mapping units into sampling classes.
The data base also includes the area of each mapping unit, number of occurrences, and percent
of the watershed area.
Separate data files also exist for vegetation type, vegetation class, and geology. The data
management system, dBase III, runs on an IBM PC-XT microcomputer at the EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon (ERL-C).
2.3.2 Evaluation of Sampling Classes
A taxonomic approach was used to identify 38 sampling classes as a foundation for
aggregating similar mapping units. Taxonomic classification is based on similarities among soil
properties. This taxonomic scheme was modified to reflect the major factors influencing soil
chemistry.
58
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 3 of 8
2.4 Watershed and Sampling Class Selection
2.4.1 Sampling Class Objectives
The primary goal of this part of the sample selection procedure is to determine which
sampling classes will be sampled in which watersheds. The sample sites should be selected to
meet the following objectives:
Objective 1: To characterize all the sampling classes with similar levels of precision.
Objective 2: To describe the variation in watershed characteristics.
Objective 3: To describe the variation in the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) clusters
developed from the lake survey.
2.4.2 Sampling Class Constraints
To meet these three objectives, a series of constraints was developed based on the allocation
of samples to sampling classes and watersheds. The constraints that must be met follow:
Constraint 1: Approximately equal numbers of samples will be taken from each sampling
class.
Constraint 2: Approximately two samples will be taken from each watershed.
Constraint 3: Not more than one sample will be taken from each sampling class in each
watershed.
Constraint 4: Samples will be selected over the range of ANC clusters within each sampling
class.
The method outlined here was developed to randomly select watersheds and sampling
classes, within these constraints, using a simple selection algorithm.
2.4.3 Selection Algorithm
The method selection proceeds through a series of stages. Wherever possible, the rationale
for the particular approach taken is described and cross-referenced with the objectives and
constraints.
The selection method is based on the use of a systematic, weighted, random sample of the
watersheds that contain any given sampling class. First, the number of samples to be taken in
each sampling class is determined (Constraint 1).
2.4.3.1--
The first task is to construct a matrix of the occurrences of each sampling class in each
watershed. This matrix is used to: (1) prepare a list of the watersheds that contain each sampling
class, and (2) determine the number of different sampling classes in each watershed.
When the number of watersheds represented in each sampling class has been determined,
it is possible to allocate the samples to sampling classes (given Constraint 3).
59
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 4 of 8
Using eight samples per sampling class as a base, the following sample allocation occurs.
Eight samples will be allocated to each sampling class where there are more than eight
watersheds; where there are eight watersheds or less, one sample will be allocated to each
watershed.
2.4.3.2--
The next task is to determine which watersheds will be selected within each sampling class.
In this process, constraints 2 and 4 are centrally important.
If watersheds are selected randomly within each sampling class, the watersheds that contain
a large number of sampling classes wilt have more samples allocated to them than will the
watersheds that have fewer sampling classes. To counteract this effect, and to help approach an
approximately equal number of samples per watershed, the watersheds will be weighted (during
the random selection procedure) by the inverse of the number of sampling classes that they
contain.
For example, if one watershed contains four different sampling classes, it will be exposed to
the sample selection procedure four times. Thus, it will be given one quarter of the weight of a
watershed that contains only one sampling class. Using this technique, both watersheds have an
approximately equal probability of being selected. This scheme will work accurately if there are
equal numbers of watersheds considered in each sampling class; the presence of unequal numbers
will cause some deviation from the most desirable distribution of samples.
To avoid overemphasizing the very common soils, only one sample will be taken from each
watershed that contains only one sampling class. All named soils in a complex soil series are
counted as occurrences in their respective sampling classes. For example, a Tunbridge-Lyman soil
complex in a watershed mapping unit would be considered as one occurrence of sampling class
S12, which contains the Tunbridge series, and one occurrence of sampling class S13, which
contains the Lyman series.
The method used to select watersheds within sampling classes will be to sort the watersheds
by ANC cluster and then take a systematic, weighted, random sample using the weights described
above. This procedure selects a random starting point in the list of watersheds and then selects
watersheds at regular intervals from the (weighted) list. This method ensures a selection across
the range of ANC clusters.
To ensure that a watershed is not sampled more than once for a given sampling class, the
weight assigned should not be larger than the interval used in the systematic sampling. Weights
should be scaled down if they exceed the systematic sampling interval.
2.4.3.3--
Once this procedure has been followed for each sampling class, the initial selection of
watersheds and sampling classes can be summarized. Three options are possible at this point:
• The weighing factors can be adjusted iteratively until the allocation is acceptable.
• Samples can be arbitrarily moved among watersheds to reach the desired allocation.
• The selection can be accepted as adequate.
60
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 5 of 8
If the selection is not considered adequate, the most acceptable solution is to repeat the
procedure using adjusted weights. This process could be automated, if necessary, with the weight
of a watershed being increased until it receives sufficient samples.
The method of sampling class and watershed selection outlined here is designed to satisfy
the objectives and constraints listed in sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. Given the nature of the constraints,
it is likely that there is no single, perfect solution; however, this method allows the production of
an acceptable selection that is a compromise between the demands of the different objectives.
2.5 Final Selection of Sampling Locations
2.5.1 Rationale and Objectives
Soil surveys generally have a holotypic purpose of describing the typical soil series or soil
phases found in a watershed. The DDRP is interested in obtaining samples that are integrative or
that represent the sampling class in the watershed. This sampling class may contain six or seven
similar soils. The sampling purpose is not to describe the characteristics of a specific soil phase,
but rather to describe the characteristics of the sampling class. Because all soils within a
sampling class are considered similar in soil chemistry, the specific sampling location within a
sampling class can be selected at random with respect to the soil series. The procedures
described in this section are intended to: (1) characterize the range of variability that occurs within
a sampling class, and (2) characterize the soils within a sampling class using similar levels of
precision.
Determining the sampling location within the watershed sampling class is a two-step process.
2.5.2 Sampling Site Selection
There are five steps in selecting representative sampling sites within a sampling class:
NOTE: Steps 1 through 5 will be completed by ERL-C. Maps that show the five random
points, as discussed in Step 3, will be given to each SCS sampling crew.
Step 1: Prepare a list of all mapping units and the sampling class or classes in which they
occur. Most mapping units will occur only in one sampling class; complexes may
occur in two or more sampling classes. For each complex, record the proportion
of area occupied by each soil series in the complex (from the mapping unit
description). This proportion should be average proportion, excluding the area
occupied by inclusions.
Step 2: For each watershed, obtain the watershed map and identify the sampling classes
selected for that watershed. Mapping-unit delineations for each soil series must
be aggregated and identified for each sampling class.
Step 3: Transfer a grid that has a cell size of about 2 acres to a Mylar sheet. Overlay the
grid on the watershed map. Select a set of random coordinates (using a
computer program) and determine if the point they represent intersects one of the
sampling classes selected on that watershed. If the point does not fall within the
selected sampling classes, draw another pair of random coordinates. Continue
this process until five random points have been identified in each sampling class.
61
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 6 of 8
Record their order of selection from 1 through 5. Some sampling locations may
not be accessible, so alternate locations must be provided.
Step 4: If the point falls on a sampling unit that is a complex, draw a random number,
Y, between zero and the total percentage of the soils in the complex (e.g., a 50-
30 percent complex of Tunbridge-Lyman would sum to 80, so the maximum random
number is 80). Determine the percentage of the area in the desired sampling class
(e.g., Tunbridge is 50 percent). Call this number X. If X is less than Y, draw
another set of coordinates. This procedure minimizes the probability that
complexes will be overselected for sampling.
Step 5: For each location selected, overlay appropriate maps and note the vegetation class
associate with each point as: (1) coniferous, (2) deciduous, (3) mixed, (4) open
dryland, or (5) open wetland.
NOTE: For comparison of coniferous, deciduous, and mixed vegetation types to
Society of American Foresters (SAF) forest cover types, see Table 2.1.
Within the sampling class, sample the pedons that have one or more of the soils in the
sampling class and that have one or more of the vegetation classes noted above.
2.5.3 Sampling Site Locations
The procedure described above is to locate the general vicinity of the site on the watershed
soil maps. This procedure is completed, and the soil maps marked with the random points are
distributed, before the sampling crew leaves for the field. The point marked on the map may
represent an area of 100 m2 in the field. Within this general vicinity there may be inclusions, rock
outcrops, a complex soil, or other factors that make finding a soil of the specific sampling class
difficult. The following procedures will be used to select the specific sampling site in the
watershed.
2.5.3.1-
Obtain a list of the sampling classes to be determined on that watershed. Also obtain a map
that clearly shows the five predetermined random points for selection.
2.5.3.2-
As best as can be determined, the sampling crew will go to the location of the first potential
sampling site indicated on the map. If that location is inaccessible, go to the second potential
sampling site but note the reasons in the field logbook and, if possible, on the SCS-232 field form.
2.5.3.3-
If the location is accessible and the soil series at the site is in the selected sampling class
and the vegetation class is appropriate, sample the pedon.
2.5.3.4-
If the randomly selected site contains a soil series that is not a member of the sampling
class, or if the vegetation class is not appropriate from a random-number table, select a random
62
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 7 of 8
number between 1 and 8, where 1 represents the direction north, 2 represents northeast, 3
represents east,... 8 represents northwest. Walk along a straight line in the direction chosen until
the first occurrence of the proper combination of soil series and vegetation class is found. The
maximum distance walked corresponds to a radius of 155 m around the randomly selected site.
If a proper combination of soil series and vegetation class is not obtained after five tries, go to
the next potential site on the list. The number of traits at each site and the number of alternative
sites attempted should be recorded on Form SCS-232.
field.
These procedures provide a method for selecting a specific site and locating that site in the
Table 2-1. Comparison of Coniferous, Deciduous, and Mixed Vegetation Types to Society of American Foresters
(SAP) Forest Cover Types
SAP Cover Type Name
Cover Type Number
Coniferous Vegetation Types
Jack Pine
Balsam Fir
Black Spruce
Black Spruce - Tamarack
White Spruce
Tamarack
Red Spruce
Red Spruce - Balsam Fir
Red Spruce - Frasier Fir
Northern White Cedar
Red Pine
Eastern White Pine
White Pine - Hemlock
Eastern Hemlock
Aspen
Pin Cherry
Paper Birch
Sugar Maple
Sugar Maple - Beech - Yellow Birch
Sugar Maple - Basswood
Black Cherry - Maple
Hawthorn
Gray Birch - Red Maple
Beech - Sugar Maple
Red Maple
Northern Pin Oak
Black Ash - American Elm - Red Maple
Hemlock - Yellow Birch
Red Spruce - Yellow Birch
Paper Birch - Red Spruce - Balsam Fir
White Pine - Chestnut Oak
White Pine - Northern Red Oak - Red Maple
Deciduous Vegetation Types
Mixed Vegetation Types
1
5
12
13
107
38
32
33
34
37
15
21
22
23
16
17
18
27
25
26
28
109
19
60
108
14
39
24
30
35
51
20
63
-------
Section 2.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 8 of 8
2.6 Special Conditions
2.6.1 Inaccessible Watersheds
An attempt should be made to sample every watershed. However, some watersheds may
have inaccessible areas or areas where sampling access is denied. Alternative sampling classes
are selected during the random selection process as back-up sampling locations to ensure an
equitable distribution of samples among sampling classes. Initial estimates of watersheds that
may be remote and difficult to sample or that may be inaccessible include one in New Hampshire,
one in Massachusetts, two in Connecticut/Rhode Island, three in Maine, and five in New York. Each
state will formally document the reasons for excluding each watershed.
2.6.2 Inclusions
Inclusions are not representative of the soils in the sampling class and should not be
sampled if the randomly selected site is located on an inclusion. The procedures described earlier
accommodate this contingency. Generally, inclusions are soils associated with a sampling class
other than the one being sampled. The chemical properties of the inclusion, therefore, are
described when the other sampling class is sampled.
2.6.3 Agricultural Sites
The open-dryland class contains some cultivated fields. If these sites are randomly selected
and access permission is obtained, the sites will be sampled. Agricultural practices, however,
generally alter the chemical characteristics of the soil through fertilization, liming, and other
activities.
Note samples taken from agricultural sites on the field forms. During subsequent modeling
and statistical analyses, these samples may or may not be incorporated in representing watershed
soil chemistry.
2.7 Paired Pedons
Paired pedon sites for sampling are selected and assigned in advance by ERL-C. These sites
will be sampled in conjunction with the corresponding routine pedon. The sample code identifying
the paired pedon should be treated as a routine pedon.
The location of the paired pedon is determined by the crew leader using the following criteria:
• Establish sufficient distance between the two sampling locations to avoid disturbance of
the paired pedon from sampling of the routine pedon.
• Use the same sampling unit and vegetation class as the routine pedon.
• Use the same slope position as the routine pedon.
• Use the same profile description and sampling protocol as the routine pedon.
64
-------
Section 3.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 5
3.0 Site and Profile Description
3.1 Scope
Complete descriptions of the soils are essential to the soil survey and serve as a basis for
soil identification, classification, correlation, mapping, and interpretation. Standards and guidelines
are necessary for describing soil properties. Precisely defined standard terms are needed if
different people are to record their observations so that others can understand those observations.
However, the field scientist must always evaluate the adequacy of standard terms and add needed
information.
The description of a body of soil in the field, whether an entire pedon or a sample within it,
records the kinds of layers, their depth and thickness, and the properties of each layer. These
properties include color, texture, structure, characteristics of failure and disruption, roots and
animals (and their traces), reaction, salts, and boundaries between layers. Some properties that
apply to the entire sampling unit are also measured and recorded. Generally, external features are
observed from study of a pedon that is judged to be representative of the polypedon.
For a soil description to be of greatest value, the part of the landscape that the pedon
represents should be known and recorded. Descriptions of pedons that represent an extensive,
mappable area are generally more useful than are descriptions of pedons that represent the border
of an area or a small inclusion. Consideration is given to external and internal features of the soil,
related features such as vegetation and climate, and the setting - the position of the particular soil
in relation to other soils and to the landscape as a whole.
Pedons used for detailed study of a soil are selected tentatively at first. Areas that previous
studies have shown to contain the kind of soil to be described and sampled are most commonly
chosen. The pedon is usually selected on the basis of external evidence. Depending on the
purpose of the study, the selected pedon may be one that has properties either near the middle
of the range of the taxon or near the limits of the range. After a sampling site is tentatively
located, it is probed with an auger, spade, or sampling tube to verify that the soil at the site does
have the diagnostic features of the soil and that its properties at the site represent the desired
segment of the soil's range.
A pit that exposes at least one clean, vertical face (approximately 1 m across) to an
appropriate depth is convenient for studying most soils in detail. Horizontal variations in the pedon,
as well as features too large or too widely spaced to be seen otherwise, can be observed. The
sides of the pit are cleaned of all loose material disturbed by digging. The exposed vertical faces
are then examined starting at the top and working downward, to identify significant differences in
any property that would distinguish between adjacent layers. Boundaries between layers are
marked on the face of the pit, and the layers are identified and described.
Photographs can be taken after the layers have been identified but before the vertical section
has been disturbed for description. If point counts are to be made for estimation of volume of
stones or other features, the counts are made before the layers are disturbed. If samples are to
be taken to the laboratory for analyses or other studies, they are collected after the soil has been
described. ,
Horizontal relationships between soil features can be observed in a cross section of each
exposed layer by removing the soil above it. Each horizontal section must be large enough to
expose any structural units. A great deal more about a layer is apparent when it is viewed from
above, in horizontal section, as well as in vertical section. Structural units that are otherwise not
65
-------
Section 3.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 5
obvious, as well as in vertical section. Structural units that are otherwise not obvious, as well as
the third dimension of many other features, can be seen and recorded. Patterns or color within
structural units, variations of particle size from the outside to the inside of structural units, the
pattern in which roots penetrate structural units, and similar features are often seen in horizontal
section more clearly than in a vertical exposure.
3.2 Field Properties
The following parameters will be determined in the field by established SCS methods and
protocols M*. .
Horizon type.
Horizon depth.
Color.
Texture.
Structure.
Consistence.
Boundary type.
USDA/SCS soil taxonomic designation.
Surface vegetation type and abundance.
Parent material.
Physiography.
Relief.
Slope.
Aspect.
Permeability.
Erosion class.
Root distribution.
Drainage class.
Depth to bedrock.
Bedrock exposure.
Volume percent coarse fragments by visual estimation.
20 to 75 mm.
75 to 250 mm.
>250 mm.
• Diagnostic features.
• Mottle type and abundance.
The field crew will use Form SCS-SOI-232 for field description which is coded for easy input
onto a computerized data file. The protocol for horizon description is discussed in detail in the SCS
Soil Survey Manual2, the SCS National Soils Handbook', and Principles and Procedures for Using
Soil Survey Laboratory Data 3.
3.3 Profile Excavation
The exposed face of the pedon must be wide enough to permit pedon description, the
collection of bulk-density clods, and the collection of 5.5 kg or more of sample from each of the
significant horizons. The pedon face should be photographed (Section 3.4) before destructive
sampling begins.
66
-------
Section 3.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 3 of 5
3.4 Photographs of Profile and Site
Photographic documentation of the sampling phase will be useful for later reference and
future discussions concerning specific site considerations, and will complement field descriptions.
Field crews will provide their own single-lens reflex, 35-mm cameras or equivalent and will obtain
film locally. Ektachrome, ASA 400 slide film is recommended, but field crews should determine film
speed suitability based on their knowledge of the site. If flash attachments and tripods are
available, they should be included in the sampling equipment. For film-quality consistency, all slides
should be developed using prepaid Kodak mailers.
Photographic documentation requires that a precise logbook be kept to identify corresponding
slides. The indexing system can be developed by the field crew, but must be based on the sample
code from NADSS Label A to identify the site. The system must be fully explained in the logbook.
Once the slides have been developed, they should be labeled on the slide mounts with the sample
code and any other information the field crew deems necessary. Slides will be stored in 3-ring
binders in slide files and will be submitted with the logbook to ERL-C at the conclusion of the
sampling phase of the survey. Histosols should be photographed by sequential placement of the
augered horizons on the surface.
The pedon face, tree canopy, understory vegetation, and representative landscape or landform
will be photographed for each site sampled. Scale should be provided by including a meter stick,
rule, or other suitable item in the photograph. Pedon face identification can be positively made by
including NADSS Label A or an index card displaying Label A information in the photograph. SCS
protocols for field photography are outlined in the SCS National Soil Survey Manual2, Chapter 9.
3.5 Important Points Concerning Horizon Descriptions
The sample site should be free of road dust and chemical contamination. State all known
spraying of pesticides and herbicides.
Soils will be sampled only from freshly dug pits large enough (1 m x 1 m) to allow sampling
of all major horizons to a depth of 1.5 m or to bedrock.
Samples will be taken from continuous horizons >3 cm thick, including the C horizon if
present. Discontinuous horizons will be sampled when considered significant by the crew leader.
Clods will be collected for all horizons sampled, except the O, horizon. The bulk density
procedure is detailed in Section 7.0.
All obvious horizons in a pedon are to be sampled, although a maximum of six horizons had
been previously specified as a limit for cost estimates and planning purposes. It is the decision
of the field soil scientist whether or not a horizon is significant enough, for DDRP purposes, to be
sampled and described. Therefore, if the field soil scientist believes there are eight significant
horizons, he should sample all eight. Pedons can not be dug in wetlands. The recommended
procedure for obtaining a 5.5-kg sample is to use a peat-sampling corer.
Sample pits will be accurately located on the soil survey maps, and the pit dimensions and
the azimuth perpendicular to the pit face will be recorded. The location of the pit in the field should
be flagged or identified so that it can be revisited, except in areas where this is not possible due
to landowner restrictions. One horizons per day will be sampled twice by each field crew. This will
be the field duplicate (FD). The choice of which horizon to duplicate is at the discretion of the field
crew. The procedure for obtaining this duplicate sample is to alternate when placing trowel or
67
-------
Section 3.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 4 of 5
shovelfuls of sample into each sample bag. The horizon that is chosen for a field duplicate should
be alternated each day so that a complete range of field duplicates by horizon is achieved.
3.6 Field Data Form - SCS-232
All field data should be recorded on Form SCS-SOI-232, which is reproduced along with a
modified legend in Appendix A. The SCS is responsible for making sure that completed copies of
these forms are sent weekly to the following groups:
One copy to the preassigned soil preparation laboratory for each crew.
One copy to the EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) to:
Lockheed Engineering and
Sciences Company
1050 E. Flamingo, Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
One copy to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box X
Building 1505, Room 343
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
and one copy to the EPA ERL-C to:
Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
NOTE: The following changes and additions from the normal procedure should be made to
complete Form SCS-232.
Page 1 of 4
Under "Sample Number," "unit" is synonymous with "pedon."
Under "Date" add the day as: / /
Month Year Day
Under "Describers Name" add the Crew ID in the upper right hand corner.
Under "Location Description and Free Form Site Notes" the first six digits of line 1 should be
the site ID (Lake ID), the seventh digit is a dash, the eight digit is the random number point (1 to
5), the ninth digit is a dash and digits 10 through 12 are the sampling class, digit 13 is a dash,
digits 14 through 16 are the azimuth perpendicular to the described pit face, the digit 17 is a degree
symbol"°".
Under "Vegetation" describe the three major species by decreasing basal area. Clearcut
should be noted as "CC." Describe dominant vegetation types prior to clearcut in the free form site
notes.
68
-------
Section 3.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 5 of 5
The following soil description parameters need not be completed by field crews, but may be
if information is accessible: Precep, Temperatures °C, Weather Station Number, ER.
Page 2 of 4
Dry color should be determined when needed for classification.
"VOL (LAT/TOT)" need not be completed but may be if information is accessible.
Page 3 of 4
Mottles should be described as indicated in Chapter 4 of the National Soils Survey Handbook1.
"Effervescence" will be determined at the preparation laboratory and need not be completed
here.
Page 4 of 4
The three divisions under "Rock Fragments" correspond to the three volume particle size
estimates:
line 1 = 2 to 75mm
line 2 = 75 to 250 mm
line 3 = >250 mm
Legend
Under "Site Description Codes" for page 1 add "AA" for a local site description.
69
-------
Section 4.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 5
4.0 Sampling Procedures
4.1 Scope
The objective of the field sampling phase of the DDRP is to characterize the soil and
watershed characteristics across the regions of concern, the northeastern United States, and the
southwestern portion of the Blue Ridge Province.
Field sampling includes the collection of a 5.5-kg field sample that will yield a minimum of
2 kg of air-dried material of particle sizes <2 mm. This requires 5.5 kg of mineral soil, or as much
soil possible to fill the presupplied 46 cm x 53 cm sample bags, and twice this volume for organic
soils. In addition, bulk-density clods will be sampled for laboratory determination of field bulk
density.
4.2 Sampling the Pedon
4.2.1 Field Sampling Protocols
Field sampling protocols are based on the standard methods routinely used by SCS. The
following procedural steps were developed by the National Soil Survey Laboratory, Lincoln,
Nebraska, and are detailed in a publication titled Principles and Procedures for Using Soil Survey
Laboratory Data 3. An edited version of these procedures is reproduced here. The protocol for
collecting bulk-density samples is specified in Chapter 7.0 of this manual.
4.2.2 Sampling Party Responsibilities
The sampling party has responsibility to obtain samples representative of the pedons selected
for characterization. Although some sampling protocol has been specified, field-crew decisions are
necessary on how deep to sample, horizon delineation, thickness of horizon (or interval) sampled,
what material should be excluded from the sample, and the usefulness of compositing samples.
The sampling party ensures that site and pedon descriptions are adequate.
4.2.3 Pedons for Characterization
Pedons for characterization studies should be sampled to a depth of 1.5 m where possible.
In cases where the lower depths of the profile appear homogenous and the C horizon material is
particularly difficult to penetrate in (e.g., dense basal till), it may be feasible to dig the pit to 1.5 m.
However, it is still possible that a dense basal till will show a variable pH from the upper to the
lower sections of the C horizon. If this were true, a sample would be desirable even if the material
is hard to dig. These types of decisions are judments to be made to the best of the ability of the
sampling-crew leader and should be documented in the field sampling notebook. The sampling
party needs to be alert to taxonomic questions that may arise and sample appropriately to resolve
the questions (i.e., base saturation for Alfisol versus Ultisol may require subsamping at a specific
depth). Appropriate sampling increments depend on the kind of material and the proximity of the
horizon to the soil surface. Horizons in the upper 1 m would usually be split for sampling if they
are more than 30 cm thick, excluding organic horizons. Uniform horizons below 1 m are usually split
for sampling if they are more than 75 cm thick. The sampling party must exercise good judgment
in this decision process. The ideal sample contains each soil material within the horizon in
proportion to its occurrence in the pedon. The sampler attempts to approximate the ideal sample
70
-------
Section 4.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 5
by carefully sampling a selected section of the horizon. The sample is usually taken along a pit
face from horizon boundary to horizon boundary and between arbitrary lateral limits.
4.2.4 Lateral Limits
Lateral limits encompass short-range variability observed at the site. If a recurring pattern
(i.e., mottles, durinodes, nodules, plinthite) is discerned, extend the lateral limits to four or five
cycles of the pattern. If this produces too much material, the sample is mixed, quartered, and
subsampled. At some point, the repeat cycles become too large or soil properties change
sufficiently that lateral extension is impractical or undersirable. An example is the gilgai pattern in
Vertisols. Proper characterization may warrant the sampling of two sets of horizons or pedons.
4.2.5 Stratified Horizons
If a horizon is stratified or otherwise contains contrasting materials, each material should be
carefully described. Some contrasting materials can be sampled independently, but in many cases
the materials are intertwined to the point that practicality dictates they be sampled together. Each
material should be described and the proportions should be noted, however. A decision on what,
if any, materials should be excluded from the sample is an integral part of collecting a
representative sample. The sampling party may decide to include soil material in cicada casts and
nodules as part of the sample, but to exclude material from a badger tunnel.
Coarse fragments (>20 mm) will be excluded from all samples sent to the laboratory except
for bulk-density clods.
4.2.6 Composite Samples
One sampling technique designed and used here to average lateral variability is to sample
three or four relatively small segments (20 to 30 cm wide) of the same pedon at several points
around the pit. The samples are composited, mixed, and a representative sample is sent to the
laboratory for analysis.
4.2.7 Filling Sample Bag
Approximately 5.5 kg or more of soil less than 20 mm in diameter should be placed in each
plastic sample bag. However, the amount of soil obtained for chemical analysis is highly dependent
on the amount of coarse fragments contained in each horizon.
For example, if the horizon is determined to contain 50 percent coarse fragments by a visual
estimate, the corresponding weight estimate for coarse fragments is 65 percent (Table 4.1). This
estimate indicates that a 5.5-kg sample will contain 35 percent of material <2 mm or only 1.8 kg
of sample. Field sampling protocols specify that a minimum of 2 kg of soil of particle size <2 mm
is necessary for the chemical and physical analyses specified. Care must be taken to ensure that
field samples will yield the minimum 2 kg of soil in the <2 mm particle-size class. Table 4.1
illustrates that a 5-kg sample from horizons containing coarse fragments greater than 60 percert
by weight or 45 percent by volume will not be sufficient to obtain a minimum 2-kg sample.
Minimum sample weights for horizons with coarse fragments and weights in this category are
provided iri Table 4.1.
NOTE: This table is included as a guide and probably will not be most useful in the field, but
the concept explained is important.
71
-------
Section 4.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 3 of 5
The general rule to follow is that the minimum amount of field sample is 5.5 kg of the
^20-mm particle-size fraction. If the estimated 2- to 20-mm size class exceeds 45 percent by the
volume estimate, then two 5.5 kg samples or two full sample bags of mineral soil is necessary.
Two full bags of organic horizon material are requested in every case possible. Plastic sample
bags should be pre-labeled with NADSS Label A. Attach the label to the center of the bag, not near
the top of the bag. Double check that all designations are correct, complete, and legible. Large,
easily removed nonmineral material should not be included in the sample. Limit handling of the soil
sample to avoid contamination.
Table 4-1. Visual Estimate of Percent Volume of Rock Fragments Greater than 75 mm Correlated to Percent
Weight
% Volume
0
3
7
10
13
16
20
23
27
31
35
40
45
50
56
62
68
74
80
% Weight
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
Weight of <20 mm
particles in a
5-kg sample
5.00
4.75
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
Sample weight
required to ob-
tain a minimum
2-kg sample
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.7
6.6
8.0
10.0
13.0
20.0
bag.
In wet soils, such as Histosols, excess water should be drained before sealing the sample
The top of the plastic sample bags should be folded down in 2.5-cm sections. The folded
sections should then be stapled or tied with twist-ties to seal.
The plastic bags should then be placed within pre-labeled canvas bags. Label the canvas bag
below the center with indelible ink or use presupplied label stamps. Record exactly the same
information contained on NADSS Label A. Seal the canvas bag by tying or stapling. Place the
samples in coolers with Blue Ice as soon as possible after field sampling. Transport samples to
the preparation laboratory as soon as possible.
4.2.8 NADSS Label A (Figure 4-1)
The date sampled is entered in the format DD MMM YY. For example, March 14,1985, will be
1 4 M A R 8 5. The crew ID will consist of four digits: the first two are alphabetic, representing
the state; the second two are the number assigned to each crew for the state, for example, NY 01.
The site ID consists of six digits and appears on the assigned watershed map as:
72
-------
Section 4.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 4 of 5
1
Region
2
Subregion
Alkalinity Class
456
Watershed ID
The sample code represents the SCS (FIPS) soil ID code and the sample type. The first three
digits of the sample code represent the type of sample (R11 = routine sample, one bag, one
sample; R23 = routine sample, 2nd of 3 bags; R33 = routine sample, 3rd of 3 bags; Field Duplicate
= FDO, [FD1, FD2 are used for compound bags of field duplicates] etc.), digits 4 to 5 are the SCS
state code, 6 to 8 are the SCS county code, digit 9 is a dash, digits 10 to 11 are the county pedon
number and digits 12 to 13 are the horizon number. Upper and lower split horizons will be identified
by the depth designations (written after the horizon designation). A "U" or an "L" can also be
written after the horizon depth to help to differentiate these samples for the preparation
laboratories. The Set ID is a four-digit number beginning with 0. The field sampling crews are
assigned the following ideal set of 100 Set ID numbers for sampling in the Northeast:
100-199 ME02
200-299 ME03
300-399 NH01
400-499 NY01
500-599 NY02
700-799 MA01
800-899 MA02
900-999 CT01
1000-1099 PA01
1100-1199 VT01
The field sample will be passed through a 75-mm sieve. All coarse fragments remaining on
the sieve can be subdivided manually into two size classes; 75 to 250 mm and ^250 mm.
Figure 4-1. NADSS Label A.
NADSS Label A
•"Data Sampled:
D D MMMY Y
Crew ID: ,'.;
V.Site ID: ':'
: . Sample .Code;._ ]
Horizon: ;, :.:...... Depth:__
Set ID:
cm
An estimate will be made of the volume percent of material in these classes. A volume estimate
of the percent coarse fragments for the 20- to 75-mm fraction will be made as well. This
information will be entered on SCS Form 232 under the Rock Fragments category, Size (SZ, 1 = 20
to 75 mm, 2 = 75 to 250 mm, and 3 = S250 mm). The preparation laboratory will determine the
percent coarse fragments in the 2- to 20-mm fraction. The sieved soil <20 mm should be used as
the soil sample and should be placed in the sample bag according to procedures in Section 4.2.7.
73
-------
Section 4.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 5 of 5
4.3 Delivery
The soil samples should be delivered to the pre-assigned soil preparation laboratory. The
following preparation laboratory assignments are for the Northeast sampling crews. Preparation
laboratories for the southeastern sampling crews will be assigned at a later date.
Field Crew Preparation Laboratory
Maine University of Maine
New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts University of Massachusetts
Connecticut, Rhode Island University of Connecticut
New York, Pennsylvania Cornell University
Samples will be kept as cold as possible in the field by storage in coolers with Blue Ice gel
packs until delivery to the preparation laboratory. Temperature checks in the cooler should be made
routinely to keep a 4 °C ambient air temperature. These readings should be recorded in the field
logbook. Due to the location of some watersheds, some samples may not be delivered to the
preparation laboratory until three to four days after they are sampled. Each field sampling crew
will deliver field samples as soon as possible after collection. If major problems occur, notice must
be given as soon as possible to the QA Officer. Every effort should be made to get the field
samples to the preparation laboratory as soon as possible.
Great care should be taken not to drop or puncture sample bags in transport to the
preparation laboratory.
74
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 8
5.0 Soil Preparation Laboratory
5.1 Scope
The samples will be received by the preparation laboratory supervisor. The supervisor will
check the samples for spillage or other problems and to be certain that each sample has an
accompanying NADSS Label A (Figure 4-1). Field samples and all QC samples will be logged in on
NADSS Form 101 (Figure 5-1). The QC samples will be randomly assigned in the batch by the
preparation laboratory. One set of samples will be defined as the total number of samples taken
in one day by one crew. Each set will include one field duplicate, because one horizon per day is
to be sampled twice as a field duplicate. Two pre-assigned audit samples will be randomly
inserted into each batch. In addition, one sample per batch will be randomly selected, divided into
two samples, and tracked as the preparation laboratory duplicate (PLD). One batch including
routine field samples, field duplicates, a preparation laboratory duplicate, and two audit samples
will contain a maximum of 42 samples. Therefore, the number of sets combined to make one
analytical batch depends on the number of samples in each set. The total number of samples in
the combined sets should not exceed 39.
5.2 Sample Storage
The samples will be sealed and stored at 4 °C at all times when not involved in processing.
This procedure will greatly reduce microbial decomposition of organic matter without alteration of
the crystalline structures. If the samples cannot be dried immediately at the preparation laboratory,
they should be placed in storage until processing.
5.3 Sample Preparation
After the samples are received, sample numbers are assigned on NADSS Form 101. The
samples should be air-dried and sieved (<2 mm) (see Section 5.3.1). Care must be taken to be
certain that the soils are not separated from their labels during the air-drying process. The
percentage of coarse fragments (>2 mm) must be weighed as specified in Section 5.3.2 and the
percent coarse fragments reported on NADSS Form 101. The coarse-fragment fraction should be
labeled and set aside. If the qualitative test for inorganic carbon is positive, the analysis for total
inorganic carbon must be performed on this sample, and the 2- to 20-mm fraction must be crushed
and shipped to the analytical laboratory. The results of the determination of effervescence are
recorded on NADSS Form 101.
5.3.1 Sample Drying and Mixing
5.3.1.1-
The soil is laid out on a tray and allowed to air-dry at room temperature until constant weight
is achieved (30 to 35 °C is ideal). Constant weight is defined as that time when a subsample does
not change by more than 2.5 percent moisture content on two consecutive days. Constant weight
must be determined before the sieving process is started. The drying period could range from two
days to seven or more days, depending on organic matter content and particle size of the sample.
75
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 8
Date Received D D M M M Y Y
By Data Mgt.
National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 101
Batch ID
Crew ID
Prep Lab ID
Lab Set Sent
Date Shipped
Set ID
to
Date Sampled
Date Received
Date Prep Completed
No. of Samples
Sample
No.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Site
ID
Sample
Code
Set
ID
Coarse
Fragments
1
CF
Air-dried
Moisture
%
W
RSD
Inorg.
Carbon
(1C)
Y=yes
N=no
Bulk
Density
g/cc
Signature of Preparation Laboratory Supervisor:
Comment :
Figure 5-1. National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 101.
76
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 3 of 8
5.3.1.2-
After the soil is air-dried, place the complete sample in the orginal sample bags and store
them at 4 °C until further preparation laboratory analysis is performed.
5.3.1.3-
After the soil is air-dried, place the complete sample minus the calibration sample in the
original sample bags and store them at 4 °C until preparation laboratory analysis.
5.3.2 Coarse Fragment Determination
5.3.2.1-
The fragment size class that will be separated during this procedure is the class that is small
enough to pass through a 20-mm sieve. Coarse fragments larger than 20 mm will be determined
in the field.
5.3.2.2-
The total sample should be weighed and quantitatively passed through a clean, dry, square-
holed, 2-mm sieve to segregate coarse fragments (2 mm to 20 mm) from the soil. The material
larger than 2 mm should be saved until the test for inorganic carbon is complete. The soil that
passed through the sieve (0 to 2 mm) should be placed in a sealed container if further processing
will not occur at this time.
The amount of soil that did not pass through the sieve should be weighed and divided by the
inital amount and multiplied by 100. This percentage is then recorded as percent coarse fragments
(%CF). The coarse fragments (2 to 20 mm) must be saved until the qualitative test for inorganic
carbon has been completed.
5.3.3 Soil Mixing
After the soil has passed through a 2-mm sieve and %CF is determined, quantitatively load
the soil into the Jones type 3/8-inch riffle splitter. The soil should be passed through the riffle
splitter at least seven times. Before reloading the splitter each time, level the soil on the tray to
ensure random particle addition. It is best to remove the 1-kg subsample for the analytical
laboratory at this time. If the 1-kg subsample is to be removed later, the entire sample must again
be passed through the riffle splitter before a well-mixed subsample can be removed. After
completion of the soil preparation procedures, the soils should be placed into a new inner plastic
liner supplied by EPA-LV. Complete NADSS Label B (Figure 5-2) and place it on the exterior of the
inner bag that is to be sent to the analytical lab.
Remove NADSS Label A from the original field bag and tape it into a preparation laboratory
notebook, grouped in order by set number and batch number. Record the date either on the label
or below it. Initial the label by writing partially on the label and partially on the page. This
procedure will help to replace labels that may become unattached. The air-dried soil in the inner
bag should be sealed with a plastic-coated wire twist.
77
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 4 of 8
• NADSS
: Batch ID
'••• Sample
Label B
No:- ..,.:":'-"
Figure 5-2. NADSS Label B.
At this point, the exterior canvas bag will have the field coding written on it and the inner bag
will show the batch number and sample number.
The field coding on the outer plastic bag should be crossed out so it is not legible, and the
batch number and the sample number should be written on the exterior with indelible ink. The soil
should be packed tightly in the boxes supplied by EPA-LV. After all subsamples have been removed
for shipment to the analytical laboratories, the remaining sample should be placed in a clean plastic
bag and stored at 4 °C. The samples should be clearly and permanently labeled with NADSS Label
B and stored in such a manner that they are easily retrievable if necessary.
5.3.4 Qualitative Test for Inorganic Carbon
5.3.4.1--
Carbonates are used frequently as criteria to differentiate soil series. A qualitative test for
carbonates will be performed on the <2-mm size class. If the test for effervescence is positive,
the coarse-fragment size class (2 to 20 mm) will be crushed and sent to the analytical laboratory
for quantitative total inorganic carbon analysis. For the following procedures, the word "soil" is
defined as that material which has been air-dried and passed through a 2-mm sieve.
5.3.4.2--
Place 1 g of soil in a porcelain spot plate. Saturate the soil with deionized (DI) water and
stir with a glass rod to remove entrapped air. Place plate under a binocular microscope.
5.3.4.3--
Add 4 N HCI by dropwise addition and observe through microscope for effervescence.
5.3.4.4--
Repeat this procedure with another 1 g of soil from the sample.
5.3.4.5--
noted.
Record in laboratory notebook for each subsample whether effervescence was or was not
78
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 5 of 8
5.3.4.6-
If effervescence was noted either time, inorganic carbon must be determined for this sample.
5.3.4.7-
If effervescence was observed, the coarse-fragment fraction from this soil sample should be
crushed to pass an 80-mesh sieve. A 100-gram subsample should be prepared using a riffle
splitter, and should be shipped separately (without the soil sample) for inorganic carbon
determination. The subsample should be packaged in a plastic bag and labeled with NADSS Label
B. Coarse-fragment subsamples do not require storage at 4 °C until shipment to the analytical
laboratory.
5.4 Shipment of Subsampie to Analytical Laboratories
5.4.1 Shipping Method
Subsample will be shipped to the analytical laboratories by batch. Each box shipped must
contain copies of NADSS Shipping Form 102 (Figure 5-3). The results of the bulk density
determination and percent coarse fragment determinations must also appear on Form 102. If Form
102 indicates a positive inorganic carbon test, the coarse fragment sample must be shipped to the
analytical laboratory for total inorganic carbon analysis. As indicated on the bottom of NADSS
Form 101, the canary, pink, and gold copies should be enclosed with each sample box The white
copy should be sent to the Sample Management Office (SMO) after a photocopy is made to keep
at the preparation laboratory. The address for shipment to SMO is:
National Acid Deposition Soil Survey
Sample Management Office
P.O. Box 818
Alexandria, Virginia 22313
The shipping carrier to be used and specific shipping protocols required to ship samples to
the analytical laboratory will be supplied to the preparation laboratory by the QA Manager.
5.4.2 NADSS Form 1O1
NADSS Form 101 is used to combine field sets into an analytical set. A maximum of six sets
should be combined to achieve a maximum of 39 routine and field duplicate samples. In addition,
there will always be one preparation laboratory duplicate (PLD) and two audit samples per batch
for a combined maximum number of 42 samples. If four to six sets are used for one batch, the
second section of Form 101 should be modified to fit, ignoring the predrawn lines and utilizing
space as necessary. Air-dried moisture (or column "w") should be the final moisture content used
to verify air-dryness, reported to two decimal places. NADSS Form 101 should be completed in
black ink and should not contain any mistakes, crosscuts, or white out. The form should be mailed
within 24 hours after the batch has been shipped to the analytical laboratory. The white copy
should be sent to ORNL at the following address:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
P.O. Box X
Building 1505, Room 343
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
79
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 6 of 8
The gold copy should be sent to the EPA ERL-C, in care of:
Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
The pink copy should be sent to EPA EMSL-LV, in care of:
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Company, Inc.
1050 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
5.5 Sample Receipt by the Analytical Laboratory from the
Preparation Laboratory
The analytical laboratory should immediately compare the samples and the data on Form 102.
Record should be made as to when the samples were received, and their condition upon receipt.
All missing samples should be noted. This information should be recorded on Form 102 and
initialed by the recipient.
If NADSS Form 102 is incomplete, immediately notify SMO at (703) 557-2490. The gold NADSS
Form 102 should be kept as the analytical laboratory. The canary NADSS Form 102 should be sent
to SMO at the address indicated in Section 5-4 and the pink copy should be mailed to EMSL-LV at
the following address:
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Company, Inc.
1050 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
The recipient should check to be sure that all samples for inorganic carbon analysis have
been included.
5.6 Shipment of Mineralogical Samples
Horizons to be subsampled for mineralogical analysis will be designated by the QA Manager.
Approximately 10 percent of the pedons sampled will require this analysis. Subsamples (100 g
EMSL-LV. NADSS Label B (Figure 5-2) will be placed on those bottles and shipping Form 115
(Figure 5-4) will be included in each box shipped. Sample receipt protocol by the mineralogical
laboratory is the same as that specified in Section 5-4 for analytical examples.
80
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 7 of 8
Date Received D D M M M Y Y
By Data Mgt.
National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 102
Prep Lab
Batch ID
Analytics
Sample
No.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
D D M M M Y Y
ID Date Recieved —
Date Shipped
1 Lab ID
Air-dried
Moisture %
W RSD
Inorganic
Carbon
(1C)
Y=yes N=no
Coarse Fragments
Shipped?
(Check Y if yes)
Signature of Preparation Laboratory Manager:
Comments :
SML = White Canary = ANA. Lab w/copy to SMC
Pink - ANA. Lab w/copy to EMSL-LV Gold = ANA. Lab
Figure 5-3. National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 102.
81
-------
Section 5.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 8 of 8
Date Received D D M M M Y Y
By Data Mgt.
National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 115
D D M M M Y Y
Prep Lab ID Date Recieved
Analytical Lab ID Date shioced
Sample No.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 •
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Batch ID
Sample No.
Signature of Preparation Laboratory Manager:
Comments :
SML = White Canary = ANA. Lab w/copy to SMC Pink = ANA. Lab w/copy to EMSL-LV Gold = ANA. Lab
Figure 5-4. National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 115.
82
-------
Section 6.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 3
6.0 Summary of Physical and Chemical Parameters
and Methods
6.1 Physical Parameters
6.1.1 Particle Size
Soil-texture analysis is routinely determined for soil characterization and classification
purposes. The standard pipet method is used. Particles greater than 20 mm will be determined
by field sieving and weighing; coarse fragments (2 to 20 mm) will be determined at the soil
preparation laboratory and soil less than 2 mm will be determined at the analytical laboratory. This
analysis will be performed on all mineral horizon samples, including the additional samples from
each impervious layer less than 3 cm thick.
6.1.2 Mineralogy
Clay minerals are identified by X-ray diffraction, whereas light and heavy minerals of the fine-
sand fraction are identified by optical mineralogy. Mineralogical identification is necessary to:
(1) help characterize the soil, (2) provide an indication of weathering rates, and (3) yield information
about minerals weathered from the parent material. This analysis will be performed only on
samples selected by ERL-C.
6.1.3 Specific Surface Area
Specific surface is measured because this is highly correlated with anion adsorption/
desorption, cation exchange capacity, and the type of clay mineral. The method specified is
saturation with ethylene glycol monomethyl ether. This analysis will be performed on all mineral
horizon samples.
6.2 Chemical Parameters
6.2.1 pH
pH is a measurement of free hydrogen ion activity. pH measurements are determined in three
different soil extracts. The extracts are DI water 0.01 M CaCI2, and 0.002 M CaCI2 in a 1:2 ratio
in a mineral soil and a 1:5 ratio for organic horizon samples. These analyses will be performed on
all samples.
6.2.2 Total Carbon and Total Nitrogen
Total carbon and total nitrogen are critical parameters due to their close relationship with
microbial decomposition of soil organic matter. The method specified is oxidation followed by
thermal conductivity detection using an automated CHN analyzer. These analyses will be performed
on all samples.
83
-------
Section 6.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 3
6.2.3 Inorganic Carbon
Quantification of inorganic carbon is necessary due to the inherent ability of carbonates to
buffer acid inputs. If carbonates exist, they will be determined by manometric detection of evolved
CO2 after extraction with a strong acid, or by an automated CHN analyzer. Carbonates are not
expected because the soils being sampled are generally thought to be acid sensitive. Inorganic
carbon analyses will be performed only on soil samples reacting positively to a test for
effervescence upon the addition of drops of 4 N HCI.
6.2.4 Extractable Sulfate
The amount of extractable sulfate will indicate the sulfate saturation of the anion exchange
sites. Extractable sulfate is determined in two different extracts (DI water and 500 mg/L P).
Extractable sulfate is then determined by ion chromatography. These analyses will be performed
on all samples.
6.2.5 Sulfate Adsorption Isotherms
The ability of soil to adsorb sulfate is perhaps the most important parameter in determining
if a soil unit will show direct or delayed response to added sulfate deposition. Isotherms will be
developed by placing soil samples in six separate sulfate solutions for 1 hour and determining the
amount adsorbed by analysis of the solution for sulfate after contact with the solution. These
isotherms will represent the maximum sulfate adsorption capacity of the soil at the given
conditions. Sulfate adsorption isotherms will not be required for organic horizons, but will be
performed on all mineral horizons.
6.2.6 Total Sulfur
Total sulfur is measured because of its close relationship with extractable sulfate, and to
inventory existing sulfur levels to monitor future inputs of anthropogenic sulfur. An automated
method involving sample combustion followed by titration of evolved sulfur will be used.
6.2.7 Cation Exchange Capacity
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) is a standard soil characterization parameter and indicates
the ability of the soil to adsorb exchangeable bases. Therefore, it is well correlated with soil
buffering capacity. Ammonium chloride (NH4CI, pH 7.0), and ammonium acetate (NH4OAc, pH 7.0),
and 0.002 M calcium chloride (CaCI2) will be used as the replacement solutions. The extractable
bases (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+) will then be determined on the extracts by flame atomic absorption
spectroscopy (AA) or inductively-coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP). These
analyses will be performed on all samples.
6.2.8 Exchangeable Acidity
Exchangeable acidity is a measure of the remaining exchangeable soil cations that are not
part of the base saturation. Two methods are specified. One employs a BaCI2--triethanolamine
extraction and the other employs a KCI extraction. The former extraction quantifies total
exchangeable acidity and the latter quantifies effective exchangeability acidity. Aluminum acidity
is also determined in the KCI extract by analyzing the extract for Al by AA or ICP. These analyses
will be performed on all samples.
84
-------
Section 6.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 3 of 3
6.2.9 Extract able Iron and Aluminum
Iron oxides and aluminum oxides are highly correlated to sulf ate adsorption and are important
in standard soil characterization. Extractable Fe and Al are determined by AA or ICP in three
different extracts. Each extract yields an estimate of a specific Al or Fe fraction. The three
extracts (and fractions) are sodium pyrophosphate (organic Fe and Al), acid-oxalate (organic plus
sesquioxides), and citrate-dithionite (nonsilicate Fe and Al). These analyses will be performed on
all samples.
6.2.10 Lime and Aluminum Potential
Lime potential is used as an input for certain models instead of base saturation; it is defined
as pH-1/2 pCa. Another characteristic shown to be important to watershed models is the
relationship of pH to solution AI3+ levels, defined as the aluminum potential (KJ, which is 3pH-pAL
The method involves extracting the soil with 0.002 m CaCI2 and determining pH, Ca, and Al in the
extract. The remaining base cations, Na+, K+, and Mg2+, as well as exchangeable Fe, will also be
determined on this extract because of expediency and comparability to other extracts. These
analyses will be performed on all samples.
85
-------
Section 7.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 5
7.0 Bulk-Density Determination
7.1 Scope
Bulk density is defined as the weight per unit volume of a soil. Bulk density generally ranges
between 1.0 and 2.0 g/cm3. For organic soils, bulk density commonly ranges from 0.050 to 0.355
g/cm3. Bulk density will be determined by the field collection and Saran coating of clods from each
horizon, followed by weighing the clods by the preparation laboratories.
This method was chosen because of routine use in the field, relative ease of performance,
and elimination of compaction problems inherent in core methods. It will be impossible to collect
clods from certain horizons. Relationships between the particle-size distribution and surface area
data and pre-existing data may be used to derive values for missing data. The laboratory method
was provided by the Soil Morphology Laboratory, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts.
7.2 Apparatus and Materials
7.2.1 Dow Saran S310 Resin
The Saran resin dissolves readily in acetone or methylethyl ketone. Acetone is preferred and
will be used because it is readily available and less toxic.
7.2.2 Coating Solution
The coating solution will be prepared by the preparation laboratories and will be supplied to
the field crews. To prepare the solution, calculate the amount of acetone required to make a 1:4
solution of resin to acetone. If a 1:7 solution is desired, the stock solution can be diluted with a
precalculated volume of acetone. The resin is not readily soluble in acetone and will require mixing.
Because the solvent is flammable, care should be taken during mixing. The solution should be
made in an exhaust hood. A nonsparking electric stirrer should be used. If a high-speed stirrer
is used, the resin dissolves in about 1 hour. If the solution must be made in the field, mix well and
often with a wooden stick. Metal paint cans will be supplied as mixing containers, although other
containers may be used as well. Some plastic containers are unsuitable because the acetone
dissolves the plastic. Containers that can be tightly closed are most desirable because the solution
is highly volatile and rapid evaporation will result in excesses of acetone being used. If the solution
becomes thick, add more acetone until the desired consistency is reached.
7.3 Procedure
Collect natural clods (three per horizon) of about 100 cm3 to 200 cm3 in volume (approximately
fist-size). Remove a piece of soil larger than the clod from the face of a sampling pit with a spade.
From this piece, prepare a clod by gently cutting or breaking off protruding peaks and material
sheared by the spade. If roots are present, they can be cut conventiently with scissors or side
cutters. In some soils, clods can be removed directly from the face of the pit with a knife or
spatula. No procedure for taking samples will fit all soils; the procedure must be adjusted to meet
the conditions in the field at the time of sampling.
86
-------
Section 7.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 5
The clods are tied with fine copper wire or placed in hairnets and suspended from a rope or
string, then hung like a clothesline. The clods themselves should be labeled with some type of tag
that can be attached to the hairnet or string. The label should record the sample code, horizon.
and replicate number. Moisten clods with a fine mist spray. The suspended clods are dipped by
raising a container of the dipping mixture upward to submerse each clod momentarily. The number
of times a clod is dipped should be recorded on the label. The Saran-coated clods should be
allowed to dry for 30 minutes or longer.
7.3.1 Transport of Clods
Clods should be sealed in the presupplied 6" x 8" plastic bags, then placed in the
compartmentalized clod boxes. The top (inner face) of the clod box should be labeled with the
same information on the clod tag (i.e., sample code, horizon, replicate number, and how many times
the clod was dipped in the Saran). Great care must be taken to ensure that the clods are not
broken or damaged during handling and shipping. Space not occupied by the clods in each
compartment should be filled with packing material; for example, leaves, newspaper, or extra plastic
bags. Clod boxes may be reused by removing the old labels.
7.3.2 Preparation Laboratory Handling of Clods
Upon receipt of clods, labels should be removed and placed in the Bulk Density Preparation
Laboratory Notebook. However, the clods must be relabeled with the appropriate sample number
to retain identity. Notes should be made in the notebook regarding the condition of the clod upon
arrival, how many times the clod was dipped in Saran in the field, label clarity, and the time of
receipt. At the end of the project, this notebook should be submitted to Lockheed-EMSCO (EPA
EMSL-LV) Data Audit Supervisor.
7.3.3 Bulk-density Procedure
7.3.3.1--
Weigh the clod and record this weight in the laboratory notebook as m,.
7.3.3.2-
Dip the clod briefly in a Saran:acetone (1:6 w/w) solution and allow the coating to dry.
7.3.3.3--
Reweigh the clod and record this weight as m2.
7.3.3.4-
Repeat steps 7.3.3.2 and 7.3.3.3 as needed to obtain an impervious coating. Record weights
after each coating as m3, m4, etc.
7.3.3.5--
Place a 1-L beaker that contains 600 to 700 ml_ of de-aired and distilled water of known
temperature (recorded as T) on balance pan and record the tare weight as MA.
87
-------
Section 7.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 3 of 5
7.3.3.6-
Suspend the clod over the beaker, lower it gently into the water until totally submerged, then
record the weight displayed on the balance as MB.
7.3.3.7-
Suspend the clod in a convection oven at 105 °C for 48 hours.
7.3.3.8-
Remove the clod from the oven, weigh it, and record this weight as MOD.
7.3.3.9-
Place the clod in an appropriate container and put the container into an electric muffle furnace
for 2 hours at 400 °C.
7.3.3.10-
After the sample has cooled, weigh the contents of the container and record this as mt.
7.3.3.11-
Pass the sample through a 2-mm sieve and obtain the weights of coarse fragments and the
fine-earth fraction. Record these as MCF and mlc, respectively.
7.3.3.12 Calculations--
BDFM =
MOD - [MCF + MTS (0.85)]
IVL
M
CF
M
'TS
r H2OT 2.65
1.30
where BDFM is the field moist bulk density.
MOD is the oven-dry weight of the clod (Step 7.3.3.8).
MCF is the weight of the coarse fragments in the clod (Step 7.3.3.11).
MTS is the weight of the air-dry Saran coating which may be estimated as follows:
M
TS
X (ma - mj
a - 1
where X is the total number of coatings (field + lab).
a is the number of laboratory coatings.
ma is the clod weight after the final coating.
m, is the initial clod weight after unpacking.
Mv is equal to MB.MA (from steps 7.3.3.5 and 7.3.3.6).
88
-------
Section 7.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 4 of 5
r H2OT is the density of water obtained from Table 7.1 for the temperatures measured in
Step 7.3.3.5.
The final value to be reported on Form 101 is the coarse-fragment, and Saran-weight corrected
value.
7.3.3.13 Assumptions-
Four assumptions are made concerning the bulk-density procedure:
• The weight of the individual, field-applied Saran coatings is equivalent to that applied in
the laboratory, and the Saran has not infiltrated the clod.
• The specific gravity of the coarse fragments is 2.65.
• The specific gravity of air-dried Saran is 1.30.
• The Saran loses 15 percent of its weight upon oven drying at 105 "C for 48 hours.
89
-------
Table 7-1. Specific Gravity* of Water
°c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
0.9999
0.9997
0.9982
0.9957
0.9922
0.9881
0.9832
0.9778
0.9718
0.9653
1
0.9999
0.9996
0.9980
0.9954
0.9919
0.9876
0.9827
0.9772
0.9712
0.9647
2
1.0000
0.9995
0.9978
0.9951
0.9915
0.9872
0.9822
0.9767
0.9706
0.9640
3
1.0000
0.9994
0.9976
0.9947
0.9911
0.9867
0.9817
0.9761
0.9699
0.9633
4
1.0000
0.9993
0.99973
0.9944
0.9907
0.9862
0.9811
0.9755
0.9693
0.9626
5
1.0000
0.9991
0.9971
0.9941
0.9902
0.9857
0.9806
0.9749
0.9686
0.9619
6
1.0000
0.9990
0.9968
0.9937
0.9898
0.9852
0.9800
0.9743
0.9680
0.9612
7
0.9999
0.9988
0.9965
0.9934
0.9894
0.9848
0.9795
0.9737
0.9673
0.9605
8
0.9999
0.9986
0.9963
0.9930
0.9890
0.9842
0.9789
0.9731
0.9667
0.9598
9
0.9999
0.9984
0.9960
0.9926
0.9885
0.9838
0.9784
0.9724
0.9660
0.9591
*Also the density or unit weight of water in grams per milliliter.
TJO3JC/5
0) D> CD (D
(Q r* < O
CD
-------
Section 8.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 3
8.0 Crews, Supplies, and Equipment
8.1 Scope
Field crews will consist of four SCS employees. The lead soil scientist in each crew will
supervise all field operations. This person will be responsible for selecting each sampling site in
the field and for documenting all field data. The following is a list of supplies needed for each
field crew.
• 35-mm camera (macro lens or wide-angle lens).
• ASA-400 film and Kodak premailer envelopes.
• 2 clinometers.
• Munsell color charts.
• Magnetic compass.
• Hand lens.
• 2 brass sieves (3/4", 10 mesh, 19 mm)*.
• 2 thermometers* (centigrade).
• 5 coolers*.
• 40 Blue Ice gel packs*.
• Stereoscope.
• 0.1 N HCI or 10% 4 N HCI and drop bottle.
• Visqueen 6-mil sheets, (4* x 4')*.
• Spring scale (optional; use an exterior canvas bag for weighing).
• Plastic inner sample bags (20/day)*.
• Canvas exterior sample bags (20/day)*.
• NADSS Label A (30/day)*.
• Orange flagging (1 roll/day)*.
• Yellow marker flags (20/day)*.
• 5 indelible-ink markers*.
• SCS Form SOI 232 and clipboard.
91
-------
Section 8.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 3
• Field logbook*.
• 1-gallon paint can with lid*.
• Saran* and acetone (Note: acetone must be purchased locally).
• Hairnets (1 per clod)*.
• 6" x 8" plastic bags, 1 mil (enough for one per clod)*.
• 24-cell, 17.50" x 11.94" x 3.75" boxes (1 box per day - reusable)*.
• 2' x 2' blank vinyl labels (attach to box for individualized clod compartments)*.
• Hand auger (for sampling Histosols; optional, may use spades).
• Staplers*.
• Saran Dow-310 resin*.
An asterisk indicates that the item will be shipped by EPA EMSL-LV. The amount of
equipment sent to each preparation laboratory is based on the number of crews assigned to that
laboratory.
The crews from New York and Pennsylvania (4) will receive supplies from the Cornell
University soil preparation laboratory. Maine crews (2) will receive supplies from the University of
Maine at Orono Soil Preparation Laboratory. Rhode Island-Connecticut (1), New Hampshire (1), and
Massachusetts crews will receive supplies from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst,
Massachusetts.
8.2 Equipment Notes
8.2.1 Coolers and Gel Packs
For each day of sampling, five coolers and eight gel packs per cooler should be stored in the
field sampling vehicle. The gel packs should be frozen in advance. Enough frozen gel packs should
be stored in a storage cooler to replace softened gel packs if ambient temperature in the cooler
falls below 4 °C. Coolers containing gel packs and soil samples should be taped shut before
transit. Two thermometers per crew will be provided for routine temperature checks on coolers
containing gel packs and soil samples. Temperature readings to the nearest tenth of a degree
should be recorded in the field notebook. Time and date should also be recorded in the notebook.
8.2.2 Marker Flags and Flagging
Upon arrival at the sample site, orange flagging should be tied to surrounding shrubbery at
eye level. This flagging is necessary in case of return visit to the pedon. The 21-inch stake yellow
flags should be placed at least 6 inches into the ground at the four corners of the pedon before
leaving the sample site.
92
-------
Section 8.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 3 of 3
8.2.3 Vis queen Plastic Sheets
Visqueen plastic sheets (41 x 4', 6 mil) will be provided for each crew. All soil materials less
than 20 mm should be sieved into these sheets. The sample is then poured into the inner plastic,
prelabeled sample bag. If by visual estimate the 2 to 20 mm particle-size class exceeds 50 percent
by volume, two 5.5-kg samples should be bagged and sieved for that sample. A canvas sheet may
be substituted for the 4' x 4' plastic sheet, but the use of this should be noted in the field notebook
and should be immediately reported to the EPA EMSL-LV QA officer.
8.2.4 Field Notebook
Daily activities of the field crew should be logged in a field notebook. Each day's activities
should be recorded; specific problems, solutions, and other miscellaneous notes should be
recorded, along with location and identification of each sample pedon. These field notebooks will
be submitted to Lockheed-ESC (EPA-EMSL-LV) in care of:
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Company
1050 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
93
-------
Section 9.0
Revision 2
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 1
9.0 References
USDA/SCS. 1983. National Soils Handbook. Part 600-606. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C. 609 pp.
USDA/SCS. 1984. SCS National Soil Survey Manual. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington
D.C.
Mausbach, M., R. Yeck. D. Nettleton, and W. Lynn. 1983. Principles and Procedures for Using Soil
Survey Laboratory Data. National Soil Survey Laboratory. Lincoln, Nebraska. 130 pp.
USDA/SCS. 1972. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples.
Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
68 pp.
94
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 1 of 22
Appendix A
Field Data Forms and Legends
95
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 2 of 22
U S DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
SOIL DESCRIPTION
ICX-tOI-l
i n
SOIL SERIES REPRESENTED
l f l i i i l i i i t r i i l t l
OAIE
MO OAt 1»
, 1 I 1 I
SHE K> S
SI COUNT* UWT U
I 1 , I 1 , , l'
Mi MA
t 1 I
LAT1TUOC 0
DIO MM SIC J
,1,1,1
IONGIIUOE 0
DEO MM SEC ^
PHYS
MAJ IOC
1 1 ,
0 SO
1 ,
CO
1 ,
PEDON CLASSIFICATION
SO '5C MIN
, , , 1 , , 1 , 1
RX
1
TMP
| ,
"1
PRIClP1 \ WAKRIABU I S
1 |
DEPTH OAVS 0
i , 1 , i 1
1
,
M
,
o
tUVAUOM
till
PAflfMf
t 7
W fl M OftIG W • M OHIO
«, 1 I i l«i 1 1 i
tIAURIAI ^
1 • 3
W 1 M ORK1 W • M ORK1
., i i , L i i ,
K
UMPERAIURIS *C
ivnunt »m AvtBAC.i son
ANN r,UM WINICR
1 1 ! 1 1 i 1 1
ANN
| .
SUM WINTER
1 . 1 1 1
Msr
nci
i
Wl AIMIH
SIAItON NO
1 t t I 1
CUN1HUI
SK110H
PSC
! 1 ' t 1
l"
«•
NN
tH
UIAUNOSIIC HAIUHtS
DIPT"
i i ! i
* * K
^ DEPTH N OIPIH N
i 1 i i I i i 1 1 i i 1 i i 1
OEPtM
i , 1 i i
£ OBPfH
rl . n i
K
| 1°
1
t I ! ! I
7 I
i i i i i 1 i
AIKW SPICKS
J
1
1 1 1
f
1
i
! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LOCATION OISCAIPTIOM
*AltHSHfO
CLASS
SI
~
WAfllQMEOHAUf
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 *-
Figure A-1. Form SCS-SOI-232 (page 1 of 4).
96
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 3 of 22
aft FORM NOUS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SAM*f
•JUMMAS
BULK OtNSirV
M '
Homrow NOIH
Figure A-1. Continued (page 2 of 4).
97
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 4 of 22
«(! FORM NOTES
Figure A-1. Continued (page 3 of 4).
98
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 5 of 22
EFFER-
VES-
CENCE
C A E
I 0 x
' ElO
MEASURED
PROPERTIES
KNO AMOUNT
' 1
C 11
1
I
I 1
1
' i
I
C 11 1
» 1
C |L
I
|
1 1
1
L.J_
' t 1
<•- |l
i
:..! : I
' 1 I
c |L
i
' 1
C |l
" 1
c It
I
• 1
c it
I
R 1
C 1L
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
0 I
i
- L 1
'
f'El.0
MEASURED
KNO AMOUNT
1
1
1
1
_j
i |
i 1
i
i i
i i
i
i !
t
1 1
1
1
I
1
|
I
|
1
|
,
|
|
_
!
I ,
,11...
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 J
1 1
1 1
1 t
1 I
i /,_
1
1
w
E
T
N
E
S
S
N
T
0
0
c
0
N
n
BOOTS
L
0
OT SZ c
1
1
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
|
.. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
1
|
1
1
1
i
i
1
,
!
1
1
PORES
SHP OT $Z en
1
1 1
1
I
1
1
1
J
1
1 1
1 i
1
1
,
t
1
I
1
,
I
1
1
, i
J 1
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1 1
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
j
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CONCENTRATIONS
S
KNO 0' * SZ
.
!
,
, |
|
1
1
1 |
, ,
1 1 1
1
j
i
|
1
1
|
|
|
1
,
1
1
1 ,
|
l
,
1
1
1
I
1
I
|
,
,
,
j
,
,
"OCK
FRAGMENTS
K R
N N S
0 •» 0 Z
I
,
1
1
I
1
L_
i
j
1
|
,
j
,
1
i
1
1
_J
1
,
,
1
i i
ROCK
FRAGMENTS
K R
N •« S
o s o z
i ,
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
!
1 I '
i
1 1 i
i
1
1
l
1
i
i
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1 -
1
1
1 1
1
1
FORM NOIES
LOG
WEATHER
SET 1.0.
UNOERSTORY VEG.
SLIDES l« PEO FACE
UNOERSTORY
OVERSTORY
LANDSCAPE
Figure A-1. Continued (page 4 of 4).
99
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 6 of 22
2.0 Soil Description Codes for Form SCS-SOI-232
2.1 Great Group Codes
Alfisols
MQAL
MQFR
MQNA
AAQPN
MQUM
ABOEU
ABOGL
ABOPA
AUDAG
AUDFR
AUDGL
AUDNA
AUDTR
AUSHA
AUSPN
AXEDU
AXEHA
AXEPA
AXERH
Albaqualf
Fragiaqualf
Natraqualf
Plinthaqualf
Umbraqualf
Eutroboraff
Glossoboralf
Paleboralf
Agrudalf
Fragiudalf
Glossudalf
Natrudalf
Tropudalf
Haplustalf
Plinthustalf
Durixeralf
Haploxeralf
Palexeralf
Rhodoxeralf
Aridisols
DARDU
DARND
DARPA
DORCM
DORGY
DORSA
Durargid
Nadurargid
Paleargid
Camborthid
Gypsiorthid
Salorthid
Entisols
EAQCR
EAQHA
EAQPS
EAQTR
EFLCR
EFLTR
EFLUS
EORCR
EORTR
EORUS
EPSCR
EPSTO
EPSUD
EPSXE
Cryaquent
Haplaquent
Psammaquent
Tropaquent
Cryofluvent
Tropofluvent
Ustifluent
Cryorthent
Troporthent
Ustorthent
Cryopsamment
Torripsamment
Udipsamment
Xeropsamment
MQDU
AAQGL
AAQOC
MQTR
ABOCR
ABOFR
ABONA
ASUPA
AUDFE
AUDFS
AUDHA
AUDPA
AUSDU
AUSNA
AUSRH
AXEFR
AXENA
AXEPN
Ouraqualf
Glossaqualf
Ochraqualf
Tropaqualf
Cryoboralf
Fragiboralf
Natriboralf
Paleustalf
Ferrudalf
Fraglossudalf
Hapludalf
Paleudalf
Ourustalf
Natrustalf
Rhodustalf
Fragixeral
Natrixeralf
Plinthoxeralf
DARHA Haplargid
DARNT Natrargid
DORCL Calciorthid
DORDU Durorthid
DORPA Paleorthid
EAQFL Fluvaquent
EAQHY Hydraquent
EAQSU Sulfaquent
EARAR Arent
EFLTO Torrifluvent
EFLUD Udifluvent
EFLXE Xerofluvent
EORTO Torriorthent
EORUD Udorthent
EORXE Xerorthent
EPSQU Quartzipsamment
EPSTR Tropopsamment
EPSUS Ustipsamment
100
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 7 of 22
Histosols
HFIBO
HFILU
HFISP
HFOBO
HFOTR
HHECR
HHEME
HHESO
HSABO
HSAME
Borofibrist
Luvifibrist
Sphagnofibrist
Borofolist
Tropofolist
Cryohemist
Medihemist
Sulfohemist
Borosaprist
Medisaprist
Inceptisols
IANCR
IANDY
IANHY
IANVI
IAQCR
IAQHL
IAQHU
IAQPN
IAQTR
IOCDU
IOCEU
IOCUS
IPLPL
ITREU
ITRSO
IUMCR
IUMHA
Cryandept
Dystrandept
Hydrandept
Vitrandepth
Cryaquept
Halaquept
Humaquept
Plinthaquept
Tropaquept
Durochrept
Eutrochrept
Ustochrept
Plaggept
Eutropept
Sombritropept
Cryumbrept
Haplumbrept
Mollisols
MALAR
MAQAR
MAQCR
MAQHA
MBOAR
MBOCR
MBONA
MBOVE
MUDAR
MUDPA
MUSAR
MUSDU
MUSNA
MUSVE
MXECA
MXEHA
MXEPA
Argialboll
Argiaquoll
Cryaquoll
Haplaquoll
Argiboroll
Cryoboroll
Natriboroll
Vermiboroll
Argiudoll
Paleudoll
Argiustoll
Durustoll
Natrustoll
Vermustoll
Calcixeroll
Haploxeroll
Palexeroll
HFICR
HFIME
HFITR
HFOCR
HHEBO
HHELU
HHESI
HHETR
HSACR
HSATR
IANDU
IANEU
IANPK
IAQAN
IAQFR
IAQHP
IAQPK
IAQSU
IOCCR
IOCDY
IOCFR
IOCXE
ITRDY
ITRHU
ITRUS
IUMFR
IUMXE
Cryofibrist
Medifibrist
Tropofibrist
Cryofolist
Borohemist
Luvihemist
Sulfihemist
Tropohemist
Cryosaprist
Troposaprist
Durandept
Eutrandept
Placandept
Andaquept
Fragiaquept
Haplaquept
Palacaquept
Sulfaquept
Cryochrept
Dystrochrept
Fragiochrept
Xerochrept
Dystropept
Humitropept
Ustropept
Fragiumbrept
Xerumbrept
MALNA
MAQCA
MAQDU
MAQNA
MBOCA
MBOHA
MBOPA
MRERE
MUDHA
MUDVE
MUSCA
MUSHA
MUSPA
MXEAR
MXEDU
MXENA
Natralboll
Calciaquoll
Duraquoll
Natraquoll
Calciboroll
Haploboroll
Paleboroll
Rendoll
Hapludoll
Vermudoll
Calciustoll
Haplustoll
Paleustoll
Argixeroll
Durixeroll
Natrixeroll
101
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 8 of 22
Oxisols
OAQGI
OAQPN
OHUAC
OHUHA
OORAC
OORGI
OORSO
OTOTO
OUSEU
OUSSO
Giwsiaquox
Plinthaquox
Acrohumox
Haplohumox
Acrorthox
Gibbsiorthox
Sombriorthox
Torrox
Eutrustox
Sombriustox
Spodosols
SAQCR
SAQFR
SAQPK
SAQTR
SHUCR
SHUHA
SHUTR
SORFR
SORPK
Cryaquod
Fragiaquod
Placaquod
Tropaquod
Cryohumod
Haplohumod
Tropohumod
Fragiorthod
Placorthod
Ultisols
UAQAL
UAQOC
UAQPN
UAQUM
UHUPA
UHUSO
UUDFR
UUDPA
UUDRH
UUSHA
UUSPN
UXEHA
Albaquult
Ochraquult
Plinthaquult
Umbraquult
Palehumult
Sombrihumult
Fragiudult
Paleudult
Rhodudult
Haplustult
Plinthustult
Haploxerult
Vertisols
VTOTO Torrert
VUDPE Pelludert
VUSPE Pellustert
VXEPE Pelloxerert
OAQOC
OAQUM
OHUGI
OHUSO
OOREU
OORHA
OORUM
OUSAC
OUSHA
SAQDU
SAQHA
SAQSI
SFEFE
SHUFR
SHUPK
SORCR
SORHA
SORTR
UAQFR
UAQPA
UAQTR
UHUHA
UHUPN
UHUTR
UUDHA
UUDPN
UUDTR
UUSPA
UUSRH
UXEPA
Ochraquox
Umbraquox
Gibbsihumox
Sombrihumox
Eutrorthox
Haplorthox
Umbriorthox
Acrustox
Haplustox
Duraquod
Haplaquod
Sideraquod
Ferrod
Fragihumod
Placohumod
Cryorthod
Haplorthod
Troporthod
Fragiaquult
Paleaquult
Tropaquult
Haplohumult
Plinthohumult
Tropohumult
Hapludult
Plinthudult
Tropudult
Paleustult
Rhodustult
Palexerult
VUDCH Chromudert
VUSCH Chromustert
VXECH Chromxerert
102
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 9 of 22
2.2 Subgroup Codes
AA Typic
ABO4 Abruptic aridic
AB10 Abruptic haplic
AB16 Abruptic xerollic
AE03 Aerie arenic
AE06 Aerie humic
AE09 Aerie tropic
AE12 Aerie xeric
AL02 Albaquultic
AL08 Albic glossic
AL12 Alfic arenic
AL16 Alfic lithic
AN01 Andeptic
AN06 Andic Dystric
AN22 Andic ustic
AN30 Anthropic
AQ02 Aquentic
AQ06 Aquic
AQ14 Aquic duric
AQ18 Aquicdystric
AQ26 Aquiclithic
AQ34 Aquollic
AR Arenic
AR03 Arenicorthoxic
AR06 Arenicplinthic
AR10 Arenicultic
AR16 Arenicustalfic
AR22 Argiaquic
AR26 Argic
AR30 Argicpachic
AR34 Aridic
AR42 Aridicduric
AR52 Aridicpetrocalcic
BO Boralfic
BO04 Boroalficudic
BOOS Borollic glossic
BO12 Borollic vertic
CA
CA06
CA20
CH06
CR10
CU
CU04
Calcic
Calciorthidic
Cambic
Chromudic
Cryic lithic
Cumulic
Cumulic ultic
AB Abruptic
AB08 Abruptic cryic
AB14 Abruptic ultic
AE Aerie
AE05 Aerie grossarenic
AE08 Aerie mollic
AE10 Aerie umbric
AL Albaquic
AL04 Albic
AL10 Alfic
AL13 Alfic andeptic
AN Andic
AN03 Andaquic
AN11 Andeptic glossoboric
AN24 Andaqueptic
AQ Aqualfic
AQ04 Aqueptic
AQ08 Aquic arenic
AQ16 Aquic duriorthidic
AQ24 Aquichaplic
AQ31 Aquicpsammentic
AQ36 Aquultic
AR02 Arenicaridic
AR04 Arenicplinthaquic
AR08 Areriicrhodic
ARM Arenicumbric
AR18 Arenicustollic
AR24 Argiaquicxeric
AR28 Argiclithic
AR32 Argicvertic
AR36 Aridiccalcic
AR50 Aridicpachic
BO02 Borolficlithic
BO06 Borollic
BO10 Borollic lithic
CA04
CA10
CH
CR
CR14
CU02
Calcic pachic
Calcixerollic
Chromic
Cryic
Cyric pachic
Cumulic udic
DU Durargidic
DU08 Durixerollic
DU11 Durochreptic
DU02 Duric
DU10 Durixerollic lithic
DU12 Durorthidic
103
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 10 of 22
DU14 Durorthidic xeric
DY03 Dystric entic
DY06 Dystric lithic
EN Entic
EN06 Enticultic
EP10 Epiaquicorthoxic
EU02 Eutrochreptic
FE Ferrudalfic
FI02 Fibricterric
FL06 Fluventic
FR10 Fragiaquic
GL02 Glossaquic
GL10 Glossicudic
GL14 Glossoboralfic
GR Grossarenic
GR04 Grossarenicplinthic
HA Haplaquodic
HA02 Haplic
HA07 Haploxerollic
HA12 Hapludollic
HE Hemic
HI Histic
HI06 Histicpergelic
HU02 Humiclithic
HU06 Humoxic
HY Hydric
LE Leptic
LI01 , Lithic
LI06 Lithicrupticalfic
LI08 Lithicrupticenticerollic
L110 Lithicudic
LI12 Lithicultic
LI14 Lithicumbric
LI16 Lithicustic
LI20 Lithicvertic
LI24 Lithicxerollic
MO Mollic
OC Ochreptic
OR01 Orthic
OX Oxic
PA Pachic
PA04 Pachicultic
PA08 Paleustollic
PA20 Paralithicvertic
PE01 Pergelicruptichistic
DY02 Dystric
DY04 Dystric Fluventic
DY08 Dystropeptic
EN02 Enticlithic
EP Epiaquic
EU Eutric
EU04 Eutropeptic
FI Fibric
FL02 Fluvaquentic
FL12 Fluventic umbric
FR18 Fragic
GL04 Glossic
GL12 Glossicustollic
GL16 Glossoboric
GR01 Grossarenicentic
HA01 Haplaquic
HA05 Haplohumic
HA09 Hapludic
HA16 Haplustollic
HE02 Hemicterric
HI02 Histiclithic
HU Humic
HU05 Humicpergelic
HU10 Humaqueptic
HY02 Hydriclithic
LI Limnic
LI04 Lithicmollic
LI07 Lithicruptic-argic
LI09 Lithicruptic-entic
LI11 Lithicrupticxerorthentic
L113 Lithicruptic-ultic
L115 Lithicrupticxerochreptic
LI18 Lithicustollic
LI22 Lithicxeric
NA06 Natric
OR Orthidic
OR02 Orthoxic
PA02 Pachicudic
PA06 Paleorthidic
PA10 Palexerollic
PE Pergelic
PE02 Pergelicsideric
104
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 11 of 22
PE04 Petrocalcic
PE08 Petrocalcicustollic
PE16 Petroferric
PK Placic
PK12 Plaggic
PL04 Plinthic
PS Psammaquentic
QU Quartzipsammentic
RE Rendollic
RU02 Rupticalfic
RU11 Rupticlithic-entic
RU17 Rupticultic
SA Salorthidic
SA04 Sapricterric
SO04 Sombrihumic
SP02 Sphagnicterric
SU Suflic
TE Terric
TH06 Thaptohistictropic
TO02 Torrifluventic
TO06 Torripsammentic
TR Tropaquodic
TR04 Tropic
UD Udertic
UD02 Udic
UD05 Udorthentic
UL Ultic
UM02 Umbric
US02 Ustertic
US06 Ustochreptic
US12 Ustoxic
VE
Vermic
XE Xeralfic
XE04 Xeric
2.3 Slope Shape Codes
1 convex 2 plane 3 concave
2.4 Geomorphic Position Codes
01 summit crested hills
02 shoulder crested hills
22 shoulder headslope
03 backslope crested hills
PE06 Petrocalcicustalfic
PE14 Petrocalcicxerollic
PE20 Petrogypsic
PK10 Plaggeptic
PL Plinthaquic
PL06 Plinthudic
PS02 Psammentic
RH Rhodic
RU09 Rupticlithic
RU15 Rupticlithicxerochreptic
RU19 Rupticvertic
SA02 Sapric
SI Sideric
SP Sphagnic
SP04 Spodic
TH04 Thaptohistic
TO Torrertic
T004 Torriorthentic
TO10 Torroxic
TR02 Tropeptic
AA Typic
UD01 Udalfic
UD03 Udollic
UD10 Udoxic
DM Umbreptic
US Ustalfic
US04 Ustic
US08 Ustollic
VE02 Vertic
XE02 Xerertic
XE08 Xerollic
4 undulating 5 complex
11 summit interfluve
12 shoulder interfluve
42 shoulder noseslope
23 backslope headslope
105
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 12 of 22
33 backslope sideslope
24 footslope headslope
44 footslope noseslope
25 toeslope headslope
2.5 Slope Aspect Codes
43 backslope noseslope
34 footslope sideslope
05 toeslope crested hills
35 toeslope sideslope
1 northeast
5 southwest
2 east
6 west
2.6 Pedon Position Codes
1 on the crest 2
4 on middle third 5
7 on a slope and depression 8
3 southeast
7 northwest
on slope and crest
on lower third
in a depression
4 south
8 north
on upper third
on a slope
in a drainageway
2.7 Regional Landform Codes
A coastal plains
E lake plains
G glaciated uplands
I bolson
L level or undulating uplands
N high hills
R hills
2.8 Local Landform Codes
AA depression
A fan
C cuesta or hogback
E escarpment
G crater
I hillside or mountainside
K kamefield
M mesa or butte
P flood plain
R upland slope
T terrace-stream or lake
V pediment
X salt marsh
Z back barrier flat
2.9 Particle Size Codes
B intermountain basin
F river valley
H glaciofluvial landform
M mountains or deeply disected plateaus
P piedmonts
U plateaus or tablelands
V mountain valleys or canyons
B bog
D dome or volcanic cone
F broad plain
H abandoned channel
J moraine
L drumlin
N low sand ridge-nondunal
Q playa or alluvial flat
S sand dune or hill
U terrace-outwash or marine
W swamp or marsh
Y barrier bar
002 not used
005 ashy
008 ashy over loamy
019 ashy over medial
007 ashy over cindery
013 ashy over loamy-skeletal
009 ashy-skeletal
106
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 13 of 22
003 cindery
015 cindery over medial-skeletal
114 clayey
116 clayey over fragmental
120 clayey over loamy-skeletal
056 clayey-skeletal
080 coarse-loamy
084 coarse-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal
088 coarse-silty
092 coarse-silty over sandy or sandy-skeletal
126 fine
102 fine-loamy over clayey
100 fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal
112 fine-silty over clayey
110 fine-silty over sandy or sandy-skeletal
036 fragmental
068 loamy
050 loamy-skeletal
051 loamy-skeletal over fragmental
010 medial
014 medial over clayey
018 medial over loamy
022 medial over sandy or sandy-skeletal
062 sandy
066 sandy over clayey
044 sandy-skeletal
047 sandy-skeletal over clayey
026 thixotropic
034 thixotropic over loamy
030 thixotropic over sandy or sandy-skeletal
134 very fine
2.10 Mineralogy Codes
02 not used
09 chloritic
10 diatomaceous
18 gibbsitic
24 halloysitic
28 kaolinitic
34 mixed
006 cindery over loamy
004 cindery over sandy or sandy-skeletal
122 clayey over fine-silty
124 clayey over loamy
118 clayey over sandy or sandy-skeletal
058 clayey-skeletal over sandy
082 coarse-loamy over fragmental
086 coarse-loamy overy clayey
090 coarse-silty over fragmental
094 coarse-silty over clayey
096 fine-loamy
098 fine-loamy over fragmental
106 fine-silty
108 fine-silty over fragmental
072 loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal
054 loamy-skeletal over clayey
052 loamy-skeletal over sand
012 medial over cindery
016 medial over fragmental
020 medial over loamy-skeletal
024 medial over thixotropic
063 sandy or sandy-skeletal
064 sandy over loamy
046 sandy-skeletal over loamy
028 thixotropic over fragmental
032 thixotropic over loamy-skeletal
027 thixotropic-skeletal
38 montmorillonitic (calcareous)
04 calcareous
07 clastic
12 ferrihumic
20 glauconitic
26 illitic
30 marly
35 mixed (calcareous)
05 carbonatic
08 coprogenous
14 ferritic
22 gypsic
27 illitic (calcareous)
32 micaceous
37 montmorillonitic
107
-------
40 oxidic
46 siliceous
2.11 Reaction Codes
02 not used
10 euic
42 sepiolitic
50 vermiculitic
04 acid
12 nonacid
2.12 Temperature Regime Codes
02 not used
08 isofrigid
14 isothermic
04 frigid
10 isohyperthermic
16 mesic
2.13 Other Family Codes
02 not used
06 level
14 shallow
16 sloping
04 coated
08 micro
15 shallow and coated
20 uncoated
2.14 Kind of Water Table Codes
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 14 of 22
44 serpentinitic
08 dysic
14 noncalcareous
06 hyperthermic
12 isomesic
18 thermic
05 cracked
12 ortstein
17 shallow and uncoated
1 flooded
4 ground
2 perched
3 apparent
2.15 Landuse Codes
C cropland
E forest land grazed
G pasture land and native pasture
L waste disposal land
P rangeland grazed
R wetlands
T tundra
2.16 Permeability Codes
I cropland irrigated
F forest land not grazed
H horticultural land
N barren land
S rangeland not grazed
Q wetlands drained
U urban and built-up land
1 very slow 2
5 moderately rapid 6
2.17 Drainage Codes
slow
rapid
3 moderately slow
7 very rapid
4 moderate
1 very poorly drained
3 somewhat poorly drained
5 well drained
7 excessively drained
2 poorly drained
4 moderately well drained
6 somewhat excessively drained
108
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 15 of 22
2.18 Parent Material Weathering Codes
1 slight 2 moderate 3 high
2.19 Parent Material Mode of Deposition Codes
A alluvium
D glacial drift
L lacustrine
M marine
R solid rock
H volcanic ash
E eolian
G glacial outwash
V local colluvium
O organic
Y solifluctate
2.20 Parent Material Origin Codes
Mixed Lithology
YO mixed
Y2 mixed-calcareous
Y4 mixed-igneous-metamorphic and sedimentary
Y6 mixed-igneous and sedimentary
Conglomera te
CO conglomerate
C2 conglomerate-calcareous
Igneous
10 igneous
12 igneous-basic
14 igneous-granite
16 igneous-basalt
18 igneous-acid
Metamorphic
MO metamorphic
M2 metamorphic-acidic
M4 serpentine
M6 metamorphic-acidic
M8 slate
Sedimentary
SO sedimentary
S2 glauconite
Y1
Y3
Y5
Y7
S eolian-sand
T glacial till
W loess
X residuum
U unconsolidated sediments
mixed-noncalcareous
mixed
mixed-igneous and metamorphic
mixed-metamorphic and sedimentary
C1 conglomerate-noncalcareous
11 igneous-coarse
13 igneous-intermediate
15 igneous-fine
17 igneous-andesite
19 igneous-ultrabasic
M1 gneiss
M3 metamorphic-basic
M5 schist and thyllite
M7 metamorphic-basic
M9 quartzite
S1 marl
109
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 16 of 22
Interbedded Sedimentary
BO interbedded sedimentary
B2 limestone-sandstone
B4 limestone-siltstone
B6 sandstone-siltstone
Sandstone
AO sandstone
A2 arkosic-sandstone
A4 sandstone-calcareous
Shale
HO shale
H2 shale-calcareous
Siltstone
TO siltstone
T2 siltstone-calcareous
Limestone
LO limestone
L2 marble
L4 limestone-phosphatic
L6 limestone-argillaceous
Pyroclastic
PO pyroclastic
P2 tuff-acidic
P4 volcanic breccia
P6 breccia-basic
P8 aa
Ejecta Material
EO ejecta-ash
E2 basic-ash
E4 andesitic-ash
E6 pumice
E8 volcanic bombs
Organic Materials
KO organic
K2 herbaceous material
B1 limestone-sandstone-shale
B3 limestone-shale
B5 sandstone-shale
B7 shale-siltstone
A1 sandstone-noncalcareous
A3 other sandstone
H1 shale-noncalcareous
T1 siltstone-noncalcareous
L1 chalk
L3 dolomite
L5 limestone-arenaceous
L7 limestone-cherty
P1 tuff
P3 tuff-basic
P5 breccia-acidic
P7 tuff-breccia
P9 pahoehoe
E1 acidic-ash
E3 basaltic-ash
E5 cinders
E7 scoria
K1 mossy material
K3 woody material
110
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 17 of 22
K4 wood fragments
K6 charcoal
K9 other organics
2.21 Moisture Regime Codes
AQ aquic moisture regime
PU perudic moisture regime
DO udic moisture regime
XE xeric moisture regime
2.22 Erosion Codes
0 none 1 slight
2.23 Runoff Codes
K5 logs and stumps
K7 coal
AR aridic moisture regime
TO torric moisture regime
US ustic moisture regime
0 none
4 moderate
1 ponded
5 rapid
2 moderate
2 very slow
6 very rapid
3 severe
3 slow
2.24 Diagnostic Feature Codes
P plaggen
Z duripan
Q albic
C calcic
natric
petrogypsic
sombric
fragipan
N
J
I
F
A anthropic H histic
O ochric
D durinodes
W paralithic contact
T argillic
G gypsic
E petrocalcic
Y salic
V sulfuric
2.25 Horizon Codes
Color Location Codes
0 unspecified 1 ped interior
Texture Classes
C clay
CL clay loam
COSL coarse sandy loam
CE coprogenous earth
FB fibric material
FSL fine sandy loam
G gravel
ICE ice or frozen soil
LCOS loamy coarse sand
LS loamy sand
M mollic
U umbric
L lithic contact
R argic
B cambic
X oxic
K placic
S spodic
2 ped exterior
3 rubbed or crushed
CIND cinders
COS coarse sand
CSCL coarse sandy clay loam
DE diatomaceous earth
FS fine sand
FM fragmental material
GYP gypsiferous earth
L loam
LFS loamy fine sand
LVFS loamy very fine sand
111
-------
MARL marl
MPT mucky peat
PDOM partially decomposed
PEAT peat
SG sand and gravel
SCL sandy clay loam
SP sapric material
SIL silt loam
SICL silty clay loam
U unknown texture
VAR variable
VFSL very fine sandy loam
Texture Modifiers
AY ashy
BYX extremely bouldery
CBV very cobbly
CNV very channery
CRC coarse cherty
CY cindery
FLX extremely flaggy
GRF fine gravelly
GY gritty
MK mucky
SH shaly
SR stratified
STX extremely stony
Grade of Structure
1 weak
4 very strong
MUCK
OPWD
organics
BY
CB
CBX
CNX
CRV
FL
GR
GRV
GYV
PT
SHV
ST
SY
S
SC
SL
SI
SIC
UDOM
UWB
VFS
WB
bouldery
cobbly
extremely cobbly
extremely channery
very cherty
flaggy
gravelly
very gravelly
very gritty
peaty
very shaly
stony
slaty
2 moderate
5 weak and moderate
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 18 of 22
muck
oxide protected weathered
bedrock
sand
sandy clay
sandy loam
silt
silty clay
undecomposed organics
unweathered bedrock
very fine sand
weathered bedrock
BYV very bouldery
CBA angular cobbly
CN channery
CR cherty
CRX extremely cherty
FLV very flaggy
GRC coarse gravelly
GRX extremely gravelly
GYX extremely gritty
SHX extremely shaly
STV very stony
SYV very slaty
SYX extremely slaty
3 strong
6 moderate and strong
Size of Structure
EF extremely fine
F fine
MC medium and coarse
Structure Shape
ABK angular blocky
CDY cloddy
GR granular
PL platy
WEG wedge
Dry Consistence
L loose
VF very fine
FM fine and medium
CO coarse
BK blocky
COL columnar
LP lenticular
PR prismatic
soft
FF very fine and fine
M medium
CV coarse and very coarse
SBK subangular blocky
CR crumb
MA massive
SGR single grain
SH slightly hard
112
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 19 of 22
H hard
SWH somewhat hard
Moist Consistence
L loose
FI firm
Other Consistence
WSM weakly smeary
B brittle
CO uncemented
SC strongly cemented
D deformable
VH very hard
VFR very friable
VFI very firm
SM
R
smeary
rigid
EH extremely hard
FR friable
EFI extremely firm
MS moderately smeary
VR very rigid
VWC very weakly cemented WC weakly cemented
SD semideformable
I
indurated
Stickiness
SO nonsticky
Plasticity
PO nonplastic
SS slightly sticky S sticky
SP slightly plastic P plastic
Cementation Agent
H humus I iron
X lime and silica
Mottle Abundance Codes
F few C common
Mottle Size Codes
1 fine 2 medium
Mottle Contrast Code
F faint D distinct
Surface Features
A skeletans over cutans
C chalcedony on opal
G gibbsite coats
K intersecting slickensides
M manganese or iron-manganese stains
P pressure faces
L lime
VS very sticky
VP very plastic
S silica
M many
3 coarse
P prominent
B black stains
D clay bridging
I iron stains
L lime or carbonate coats
O organic coats
Q nonintersecting slickensides
113
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 20 of 22
S skeletans (sand or silt)
U coats
T clay films
X oxide coats
Surface Feature Amount Codes
V very few F few C common
Surface Feature Continuity Codes
P patchy D discontinuous
Surface Feature Distinctness Codes
F faint D distinct
Location of Surface Features
M many
C continuous
P prominent
P on faces of peds
V on vertical faces of peds
U on upper surfaces of peds or stones
L on lower surfaces of peds or stones
M on bottoms of plates
B between sand grains
I in root channels and/or pores
T throughout
H on horizontal faces of peds
2 on vertical and horizontal faces of
peds
C on tops of columns
S on sand and gravel
R on rock fragments
F on faces of peds and in pores
N on nodules
Boundary
A abrupt
S smooth
Effervescence
C clear
W wavy
G gradual
I irregular
D diffuse
B broken
0 very slightly effervescent
2 stongly effervescent
Effervescence Agent Codes
H HCI (10%)
P H2O2 (unspecified)
1 slightly effervescent
3 violently effervescent
I HCI (unspecified)
Q H2O2 (3 to 4%)
Field Measured Property Kind Codes
For organic materials
Column 1
F fiber
H hemic
Column 2
B unrubbed
W woody
R rubbed
H herbacious
114
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 21 of 22
L limnic
S sapric
S sphagnum ^
D diatomaceous earth
F ferrihumic
O other
C coprogenous earth
M marly
U humilluvic
L sulfidic
For mineral materials
ON
PH
pB
PL
PP
PY
sand
Bromthymol blue
Lamotte-Morgan
Phenol red
Ydrion
OI silt
pC Cresol red
pM pH meter (1:1 H2O)
pS soiltex
Soil Moisture Codes
D dry M moist V very moist
Quantity (Roots, Pores, Concretions)
VF very few
CM common to many
FF very few to few
C common
F few
M many
OA clay
pH Hellige-Truog
pN pH (0.1 M CaCI2)
pT Thymol blue
W wet
FC few to common
Size (Roots, Pores, Concretions)
M micro
11 very fine and fine
2 medium
4 very coarse
Location of Roots
C in cracks
P between peds
T throughout
Pores
IR interstitial
IT interstitial and tubular
TU tubular
TD discontinuous tubular
TS constricted tubular
VT vesicular and tubular
M1 micro and fine
1 fine
23 medium and coarse
5 extremely coarse
V1 very fine
12 fine and medium
3 coarse
13 fine to coarse
M in mat at top of horizon
S matted around stones
IE filled with coarse material
IF void between rock fragment
TC continuous tubular
TE dendritic tubular
VS vesicular
TP total porosity
115
-------
Appendix A
Revision 1
Date: 9/85
Page 22 of 22
Kind of Concentrations
A2 clay bodies
B2 soft masses of barite
C2 soft masses of lime
C4 lime nodules
D2 soft dark masses
04 dark nodules
E4 gibbsite nodules
F2 soft masses of iron
F4 ironstone nodules
G2 masses of gypsum
H2 salt masses
K3 carbonate concretions
M1 nonmagnetic shot
M3 iron-manganese concretions
S1 opal crystals
S3 silica concretions
T2 worm casts
T4 worm nodules
Shape of Concentrations
C cylindrical
P plate like
D dendritic
T threads
Rock Fragment Kind Codes
B1 barite crystals
C1 calcite crystals
C3 lime concretions
D1 mica flakes
D3 dark concretions
E3 gibbsite concretions
F1 plinthite segregations
F3 iron concretions
G1 gypsum crystals
H1 halite crystals
K2 soft masses of carbonate
K4 carbonate nodules
M2 soft masses of iron-manganese
M4 magnetic shot
S2 soft masses of silica
S4 durinodes
T3 insects casts
A sandstone B
F ironstone H
K organic fragments L
O oxide-protected rock P
S sedimentary rocks T
mixed sedimentary rocks
shale
limestone
pyroclastic rocks
siltstone
O rounded
Z irregular
E ejecta
I igneous rocks
M metamorphic rocks
R saprolite
Y mixed lithogoy
Rock Fragment Size Codes
1 pebbles
2 cobbles
3 stones
4 boulders
5 channers
6 flagstones
C 20- to 75-mm fragments
116
-------
Appendix B
Changes to Protocols
This appendix contains the notes assembled during the sampling and preparation laboratory
training workshop that was held on August 7 and 8, 1985. The material has undergone minor
editorial revisions.
117
-------
Subject: Changes Discussed on August 8, 1985, During Field Training
From: Discussion Leader
To: Participants of Sampling Workshop, August 7-8, 1985
RE: Major Revisions to Field Sampling Manual
Section to be Added (Section 9) - Data Documentation
Points to be included on the field data form:
(1) Vegetation
• The major, second, and third fields should include the dominant tree species by order of
basal area.
• For recent clear-cut areas (since mapping conducted) use the code CC. Describe the
dominant vegetation types prior to the clear-cut in the free-form site notes.
(2) Azimuth
• Azimuth values will be added in columns 13 to 17 as follows: - °, where "-" is the field
separator, and "°" is degrees. Use leading zeros. The azimuth will be determined by the
face of the pit described in a perpendicular direction based on magnetic North.
• If azimuth cannot readily be determined, as in the Histosols, use-N/A° in this field.
(3) Site description codes
• Local Physiographic Component (GM): Add code 00 in case other categories are not
appropriate.
Section 1.2.1
(1) The sentence, "The field sampling crews will consist of State Soil Conservation employees."
will be replaced by "The field sampling crews will consist of soil scientists experienced in the
National Cooperative Soil Survey."
(2) Delete the second sentence, L, "at least three soil scientists."
(3) Add to Section 1.2.1 "The field crew leader will have ultimate responsibility for placement of
pedon within sampling class.
Section 1.2.2
(1) The RCC has established dates with the crew leaders for site visits. He will evaluate the
watershed mapping and monitor the sampling. A copy of the map that was sent to Corvallis
from each state is needed, as well as stereo pairs for the mapping evaluation. It was
suggested that if the RCC visits a crew twice, the sampling should be done in different types,
if possible.
Log Books
(1) The log book will document crews' activities for each day of sampling. The set ID should
be documented.
(2) Use an indelible ink pen for logging. If an error is made, mark through the entered material
and initial. Use a free form style for documenting the sampling activities.
118
-------
(3) Include the Label A information in the log book to serve as a cross-check if labeling problems
should occur.
(4) Log books will be submitted to the Data Audit Section - EPA/EMSL-LV.
Section 4.2.8 Label A
(1) For combined samples, use two sample codes, two horizon designations, and two depth
designations for organic layers.
(2) Mineral soil layers that cannot be sampled separately will never be combined. The leaders
of the sampling teams will use their own judgment in sampling horizons <3 cm thick.
(3) Use FDO for field duplicate sample.
Section 4.2.7
(1) Two full bags of sample will be required for organic soils.
Section 4.2.3
(1) The subdivision of thick horizons of organic soils will not be required.
Section 7.3.1
(1) Add: One label should be attached to the specific clod while drying. This label is in addition
to a 2-inch by 2-inch label that is placed on the inside cover of the clod box. Information
necessary on these labels is the horizon, the sample code, and the replicate number.
Contacts
(1) Direct questions in field to people at the EPA/EMSL-LV office.
(2) The EPA QA manager will be auditing 5 to 10 percent of the pedons for quality control, a
checklist will be developed and distributed to the sampling crews.
Other Miscellaneous
(1) Label A stamps for the canvas bags will be provided by EPA/EMSL-LV.
(2) Thin tip indelible pens to be used in completing the field data form and broad tip indelible
pens for completing the labels on samples will be provided.
(3) Interagency agreements for the preparation laboratories are being prepared.
(4) Saran may be at MSL-LV next week for distribution to the preparation laboratories. The clod
labels and boxes may not be delivered until the week of August 26, 1985.
(5) SCS will receive a copy of all data submitted.
(6) Send the QA manager at EMSL-LV any changes in the protocols in writing for inclusion in
the next draft.
(7) Estimated dates to begin sampling:
Maine - August 19
New York - August 19 (2 crews); August 26 (1 crew)
New Hampshire - August 26
Massachusetts - August 26 (1 crew); September 2 (1 crew)
119
-------
Pennsylvania - August 19
Connecticut - August 26
120
-------
Workshop Notes
Major Revisions and Clarifications to the Field Sampling Manual
Section Page Comment
1.2.2 3 of 5 The Regional Coordinator/Correlator will monitor 3 to 5 percent of the
sampling sites (at least one pit per state) with the SCS state office staff.
1.2.4 4 of 5 SCS state office staff will monitor one site per state with the RCC. SCS-stat
office staff may be involved in sampling but may not be involved in sampling
during QA evaluation.
Note: Three different descriptions will be generated during the joint reviews
of the RCC and the SCS state office staff site visits. If the description
of the sampling crew changes during the sampling, they will modify
their descriptions, but the RCC and state office staff will not.
2.5.1 8 of 20 The five SAP vegetation cover type aggregates will be further defined and
all cover types associated with each of these aggregates will be listed in the
next revision of this manual.
2.8.2 15 of 20 If the randomly selected site does not satisfy the criteria for sampling class
and vegetation, proceed pacing 20 foot sections until an appropriate
sampling class and vegetation class is located or 500 feet have been
traversed.
A random number table, along with instructions, will be provided in the next
revision of this manual.
2.10 20 of 20 Paired pedon selection and sampling--30 sites were identified and assigned
by ERL-C. These sites will be sampled in conjunction with the corresponding
routine pedon. The location of this pedon will be determined by the crew
leader using the following criteria:
(1) Establish sufficient distance to avoid disturbance from sampling of the
routine pedon.
(2) Use same sampling unit and vegetation as the routine pedon.
(3) Use the same slope position as the routine pedon.
(4) Use the same profile description and sampling protocol as the routine
pedon.
3.2 6 of 9 Item 23, the field carbonate test is omitted.
3.4 7 of 9 For film quality consistency, all slides will be developed using prepaid Kodak
mailers.
Histosols will be photographed by sequential placement of the augered
horizons on the surface.
3.5 8 of 9 Discontinuous horizons will be sampled when considered significant by the
crew leader.
9 of 9 All horizons in a pedon which are greater than 3 cm will be sampled.
121
-------
This entire section will be revised for clarification.
4.2.5 3 of 10 Delete the last sentence on this page which begins "The coarse fragments..."
4.2.7 4 of 10 The minimum amount of field sample is 5.5 Kg of less than or equal to 20
mm particle size fraction unless the estimated 2 to 20-mm size class exceeds
45 percent by estimated volume, then take two 1 gallon samples.
4.2.8 7 of 10 Label A - The first three digits of the sample code will be assigned as
follows:
(1) Compound field duplicate samples will be labeled FD1 and FD2.
(2) Compound routine samples will be labeled R12, R22, etc. (i.e., split
horizon samples from horizons greater than or equal to 75 cm).
(3) Single routine samples will be labeled R11.
(4) Include depth (in cm) after the horizon name.
4.2.8 7 of 10 The following sets of ID ranges are assigned to the respective crews:
0-999
100-199
200-299
300-399
400-499
500-599
600-699
700-799
800-899
900-999
1000-1099
1100-1199
ME01
ME02
ME03
NH01
NY01
NY02
NY03
MA01
MA02
CT01
PA01
VT01
4.2.8 8 of 10 The second sentence read "...digits 4 to 5 are SCS state code, 6 to 8 are the
SCS county code, digit 9 is a dash, digits 10 to 11 are the county pedon
number, the digits 12 to 13 are the horizon number."
4.3 8 of 10 Delete information referring to carbonate test. Other information in this
section will be incorporated into Section 4.2.7.
8.1 4 of 6 Items 31 and 32, the staplers and the Saran resin, will be provided to the
preparation laboratories by EMSL-LV.
Revisions to the field data form
Page Comment
1 of 4 (1) Under Sample Number "unit" is synonymous with pedon.
(2) Add the day to Date.
(3) Add the crew ID to Describers' Names.
(4) Under Location Description, the first six digits of line 1 are the site ID, the seventh
digit is a dash, the eighth digit is the random number point (1-5), the ninth digit
is a dash, and digits ten through twelve are the sampling codes.
122
-------
2 of 4 (5) The Dry Color will be determined when needed for classification.
4 of 4 (6) The three divisions under Rock Fragments correspond to the three particle size
fractions:
line 1 = 2 to 75mm
line 2 = 75 to 250mm
line 3 = greater than 250mm
1 of 4 (7) Add Site Description Code, Physiography, Local; AA = depression.
(8) The following Soil Description parameters need not be completed by the field crew:
Precip, Temperatures °C, Weather Station Number, ER WA, Vol LAT/TOT,
Effervescence, and Pores.
3 of 4 (9) Mottles should be described as indicated in Chapter 4 of the Soil Survey
Handbook.
(10) The distribution of the field data form is listed below:
Original to: SCS
Copy 1 to: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
Copy 2 to: EMSL-LV
Copy 3 to: ERL-C
Copy 4 to: preparation laboratory
Letters or codes exceeding the given space should be written one above the other.
NOTE: Samples should never be frozen.
123
-------
Appendix C
Letter to Landowner
This appendix reproduces the content of the letter that was written by the technical director
of the project to inform landowners about the EPA study. Reportedly, the letter was a help in
gaining access to privately owned land which contained sampling locations.
124
-------
September 16, 1985
Dear Landowner:
One of the most important environmental concerns for our nation is the potential effect of acid rain
on lakes and streams. It is crucial to know how many lakes and streams are at risk of being
acidified by acid rain in the near future (called, "direct response systems"), and how many are
protected by the antacid actions of soil, rocks, and other parts of the watershed ("delayed response
systems"). To find out, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is looking at a large number of
lakes, streams, and watersheds in the eastern United States. The Soil Conservation Service is
cooperating in this project by describing and sampling selected soils on these watersheds. The
soil samples will be analyzed to see how much protection from acid rain the soils give to the lakes
and streams.
We are requesting your assistance in this project. Your property contains a soil type that is
important for us to describe and sample. This would mean digging a hole in the ground. This hole
might be up to 5 feet deep but most likely will be shallower than that. The sampling crew will
describe the soil and remove a small amount for chemical analysis. Then they will fill in the hole
after they are finished.
It is, of course, totally up to you whether you will permit us to sample the soil on your property.
We hope you will choose to assist us in this important project. If you wish, the results of the soil
description and analysis will be sent to you when they are available. Simply inform the sampling
crew of your desire for this information. The results of the soil analysis will most likely be available
next summer.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Technical Director
Direct/Delayed Response Project
125
-------
Appendix D
Sampling Class Information
The figures and tables in this appendix present information about the sampling classes
identified for the Northeastern Soil Survey. The figures are the flowchart which conceptualizes the
categories, i.e., sampling classes, to which particular soils belong. Although this flowchart was not
available to the sampling crews, it is generally believed that such a flowchart would be an aid to
the sampling crews in the field.
126
-------
ALFISOLS
G L A.C.I Q-
FLUVIAL
AQU
1C
UDIC
|E31
I I
INE SANDY
TO
ilLTY
ENTISOLS
TILL
IITHIC DEEP
|E6]
INCEPTISOLS
ALLUVIAL
GLACIO-
FLUVIAL
OCHREPTS
TYPIC
AQUEPTS
AQUIC
SANDY LOAMY 4140
I CLAYEY1 '
HISTOSOLS
(See Next Page)
SPODOSOLS
(See Next Page)
TILL
YO/Y5
MS
AQUEPTS
NON-ACID
ACID
AQUIC
NOT AQUEPTS
I
NOT AQUIC |I21
DEEP MOD SHALLOW
DEEP
DEEP
SANDY COARSE- COARSE- | 1
SILTY LOAMY PERMEABILITY PERMEABILITY
> 0.2 5 0.2
12
DE
SHALLOW
LOAMY LOAMY-I
^SKELETAL!
SHALLOW "•
130
-------
I
HISTOSOLS
I
I |
FOLIST NON-FOLIST
HI I EUIC OYSIC
HZ) IH3
1
SPODOSOLS
I
I
TILL
GLACIO-
FLUVIAL
ORTHODS AQUODS AQUOOS ORTHOOS
YO/Y7
Y5
i
AQUIC
NOT AQUIC
SHALLOW
PERMEABILITY PERMEABILITY
>0.2 < 0.2
COARSE-
LOAMY
SANDY- COARSE-
SKELETAL LOAMY
128
-------
TABLE D-1. OCCURRENCE OF SAMPLING CLASSES AND LISTING OF SOILS
Sampling
Class
Rock
E2
E3
E5
E6
HI
H2
H3
11
12
15
16
19
110
111
121
125
129
130
133
137
138
140
141
142
146
SOI
S02
SOS
S09
S10
Sll
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
SIS
Occu
Acreage
187.0
913.3
3446.0
121X6
340.7
1550.4
1243.5
7080.3
1701.6
7577.3
2824.1
2117.8
1577.0
3320.7
2211.0
609.0
3570.3
3825.7
1645.3
8209.5
493.0
3211.0
1007.0
213.0
1460.0
1435.8
495.8
25803
5053
21219.1
7302.6
6701.3
19795.7
16039.2
21454.7
1650.6
2085.0
1041.8
1285.2
rrence
Number of
Watersheds
7
26
20
15
7
22
18
83
29
48
16
15
10
12
10
2
17
17
6
17
10
21
12
7
7
9
16
29
13
70
24
42
77
82
64
8
14
6
8
Soils
Aquents. Basher, Charles, Fluvaquents, Medomak, Rumney, Udifluveots
Carver, Hinckley, Plymouth, Udipsaramcnts, Windsor
Schoodic, Uthic Udorthenu
Udorthents
Mahoosuc, Ricker
Adrian, Carbondalc, Carlisle, Cathro, Medisaprists, Palms, Rifle
Beseman, Borosaprists, Chocorua, Dawton, Freetown, Greenwood, Loxley,
Lupton, Ossipec, Sebago, Swansea, Waskish
Hapiaquepts, Leicester, Lyme, Neversink, Tughill
Brayton, PUUbury, Ridgebury
Chatfield, Macombcr
Hollis, Nassau, Taconic
Broadbrook, Montauk, Pazton, Scituate
Canton, Charlton, Gloucester, Nanagansett
Rainbow, Sutton, Woodbridge
Dummenton, Fullam, Lanes boro
Chippewa, Massena, Morris, Norwich, Rcxford, Scriba, Tuller, Volusia
Lordstown, Manlius, Oquaga
Arnot, Insuia
Lackawanna, Mardin, Swartswood, Wcllsboro, Wurtzboro
Moosilauke, Scarboro, Searsport
Biddeford, Humaquepts, Muskellunge, Peacham, Raynham, Roundabout,
Swanvilie, Scantic, Whitman
Agawam, Braceville, Haven, Merrimac, Riverhead, Wyoming
Deerfield, Sudbury
Belgrade, Boothbay, Button, Srio, Tisbury
Burnham, Monarda
Naskeag, Naumburg, Pipestone
Adams, Allagash, Colton, Croghan, Duane, Masardis, Sheepscot
Aerie Haplaquods, Typic Haplaquods
Becket, Marlow, Potsdam
Herman, Waumbek
Berkshire, Danforth, Monadnock
Rawsonville, Tunbridge
Hogback, Lyman, Saddleback
Crary, Peru, Skerry, Sunapee, Worden
Bangor, Chcsuncook, Enchanted
Dixmont, Howland, Nicholvillc, Surplus, Telos
Elliottsville, Winnecook
Monson, Thorndike
129
-------
TABLE D-2. CLASSIFICATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS
IN SAMPLING CLASSES.
Deofh 150
coarse-loamy > ISO
coane-uity >150
loamy > 150
coane-silty > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
loamy —
sandy >150
sandy-skeletal >150
sandy > 150
sandy >150
sandy >150
sandy > 150
loamy-skeletal 10
loamy 5
loamy-skeletal 25
loamy-skeletal >150
— >150
— 100
— 25
sandy-skeletal > 150
— >150
loamy > 150
loamy > 150
— >150
loamy > 150
— >150
loamy > 150
— >150
sandy-skeletal > 150
— >150
— >150
— >150
— >150
— >150
loamy >150
— >150
sandy >150
— >150
To Impermeable
Material
>150
23
>150
76
>150
>150
—
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
10
5
25
>150
>150
100
25
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
127
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
Named Mapping Units
178A
ISA
44A
71A;72A
118A
175A
72A
42A, B, C, D, E
89A, B, C, D
156A.B.C.D
504B
504C
234A.B.C
705C.E.F
263C, E, F
181C.E.F
218
217
241B;356E.F;176E
242E, F; 254C, E; 263C, E, F;
352C; 353E
2A
41A
258A
253A
178A
144A
166A
243A
30A;248C
53A
61A
501A; 502A; 506A
79A
103A
104A
79A
188A
510A
226A
(Continued)
130
-------
TABLE D-2 (Continued).
Deoth (an)
Soil Name
Sampling Class 11
Haplaquepts
Leicester
Lymc
Neversink
Tughill
Sampling Class 12
Brayton
Brayton, Rubbly
Pillsbury
Ridgebury
Sampling; Class IS
Chatfieid
Macorabcr
Sampling Class 16
Hollis
Nassau
Tacouic
Sampling Class 19
Broadbrook
MooUuk
Paiton
Scituate
Sampling Class IIP
Canton
Charlton
Gloucester
Narragansctt
Sampling Class 111
Rainbow
Sutton
Wood bridge
Sampling Class 121
Dumracrson
Fullam
Lanes boro
Sampling Class 125
Chippewa
Masse na
Morris
Norwich
Rorford
Scriba
Tuller
Volusia
Taxonomic
Category
Haplaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Histic Humaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Aquic Dystrochrepts
Aquic Dystrochrepts
Aquic Dystrochrepts
TVpic Dystrochrepts
Aquic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Fragiaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Aerie Fragiaquepts
Typic Fragiaquepts
Aerie Fragiaquepts
Aerie Fragiaquepts
Lithic Haplaquepts
Aerie Fragiaquepts
Panicle Size
Class To Bedrock
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
loamy-skeletal >150
coarse-loamy > ISO
coarse-loamy >150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > ISO
coarse-loamy 50
loamy-skeletal 50
coarse-loamy 25
loamy-skeletal 25
loamy-skeletal 25
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy o/
sandy-skeletal >150
coarse-loamy > 150
sandy-skeletal > 150
coarse-loamy o/
sandy-skeletal > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > ISO
coarse-loamy > 150
fine-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
fine-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy >150
loamy-skeletal 25
fine-loamy >150
To Impermeable
Material
>150
>150
>150
53
76
48
48
56
41
50
50
25
25
25
61
69
61
71
>150
>150
>150
>150
61
>150
64
>150
60
76
40
>150
38
38
45
33
25
33
Named Mapping Units
732A; 767A
98B
107A.B
136A
211A
32A,B,C
252A
150A.B
167A.B
46C;47C;48C,E
108C; 704E
47C; 48C, E; 250C, E; 251F;
514E
246B
108Q 704E; 705C,
515B.C
127B,C,D
14SB, D
185B.C
38B,C,D
45B, C; 46C; 47C
76B,C,D,E
505B,C,D
516B
199A.B
236A,B,C
701C, D
702B, C
703B, C
52A,B
259C
129A, B, C, D
138A
165A
186A
257B
224A,B,C
E,F
(Continued)
131
-------
TABLE D-2 (Continued).
Deothfcm)
Soil Name
Sampling Class 129
Lordstown
Manlius
Oquaga
Sampling Class 130
Arnot
Insula
Sampling Class 133
Lackawaana
Mardin
Swartswood
Wcllsboro
Wurtboro
Sampling Class 137
Moosilauke
Scarboro
Seanport
Sampling Class 138
Biddeford
Humaqucpts
Humaquepts
Muskellunge
Peacham
Raynham
Roundabout
Scantic
Swaaville
Whitman
Sampling Class 140
Agawarn
Braccvillc
Haven
Merrimac
Riverhead
Wyoming
Sampling Class 141
Dccrficld
Sudbury
Sampling Class 142
Belgrade
Booihbay
Buxton
Scio
Tisbury
Sampling Class 146
Burnham
Monarda
Taxonomic
Category
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Lithic Dystrochrepts
Typic Fragiochrepts
Typic Fragiochrepts
Typic Fragiochrepts
Typic Fragiochrepts
Typic Fragiochrepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Histic Humaquepts
Hixtic Humaquepts
Histic Humaquepts
Frigid Humaquepts
Mesic Humaquepts
Aerie Ochraqualfs
Histic Humaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Typic Haplaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Typic Humaquepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Fragiochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Typic Dystrochrepts
Aquic Udipsamments
Aquic Dystrochrepts
Aquic Eutrochrepts
Aquic Eutrochrepts
Aquic Eutrochrepts
Aquic Dystrochrepts
Aquic Dystrochrepts
Histic Humaquepts
Aerie Haplaquepts
Particle Size
Class To Bedrock
coarse-loamy 50
loamy-skeletal SO
loamy-skeletal 50
loamy-skeletal 25
loamy 25
coane-loamy > 150
coane-loamy > 150
coane-loamy > 150
coane-loamy > 150
coane-loamy >150
sandy >150
sandy >150
sandy >150
fine >150
coane-loamy > 150
coane-loamy > 150
fine >1SO
coane-loamy > 150
coane-silty >150
coane-siity > 150
fine >150
fine-*ilty > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coane-loamy oi
sandy-skeletal > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coane-loamy o/
sandy-skeletal > ISO
sandy >150
coane-loamy > 150
loamy-skeletal >150
sandy >150
sandy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
flne-silty >150
fine >150
coane-silty >150
coane-silty > ISO
coane-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > ISO
To Impermeable
Material
50
50
50
25
25
61
50
75
56
43
>150
>150
>150
40
>150
>150
30
25
61
>1SO
28
56
38
>150
61
>150
>1SO
>150
>150
>150
>150
100
56
53
>150
>150
50
61
Named Mapping Units
101B,C,D,E
HOC; 246B
141B,C,D,E,F;142B,C,D
11B;12C.E,F;142B,
259C; 260E; 261F
96B,C,D;97E
114B, C, D
97E;202B,C,O
229A.B.C.D
239B.C
128B
511A
187A
28A
732A
767A
262A
146 A, B
163A
173A
180A.B
201A.B
512A
4A
31A
507 A, B, C
120A,B,C
170B, C
240C, D, E
62A,B
503A, B
517B
29B
37B
183A.B
508A.B
36A
123A,B,C
C,D
(Continued)
132
-------
TABLE D-2 (Continued).
Depth (cm^
Tazonomic
Soil Name Category
Sampling Class SOI
Naskeag Aerie Haplaquods
Naumburg Aerie Haplaquods
Naum burg Aerie Haplaquods
Pipestone Entic Haplaquods
Sampling Class S02
Adams Typic Haplorthods
Allagash Typic Haplorthods
Colton Typic Haplorthods
Croghan Aquic Haplorthods
Duanc Typic Haplorthods
Masardis Typic Haplorthods
Shecpscot Typic Haplorthods
Sampling Class SOS
Aerie Haplaquods Aerie Haplaquods
Typic Haplaquods Typic Haplaquods
Sampling Class S09
Bcckct Typic Haplorthods
Marlow Typic Haplorthods
Potsdam Typic Fragiorthods
Sampling Class S10
Hermon Typic Haplorthods
Hermon, Rubbly Typic Haplorthods
Waumbek Aquic Haplorthods
Sampling Class SI 1
Berkshire Typic Haplorthods
Berkshire, Rubbly Typic Haplorthods
Danforth Typic Haplorthods
Monadnock Typic Haplorthods
Sampling Class S12
Rawsonville Typic Haplorthods
Tuabridgc Typic Haplorthods
Sampling Class S 13
Hogback Lithic Haplorthods
Lyman Lithic Haplorthods
Particle Size
Class To Bedrock
sandy SO
sandy >150
sandy >150
sandy >150
sandy >150
coarse-loamy o/
sandy-skeletal >150
sandy-skeletal >150
sandy >150
sandy-skeletal >150
sandy-skeletal >1SO
sandy-skeletal > ISO
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > ISO
coarse-loamy > ISO
coarse-loamy > ISO
coarse-loamy > ISO
sandy-skeletal >1SO
sandy-skeletal > ISO
sandy-skeletal > ISO
coarse-loamy > ISO
coarse-loamy > ISO
loamy-skeletal >1SO
coarse-loamy o/
sandy-skeletal >1SO
coarse-loamy 50
coarse-loamy 50
loamy 25
loamy 25
To Impermeable
Material
50
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>1SO
>150
>150
>150
>150
50
75
80
61
66
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
>150
50
50
25
23
Named Mapping Units
131A.B
134A
135A
15 1A
1A,B,C,D;7C
6B; 7C
54A,B,C,D
57A.B
64A
116B.C.D
190B
3A.B
244A
208B,C,D,E;21C,E,F
115B,C,D
160B,C,D;161C,E
88B.C.E
87C,D,E
227B
22B,C,D,E,F;23C;214C,E
255D.E
59C.D
122B,C,D,E
90C; 162C, D
161C.E;213B,C,D;214C,E;
215C, E, F
90C;162C,D
21C, E, F; 23C; 88C, E;
Saddleback
Sampling Class S14
Crary
Peru
Skerry
Sunapee
Sunapee, Rubbly
Worden
Humic Cryorthods
Aquic Fragiorthods
Aquic Haplorthods
Aquic Haplorthods
Aquic Haplorthods
Aquic Haplorthods
Aquic Haplorthods
thizotropic
25
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > ISO
coarse-loamy > ISO
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
25
61
61
64
>150
>150
64
214E;215C,E,F;254C,E;
263C, E, F
176E
56B.C
148B, C, D
192B.C.D
196B.C
256B
238B.C.D
(Continued)
133
-------
TABLE D-2 (Continued).
Soil Name
Taxonomic
Category
Particle Size
Class
Depth (cm>
To Bedrock
To Impermeable
Material
Named Mapping Units
Sampling Class S15
Bangor
Chesuncoolc
Enchanted
Typic Haplorthods
TypicHaplorthods
Humic Cryortbods
Sampling Class S16
Dixmont Aquic Haplorthods
Howland Aquic Haplorthods
Nicholville Aquic Haplorthods
Surplus Typic Cryorthods
Telos Aquic Haplorthods
Sampling Class S17
Elliottsvilic
Winnccook
Sampling Class S18
Monson
Thoradike
TypicHaplorthods
TypicHaplorthods
Lithic Haplorthods
Lithic Haplorthods
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
thizotropic 100
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coane-silty >150
thizotropic > 150
coarse-loamy > 150
coarse-loamy 50
loamy-skeletal 50
loamy
loamy-skeletal
25
25
>150
53
100
53
40
>150
66
36
50
50
25
25
15B.C.E
51B,C,D,E,F
355D,E;356E,F
63B.C
357B, C
137B
354C.D.E
204B.C
67B,C,D,E;353E;
235C,D;358E
125C;126E;352C;353E
205B,C;206C,E;358E
134
-------
TABLE D-3. CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS IN THE SAMPLING CLASSES
Class Description
E2 - Soils occur in recent deep alluvial deposits from mixed parent materials on the margins of lakes and in flood
plains on low stream terraces where the soil is wet at some time of the year. Soils are very poorly, poorly, or
somewhat poorly drained. These mineral soils have an irregular decrease in organic carbon content with depth,
or have • relatively hi gh amount of organic carbon in deep layers. The particle size class is loamy.
E3 Soils are deep, sandy, mineral soils with little or no development of pedogenic horizons. Soils are developed in
till and glado-fluvial deposits derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. Permeability is rapid or
very rapid, and the soils are excessively drained.
E5 Soils are mineral soils with a lithic contact within 50 cm of the surface and little or no pedogenic development.
Soils are developed in till derived from igneous or metamorphic rocks. The particle size class is loamy or
loamy-skeletal. Permea bility is moderate or moderately rapid, and soils are well drained to excessively
drained.
E6 Soils are on areas disturbed by human activity, including strip mines, pits, quarries, and landfills. Recent
disturbance has destroyed or homogenized the pedogenic development of these deep mineral soils. The soil
parent material was once deposited as till derived from various rocks. The panicle size class is loamy or loamy-
skeletal. Permeability is moderately slow to moderately rapid, and soils are well drained or somewhat
excessively drained.
HI Soils are freely drained organic materials derived from leaf litter, twigs, and branches resting on or partly
filling interstices in fragmental materials or directly overlying bedrock that is less than one meter from the
surface. Soils are cool, have a frigid temperature regime, and are somewhat excessively drained. Thin mineral
layers of less than 10 cm may occur, but the combined thickness of the organic material is more than twice that
of the mineral material.
H2 Soils are deep organic materials which have been mostly decomposed. These soils differ from those in Class H3
in that the soil reaction is euic, i.e., the pH of undried samples in 0.01 M CaCl- is 4.5 or higher, in at least some
part of the organic materials in the control section rather than dysic. Soils are very poorly drained or poorly
drained. Either ground water is at or near the surface nearly all the time, or ground water tends to fluctuate
which allows for periodic aerobic decomposition of organic materials. In some soils of this class, mineral layers
and layers of less decomposed organic material tend to interfere with water movement.
H3 Soils are composed of deep organic materials which have been mostly decomposed. These soils differ from
Class H2 in that the soil reaction is dysic, i.e., the pH in 0.01 M CaCl, of undried samples is less than 4.5, in ail
parts of the organic materials in the control section rather than euic. soils are very poorly drained. Either
ground water is at or near the surface nearly all the time, or ground water tends to fluctuate which allows for
periodic aerobic decomposition of the organic materials. In some soils of this class, mineral layers and layers of
less decomposed organic tend to interfere with water movement.
11 Soils of this class are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks or
inter bedded sandstone and siltstone. Unless artificially drained, ground water stands at or near the surface for
long periods of time, but not throughout the year. Soils differs from those in Classes 12,137, and 138 in that
the pH is less than 5.0 in 0.01 M CaCl, throughout the control section. The particle size class is coarse-loamy
or loamy-skeletal. Soils are poorly drained or very poorly drained.
12 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. Unless
artificially drained, ground water stands at or near the surface for long periods of time, but not throughout the
year. Soils have a layer of dense till at a depth of 1 meter or less from the soil surface. The particle size class
coarse-loamy. Soils are somewhat poorly drained or poorly drained.
15 Soils are moderately deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks or
from schist and phyllite. Soils have base saturation less than 60 percent in all subhorizons between depths of
25 and 75 cm below the soil surface. The particle size class is coarse-loamy or loamy-skeletal. Soils are well
drained.
16 Soils are shallow mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks or from
schist and phyllite. Bedrock occurs at less than 50 on below the soil surface. The panicle size class is loamy or
loamy-skeletal. Soils are well drained.
(Continued)
135
-------
TABLE D-3 (Continued).
Class Description
19 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic nodes. Soils have
base saturation less than 60 percent in all subhorizons between depths of 25 and 75 cm below the soil surface.
The particle size class is coarse-loamy. Soils are moderately well drained or well drained. A slowly permeable
layer occurs at a depth of SO to 100 cm below the soil surface.
110 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. Soils have
base saturation less than 60 percent in all subhorizons between depths of 25 and 75 on below the soil surface.
The particle size class ranges from coarse-loamy to sandy-skeletal. Soils are well drained or somewhat
excessively drained.
Ill Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. Soils have
base saturation less than 60 percent in all subhorizons between depths of 25 and 75 cm below the soil surface.
Ground water is present in the soil in the deep layers during winter, but disappears in summer. The particle
size class is coarse-loamy. Soils are moderately well drained.
121 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from schist and phy ilite. Soils have base saturation less
than 60 percent in all subhorizons between 25 and 75 on below the soil surface. The particle size class is
coarse-loamy, and the soils are well drained.
125 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till or glatio-fluvial deposits derived from interbedded sedimentary
rocks. Most of these soils are underlain by a fragipan a 30 to 50 cm below the soil surface. One soil in this class
has bedrock between 25 and 50 cm below the soil surface. Horizons above the fragipan or bedrock are saturated
with ground water for some months in most yean. The particle size class is loamy or loamy-skeletal, and the
soils are very poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained.
129 Soils are moderately deep mineral soils developed in till derived from interbedded sandstone and siltstone or
from siltstone and shale. Soils are underlain by bedrock at depths between 50 and 100 cm below the soil
surface. Soils have base saturation less tan 60 percent in all subhorizons at depths between 25 and 75 cm below
the soils surface. The panicle size class is coarse-loamy or loamy-skeletal, and the soils are well drained or
somewhat excessively drained.
130 Soils are shallow mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks or from
sandstone and siltstone. Bedrock occurs at less than 50 on below the soil surface. The particle size class is
loamy or loamy-skeletal, and the soils are well drained and moderately well drained.
133 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from sandstone and siltstone. A fragipan occurs at a
depth of about 50 on. Usually ground water is perched above the fragipan at some time of the year. The
particle size class is coarse-loamy, and the soils are somewhat poorly drained to well drained.
137 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till or glario-fluvial deposits derived from mixed igneous and
metamorphic rocks. Unless artificially drained, ground water stands at or near the surface for long periods of
time, but not throughout the year. The particle size class is sandy, and the soils are poorly drained or very
poorly drained.
138 Soils are deep mineral soils derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. Most soils in this class have a
layer of dense till at a depth of less than 1 meter from the soil surface. Soils have an aquic moisture regime, and
are somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained. The particle size class ranges from fine to coarse-loamy.
140 Soils are acid mineral soils that occur on deep coarse-textured glado-fluvial deposits derived from sandstone
and siltstone or from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. The particle size class ranges from coarse-loamy
to sandy and from loamy-skeletal to coarse-loamy over sandy-tkeletal. Permeability is moderately rapid to very
rapid, and soils are moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained.
141 Soils are mineral soils that occur on deep sandy glado-fluvial deposits derived from mixed igneous and
metamorphic rocks. Soils are saturated with water within 1 meter of the soil surface during some part of the
year. The particle size class is sandy. Permeability is rapid, and soils are moderately well drained.
(Continued)
136
-------
TABLE D-3 (Continued).
Class Description
142 Soils are mineral coils that occur on deep, loamy glacio-fliivial deposits derived from mixed igneous and
metamorphic rocks. Soils are saturated with water within 60 on of the soil surface at some time of the year.
The particle size class ranges from fine to coarse-loamy, and soils are moderately well drained or somewhat
poorly drained. This class includes soils with and without carbonates or base saturation that is 60 percent or
higher in some subhorizon.
146 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. Ground
water stands at or near the surface of these soils at some time during each year, but not at all seasons. The
particle size class is coarse-loamy, and the soils are very poorly drained or poorly drained.
S1 Soils are moderately deep or deep mineral soils developed in till or glado-fluvial deposits derived from mixed
igneous and metamorphic rocks. Soils have fluctuating ground water at or near the soil surface. An ochric
epipedon, i.e., a surface horizon too thin or with too little organic carbon to be an urn brie horizon, overlies a
spodic horizon, i.e., a layer in which an amorphous mixture of organic carbon and aluminum have
accumulated. The particle size class is sandy, and soils are poorly drained or somewhat poorly drained.
S2 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in glade-fluvial deposits derived from mixed igneous or metamorphic
rocks. Soils have a spodic horizon of amorphous organic carbon, iron, and aluminum accumulation. Particle
size class ranges from sandy to sandy-skeletal, and soils are moderately well drained to excessively drained.
SS Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from granite or mmd igneous and metamorphic rocks.
Soils have fluctuating ground water at or near the soil surface. Soils have a spodic horizon, i.e., a subsoil layer
in which an amorphous mixture of organic carbon and aluminum have accumulated. Particle size class is
coarse-loamy, and soils are poorly drained of somewhat poorly drained.
S9 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. Soils have a
spodic horizon of aluminum, iron, and organic carbon accumulation in which no one of these elements
dominates. Particle size class is coarse-loamy, and soils are well drained. Permeability is less than 0.2 inches
per hour.
S10 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from T^™* igneous and metamorphic rocks. Soils have a
Spodic horizon of aluminum, iron, and organic carbon accumulation in which no one of these elements
dominates. Particle size class is sandy-skeletal, and soils are moderately well drained or somewhat excessively
drained.
SH Soilsare deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. These soils
have a spodic horizon of aluminum, iron, and organic carbon accumulation in which no one of these elements
dominates. The particle size class is coarse-loamy, loamy-skeletal, or coarse-loamy over sandy-skeletal, and the
soils are well drained. Permeability is greater than 0.2 inches per hour.
S12 Soils are moderately deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metaroorphic rocks.
These soils have a spodic horizon of aluminum, iron, and organic carbon accumulation in which no one of these
elements dominates. The panicle size class is coarse-loamy, and the soils are well drained.
SI3 Soils are shallow mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. Bedrock
occurs at depths less than 50 cm from the soil surface. These soils have a spodic horizon of aluminum, iron, and
organic carbon accumulation in which no one of these elements dominates. The particle size class is loamy or
thixotropic. Soils are well drained or somewhat excessively drained.
S14 Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed igneous and metamorphic rocks. These soils
have a spodic horizon of aluminum, iron, and organic carbon accumulation in which no one of these elements
dominates. Ground water fluctuates either in or just below the spodic horizon. The panicle size class is coarse-
loamy, and the soils arc somewhat poorly drained or moderately well drained.
SIS Soils are deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. These
soils have a spodic horizon of aluminum, iron and organic carbon accumulation in which no one of these
elements dominates. Particle size class is coarse-loamy or thixotropic, and the soils are moderately well
drained or well drained.
(Continued)
137
-------
TABLE D-3 (Continued).
Class Description
S16 Soil* are deep mineral toils developed in till or lacustrine deposits derived from mixed metamorphic and
sedimentary rocks. These toils have a spodic horizon with a moderate amount of organic carbon. Ground
water fluctuates either in or just below the tpodic horizon for most soils in this class. Particle size class is
coarse-loamy or coarse-silty, except for one soil that is thixotropic. Soils are somewhat poorly drained or
moderately well drained.
S17 Soils are moderately deep mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed metamorphic and sedimentary
rocks. These toils have a spodic horizon of alumiaum, iron, and organic carbon accumulation in which no one
of these elements dominates. Particle size class is coarse-loamy or loamy-ckeletal. Soils are well drained.
S18 Soils are shallow mineral soils developed in till derived from mixed rocks. Bedrock occurs within SO cm of the
soil surface. Soils have a spodic horizon of aluminum, iron, and organic carbon accumulation in which no one
of these elements dominates. Particle-size class is loamy or loamy-skeletal. Soils are somewhat excessively
drained.
138
-------
Appendix E
New York Sampling Phase Outline and Checklist
The Soil Conservation Service in New York prepared a summary of the protocols and a
checklist for the sampling crews to use in the field. It is reproduced here with minor editorial
revision.
139
-------
Sampling Phase Outline
(Abbreviated)
I. Site Selection
1. Proceed to Point 1 (10 yds. x 10 yds.) shown on map.
a. Place flag at Point 1 if soil sampling class or vegetation class is not applicable.
b. Proceed to locate proper sampling class, at 20 feet intervals (straight line) from the
marker flag up to a distance of 500 feet.
c. Direction taken from marker flag will be chosen from a random numbers table (eyes
closed - pencil point the table to select a number). North = No. 2. Northeast = 3, East
= 4,...up to Northwest = 9.
2. Reasons for not sampling Point 1 and surrounding area.
a. Inappropriate soil or vegetation sampling class.
b. Landowner won't give permission.
c. Inaccessible.
3. If Point 1 cannot be sampled, go to Point 2 and repeat procedure in Item 1 above.
4. If Point 2 cannot be sampled, proceed to Point 3, and so on.
II. Site Preparation
1. Ribbon 4 trees (if wooded and allowable) surrounding sampling site for relocation.
2. Dig pit 1 meter square to a depth that will allow sampling to 60 inches (v. deep soils).
III. Pre-Sampling Activities
1. Photographs (ASA 400 Ektachrome slides)
a. Pit face with completed information card attached to upper horizon (ID card must be
focused and readable).
b. Full profile with ID card and measuring tape.
c. Edge of pit and surrounding landscape.
d. Major tree canopy (cover type).
(NOTE: Next photo set will start with the ID card on next sampling pit - features
photographed should be in the same order.)
2. Record azimuth facing perpendicular to pit face sampled. (No azimuth for wet organic
soils.)
IV. Profile Description
a. Describe on new 232 coding form (to 60") with current SSM, Chapter 4 terminology.
140
-------
b. Fill out form completely except for the following blocks: (1) Precip., (2) Temp °C, (3)
Weather Station No., (4) ERWA, (5) Vol Lat/Tot., (6) Effervescence, and (7) Pores.
c. Soil Series block- if at all possible, profile should be within range of characteristics for
a series.
d. PHYS block - codes will be taken from map unit description.
e. Describers'Names block- add crew ID numbers at end -
XXXXXXX - NY01
YYYYY - NY02
7777 - NY03
f. Location Description block -
i. (1st Line) - Watershed ID No. - site selected (1,2,etc.) - soil class (E5,I21,etc.) -
Azimuth.
ii. (2nd line) - locate pedon from N and E boundary of watershed (ft.) - scale from
maps.
g. Horizon Depth block- in meters.
h. Rock Fragment block- Record by volume the 2 mm to 3" size; 3" to 10" size, and the
> 10" size in the 3 blocks provided.
V. Sampling
1. Bulk Samples
a. No. of Horizons sampled- usually no more than 6 unless additional horizons are unique
- a field duplicate horizon will be sampled per pedon (your choice).
b. Horizon Thickness - sample no horizon less than 1-1/4 inches thick unless unique
(samples from these horizons can be less than 1 gai.).
c. Split Samples - generally split horizons if > 12' thick in the upper 1 meter -split > 30
inch thick horizons below 1 meter (exception is wet histosols). Use judgment.
d. Amount of Sample
-1 gal. mineral soil
-2 gal. mineral soil if 2 to 20 mm fraction is > 45% by volume
-2 gal. organic soils
e. Size Fraction to Sample- < 20mm fraction will be bagged - all samples sieved through
a 3/4" sieve.
f. Horizons to Sample
-Do not sample Oi horizon in mineral soils.
-Can combine thin Oa and Oe horizons in mineral soils.
-Do not combine mineral soil horizons.
-1 horizon per pedon must be sampled as a field duplicate.
g. Handling Bag Samples
-Fold plastic sample bag several times at 1" increments and staple across the top.
-Attach Label A (stick-on) to outside of plastic bag.
-Place plastic bag inside cloth bag and tie.
141
-------
-Outside of cloth bag should have same information as on DSS label A - use indelible
marker on lower right quadrant.
2. Clod Samples
a. Obtain 3 clods per horizon where possible - approximately fist size if possible.
b. Prepare clods as prescribed in the field sampling manual - Section 7.
c. Label each clod with sample number on masking tape affixed to the top of the hair
nest.
d. Place clod in small plastic bags and in quart containers or clod boxes - label containers
or boxes with 2' x 2' sticker label.
VI. Labels
a. All samples will be labeled with Label A (example below):
Label A
Date Sampled:
NY01-XXXXXXX
NY02-YYYYY Crew ID:
NY03-ZZZZ
Watershed No. Site ID:
R - Routine
FD - Field Duplicate-- Sample Code-
A - Audit
Horizon depth (cm)— Horizon:
NY01 will use 400-499
NY02 will use 500-599-- Set ID:
NY03 will use 600-690
(Set ID is number for each day sampled;
i.e., 2 sampled pedons in one day would have the same no.)
b. Split horizons samples -
-Compound routine samples label as R12,R22,etc.
-Compound field duplicate samples label as FD1.FD2.
-Single routine samples label as R11.
VII. Field Notebooks
a. Daily activities recorded including any problems; reason for going to 2nd,3rd,etc.,
sampling site; any field notes; unusual things not recorded on 232 form.
b. Location and identification of each sampled pedon. (Notebooks will be submitted to
EPA when project is complete).
142
-------
VIII. Sample Transport
a. Samples from the field should be taken immediately to cold storage facility at one of
the staging areas (cold storage = 4°C - not below 0°C).
b. Samples will be transported from cold storage at weeks end to Cornell in ice chests
packed with 8 frozen gel packets.
Watershed No. _Team Leader Signature
Pedon No._ _ _"_" "NY~ - 0_ _
Soil Sampling ~C\ass
Veg. Sampling Class _ _~_
NY Sampling Phase Checklist
NOTE: Please check all items when complete for each pedon sampled. Each watershed envelop
must contain (1) checklist per pedon sampled or the envelope will not be accepted from
the field crew. Watershed envelops will be collected in the field after sampling is complete
for a given watershed. Use this list to double check 232's and green notebook.
Completed
Items
I. Site Selection
1. If point (pt) 1 is unsuitable, mark with yellow flag and locate suitable sampling class
along an azimuth chosen from random numbers table (20 ft. intervals up to 500 ft.
from yellow flag).
2. After 5 random azimuths, if pt 1 cannot be sampled, go to pt 2, etc.
3. Record sample point numbers and reasons for not sampling in green notebook
and below:
pt1 pt2 pt3 pt4 pt5
suitable
unsuitable soil or vegetation class
no landowner permission
inaccessible
II. Site Preparation
1. Ribbon 4 trees (orange flagging) at sampling site finally chosen.
2. If site chosen for pt1, pt2, pt3, pt4, or pt5, circle the point on xerox copy of the
watershed.
3. If site chosen is along a random azimuth, mark the site with a star (*) on the xerox
copy of the watershed.
143
-------
4. Excavate soil pit 1 m x 1 m to depth necessary for sampling (up to 60" for very
deep soils).
III. Pre-Sampling Activities
1. Fill out yellow photo ID card.
2. Photograph clean pit face with yellow ID card attached to upper horizon (in focus
and readable) (fill frame with card and pit face).
3. Photograph full profile with metric tape and yellow card (fill frame with profile).
4. Photograph edge of pit and surrounding landscape.
5. Photograph major tree canopy (record cover type in green notebook).
6. Record photo log in green notebook (pedon no., date, exposure no.;s, roll no., and
name of photographer),
7. Record latitude and longitude of sampling pt in green notebook and in lat./long.
block on 232 form.
IV. Profile Description
1. Fill in all blocks except those marked "blank" (see xerox example 232).
2. Make sure profile characteristics are within range for a series chosen (if possible).
3. Take PHYS block information from map unit description sheet.
4. Describers' names block - add crew ID no.'s at end, as shown on xerox example
232.
5. Location Description block - follow format shown on xerox example 232.
6. Horizon Depth block - record in centimeters.
7. Rock Fragment block - record % by volume in following order; 2 mm-2"; 2'-10"; >10".
8. Record site location in green notebook.
V. Horizon Sampling Date
H-1 H-2 H-3 H-4 H-5 H-6
1. Record horizon symbol->
2. Sample 3/4" sieved?
3. Sample double-bagged?
4. NADSS label on inner
plastic bag?
144
-------
!±3 {±4
5. Is sample routine and not
split (R11) (mineral-1 gal,
organic-2 gal)?
6. Is sample split mineral?
(upper & lower) (2 gal total)
7. Is sampling split organic?
(upper & lower) (4 gal total)
8. Is sample field duplicate?
(FDO or FD1, FD2 if split)
9. Does sample contain >45%
rock fragments by volume
(need 2 gal) (R12 and R22)
10. Is info, recorded on outer
canvas bag? (Use indelible pen.)
11. Is Set ID No. current?
(Update from previous sampling
day.)
12. Is sample in cooler with
frozen gel packs?
13. Number of clods taken —>
14. Is each clod labeled?
(Masking tape at top of hairnet.)
15. Is clod information on
2' x 2' label (inside
of lid of clod box)?
16. Is clod information on
outside of white quart
containers (if used in
place of clod box)?
17. ** Are sample and pedon
number recorded on hand-
written cooler-contents
list? (Tape list to
inside of cooler before
shipping to Cornell.)
18. Has temperature been
take in cooler or cold
storage compartment today?
(Record in green notebook.)
145
-------
Please make handwritten list of samples in each cooler and tape to inside lid before shipping
to Cornell. Each list should be signed by the crew member loading the coolers. List need
only be the Pedon No. plus all horizon numbers in the cooler, i.e.,
R11-NY071 -005-01
» " «-02
R12 " " -03
R22 " " -03
R11 -NY071 -006-02
FDO-NY071 -006-02
Total number of samples = 6 John Doe 8-26-85
146
£• U.S. GOVERNMENT PRi'.TING OFFICE 1990- 7 4 8 -1 5 9 10
------- |