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

-------