United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Acid Deposition,
Environmental Monitoring and
Quality Assurance
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/4-87/030b
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 II. Preparation

-------
                                               EPA/600/4-87/030b
                                               September 1987
     Direct/Delayed Response Project:
 Field Operations and Quality Assurance
Report for Soil Sampling and Preparation
     in the Northeastern United States
           Volume II:  Preparation
                        by
            M.L Papp and R.D. Van Remortel
                    A Contribution to the
             National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                           Office of Research and Development
                              Washington, DC 20460
               Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada 69193
                   Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon 97333

-------
                                        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.  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 corporation names, 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:

Papp, M.  L1., and R. D. Van Remortel1.  1987.  Direct/Delayed Response Project: Field Operations
     and Quality Assurance Report for Soil Sampling and Preparation in the Northeastern United
     States,  Volume II: Preparation. EPA/600/4-87/030b.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada.  96 pp.
        Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company; Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

-------
                                      Abstract
     The Direct/Delayed Response Project Soil  Survey includes the mapping, characterization,
sampling, preparation, and analysis of soils in order to characterize watershed response to acidic
deposition within the Northeastern region of the United States.  Soil samples collected by sampling
crews were delivered to preparation laboratories where the samples were processed and organized
into batches for shipment to analytical laboratories.  This document summarizes the procedures
and assesses the compliance with protocols used at the preparation laboratories.  Difficulties at
the laboratories are discussed, and recommendations are made for program improvement.

     In general, the preparation laboratories observed protocol. Soil sample integrity appears to
have been maintained at the preparation laboratory.

     This report  was submitted in  fulfillment  of Contract  Number 68-03-3249 to 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.
                                           in

-------
                                     Contents
Section                                                                            Page

Notice  	   ii
Abstract	   iii
Figures	  vii
Tables 	viii
Acknowledgments	,	   ix

     1.  Introduction	   1

        Summary	   1
        Objectives 	   2

     2. Sample Preparation Methods and Analysis  	   3

        Sample Processing and Rock Fragment Determination	   3
        Qualitative Test for Inorganic Carbon	   3
        Bulk Density Determination	   3

     3. Preparation Laboratory Operations	   5

        Sample Storage	   5
        Equipment	   5
        Record Keeping	   5
        Sample Drying	   6
        Rock Fragment Determination	   6
        Soil Homogenization	   6
        Qualitative Test for Inorganic Carbon	   6
        Moisture Determination  	   6
        Bulk Density Determination	   7
          Laboratory 1  	   7
          Laboratory 2	   8
          Laboratory 3  	   8
          Laboratory 4  	   8
        Sample Shipment	   8

     4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control	   9

        Design Components	   9
          Training	   9
          Communications  	   9
          Data Quality Objectives  	   9
          On-Site Systems Audits	  10

-------
                                Contents (continued)
Section                                                                            Page

        Data Evaluation	   11
          Quality Assurance Samples 	   11
          Method of Estimating Analytical Precision	   11
        Precision Results for Bulk Density Determination	   12
        Precision Results for Rock Fragment Determination	   13
        Completeness Results	   14

     5. Conclusions and Recommendations 	   15

        Data Recording 	   15
          Preparation  Laboratory Forms	   15
          Data Entry Procedures	   15
        Sample Drying	   22
        Moisture Determination 	   22
        Bulk Density Determination	   22
        Quality Assurance/Quality Control	   23
          Communications  	   23
          Data Quality Objectives 	   23
          On-Site Systems Audits	   23
          Audit Samples	   23

References	   24

Appendices

     A Sampling and Preparation Laboratory Protocols for the Northeastern
        Direct/Delayed  Response Project Soil Survey	   25

     B Laboratory 3 Ammonium Test	   94
                                            VI

-------
                                     Figures

Number                                                                        Page
 1     Sample receipt form	  16
 2     Bulk density raw data form  	  17
 3     Rock fragment raw data form   	  18
 4     Inorganic carbon raw data form	  19
 5     Percent moisture raw data form	20
 6     Sample processing form	  21
                                         VII

-------
                                      Tables

Number                                                                        Page
 1     Precision Estimates for Bulk Density	  12
 2     Precision Estimates for Rock Fragments	  13
                                         VIII

-------
                               Acknowledgments
     Critical reviews by the following individuals are gratefully acknowledged:  D. E. Corrigan,
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; J. C. Foss, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, Tennessee; J. S. Lohse, Illinois Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Farmland Protection,
Springfield, Illinois; and W. R. Smith, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.

     The guidance of the following individuals was important in the development of the statistical
analyses:  T. Starks, Environmental Research Center,  University of Nevada, Las  Vegas, Nevada;
J. E. Teberg, M. J.  Miah, M. A. Stapanian, and F. C. Garner, Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Company, Las Vegas, Nevada.

     The following individuals provided internal reviews during the preparation of this document:
C. J. Palmer, Environmental Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada; E. Levine,
NASA/Goddard  Research Center, Greenbelt, Maryland; S.  Bodine, University  of  Massachusetts,
Amherst, Massachusetts; I. Fernandez and  C. Spencer,  University  of  Maine,  Orono,  Maine;
D. S. Coffey, Northrop Services, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon; and J. K. Bartz, Lockheed  Engineering and
Sciences Company, Las Vegas, Nevada.

     J.  L. Engels,  Lockheed Engineering and  Sciences Company, Las Vegas, Nevada provided
editorial support.  The Computer Sciences Corporation staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas,  Nevada,  and A.  M. Tippett,
Lockheed  Engineering and  Sciences  Company,  Las  Vegas, Nevada  provided word processing
support.

     Finally, the assistance of the Technical Monitor, L J. Blume, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring System Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada  is  gratefully acknowl-
edged.
                                           IX

-------
                                      Section  1

                                   Introduction
Summary

     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA),  in conjunction with the National  Acid
Precipitation Assessment  Program  (NAPAP),
has designed and  implemented a  research
program to predict the long-term response of
watersheds and surface waters in the United
States to acidic deposition.  Based on this
research, each watershed system studied will
be classified according  to the time scale in
which  it  will reach an  acidic steady state,
assuming current levels of acidic deposition.
The Direct/Delayed Response Project (DDRP)
was designed as the soil study complement to
the aquatic resources program.

     As  part of the DDRP,  four preparation
laboratories were established in the Northeast-
ern region of the United States to process soil
samples  and to perform preliminary analyses
on these samples.  The  preparation laborato-
ries were located within the soil science de-
partments at the following land grant universi-
ties:

     • University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
        Massachusetts.

     • University  of   Connecticut,  Storrs,
        Connecticut.

     • University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

     • Cornell University. Ithaca, New York.

     Each laboratory was under the direction
of a  laboratory manager, who was a  soil
scientist and a member of the university facul-
ty.  The manager was responsible for ensuring
that the  integrity of the  soil samples  was
maintained after the samples arrived at the
preparation laboratory.   Laboratory personnel
were required to comply with protocols speci-
fied for DDRP (Appendix A), which are referred
to as the protocols throughout this report.
Each  laboratory manager employed  at least
one full-time assistant as well as a number of
college students. Most of the student assis-
tants  were majoring in soil science, with the
remainder studying related fields.

     The preparation laboratories performed
the following analyses on the bulk samples
collected by the  sampling crews:

     •  percent  moisture (air-dry).

     •  percent  rock fragments  (in the 2- to
        20-mm fractions).

     •  qualitative test for inorganic carbon.

     •  clod analysis for bulk density.

     Laboratory  personnel   prepared  one-
kilogram  analytical  samples  derived  from
homogenized air-dry bulk samples. The analyt-
ical samples were labeled and placed  into
batches. The samples were then randomized
within each  batch.  In  addition to the routine
samples, each  sampling crew collected  one
duplicate soil sample per day for quality assur-
ance  (QA) purposes.   Natural audit  samples
and  a preparation  laboratory duplicate also
were placed into each batch for QA purposes.
The  batches were  then  shipped from  the
preparation  laboratories to various analytical
laboratories contracted by the EPA.

     The results of analyses performed by the
preparation  laboratories were recorded on a
Form 101 for each batch of samples.  Copies
of the completed Form  101 were required to be
sent to  the data base management personnel
at Oak  Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), to

-------
the QA staff at the EPA Environmental Monitor-
ing Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas  (EMSL-
LV), and to the EPA Environmental  Research
Laboratory in Corvallis (ERL-C) within 24 hours
of batch shipment to the analytical laborato-
ries.

     Because the bulk density analysis was
not completed when batches were sent to the
analytical laboratories, copies of the Form 101
were not always sent within the specified time
limit. Copies specifically were not sent to the
analytical laboratories  because  the  forms
identified  the  types  of  soil horizons being
analyzed.    Instead,  analytical laboratories
received copies of the  shipping form (Form
102), on which the sample codes  from the
Form 101 had been removed. Each sample on
the Form 102 was identified only by batch and
by sample number in order to disguise the
identity  of the soil  horizon from  which the
sample  originated.

     Any surplus soil material at the prepara-
tion laboratories was archived and placed  in
cold storage.   After the sample  preparation
and  shipping  activities  were completed, the
archived samples were shipped to Las Vegas
via refrigerated truck and were placed in long-
term cold storage facilities.

     Information concerning sample collection,
labeling,  and  analysis  was documented  in
sample receipt and  sample processing log
books.  These log books  were later sent to
EMSL-LV for reference during the data verifica-
tion procedure.

     Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
measures were  applied in order to maintain
consistency in the soi) preparation protocols
and to ensure that soil sample analyses would
yield results of known quality.  Personnel at
the preparation laboratories received training
on the analytical methods and soil preparation
procedures.   QA staff from EMSL-LV con-
ducted on-site systems audits of the prepara-
tion  laboratories.   Weekly communication
between QA personnel and laboratory person-
nel was established to identify, discuss, and
resolve issues. Representatives of three of the
preparation laboratories  attended  an  exit
meeting held in Las Vegas on January 6 and
7, 1986.  The purposes of the meeting were to
review the mapping, sampling, and preparation
activities, resolve any remaining issues, and to
generate suggestions for future surveys.

Objectives

      This document reports the results of the
preparation laboratory  operations  and QA
program for the Northeastern DDRP Soil Sur-
vey. Difficulties encountered with the data or
methods are  identified, and suggestions for
corrective actions are made.  The preparation
laboratories are  identified by  number rather
than by name in order to prevent disclosure of
their  identity.    Information concerning the
specified protocols for soil preparation can be
found in the protocols (Appendix A).

-------
                                     Section 2

                       Sample Preparation Methods
                                  and Analysis
     The  detailed  methods and  analytical
procedures used in soil preparation activities
for the Northeastern soil survey are given in
the protocols (Appendix A).  Brief explanations
of the methods and procedures for  the prepa-
ration laboratory analyses are given  below,
including two corrections to the protocols. The
methods are discussed in sequential order as
performed in the preparation laboratories.

Sample   Processing  and   Rock
Fragment Determination

     Each bulk  sample is spread on a tray to
air-dry until constant weight is achieved.  This
is confirmed by comparing  the  weight  of a
subsample on two consecutive days.  If the
weight change  is less than 2.5 percent, the
sample is considered air-dry.

     After recording the  weight of  the air-dry
bulk   sample, the  soil  is  passed  through
a  No. 10 mesh  sieve to  collect the less  than
2-mm soil fraction.  The  rock fragments that
are retained on  the sieve constitute the 2- to
20-mm pebble fraction.  The fragments are
weighed, bagged, and placed in storage.  The
fragment weight is divided by the total air-dry
sample  weight  and is multiplied  by  100  to
obtain the percent rock fragments.

     A  Jones-type  3/8-inch  riffle  splitter is
used to homogenize the less than 2-mm  frac-
tion of the sample.  The soil  is placed through
the riffle splitter at least seven times  in suc-
cession. One-half of the sample is placed into
a plastic bag for archiving, and the other half
is placed  through  the  riffle  splitter  until
an  approximately  one-kilogram  sample  is
obtained.
Qualitative  Test  for  Inorganic
Carbon

     One gram of soil is placed in the well of
a porcelain spot  plate, saturated with deion-
ized  water, and  stirred  to  release  any  en-
trapped air. Three drops of 4N HCI are added
to the sample while the analyst uses a stereo-
scope to observe the chemical reaction.

Bulk Density  Determination

     Replicate soil clods are collected by the
sampling crews.  Upon arrival at the laborato-
ry, the clods are  weighed and dipped in a 1:4
or 1:7 Saran:acetone mixture.  The clods  are
suspended from  a line,  allowed to dry, and
reweighed.  This procedure is repeated, usually
three of four times, until  each clod  is impervi-
ous to water.

     Approximately 800-mL of deionized water
contained in a one-liter beaker is de-gassed by
boiling, allowed to cool to room  temperature,
and  tared  on a balance.  Each  clod is sub-
merged in water  to determine its weight dis-
placement  on the  balance.  The  clods  are
placed in a drying oven for 48 hours and, after
cooling, are weighed.  A two-hour  heat treat-
ment in a 400°C  muffle furnace vaporizes the
Saran, then  the clods  are cooled  and re-
weighed.   Each clod is crushed and passed
through a  No. 10  2-mm mesh sieve. The rock
fragments are weighed, and the  data is used
to correct  for the rock fragment content.

     Bulk density is defined as the mass of a
unit  volume of soil particles and pore space
expressed  as grams per  cubic  centimeter
(g/crrr3). Bulk density in mineral soils normally

-------
ranges from 1.0 to 1.8 g/cm3 (U.S. Department
of  Agriculture,  Soil   Conservation  Service
[USDA-SCS],  1983).

     Two of  the bulk density algorithms were
given incorrectly in the protocols.  The  first
algorithm originally was written as:
BDcU =
where:



MOD" =


0.85 =

Mv   =
rH20T =

2.65 =
1.30 =
        MOO-  [MCF + MTS (0.85)]
                   M,
                    'CF
        rH20T
                   2.65
                        MTS

                        1.30
bulk density in g/cm3
oven-dry clod weight
rock fragment weight
Saran coating weight
air-dry  to  oven-dry  Saran  weight
conversion
clod weight in water
density of water at laboratory temper-
ature, T
density of rock fragments
density of Saran
     Using this algorithm, the Saran volume
would be added to the clod volume rather than
subtracted, thereby underestimating the bulk
density value.
                                                The correct algorithm is as follows:

                                                       MOD-[MCF  +  MTS(0.85)]
                                               BDFM =
                                                        Mu
                                                         M(
                                                                  CF
                  M
                                                                           'TS
                                                       rH20T
                                                        ,2.65
                   1.30)
                                                     The  second  algorithm was  used  to
                                               estimate  the  air-dry  Saran  weight  and was
                                               incorrectly written as:
                                                M
                                                 'TS
                                                where:
X (Ma - MJ
                                                           a - 1
                                                MTS  =  air-dry Saran weight
                                                X    =  total number  of coatings (field  and
                                                        laboratory)
                                                Ma   =  clod weight after final coating
                                                M,   =  initial clod weight after unpacking
                                                a    =  number of laboratory coatings

                                                The correct algorithm is as follows:

                                                        X (Ma - M,)
                                                MTS

-------
                                    Section 3

                           Preparation Laboratory
                                    Operations
     Detailed discussions of the operations
performed by  the preparation  laboratories
follow. Deviations from the specified protocols
and difficulties  with the methods are noted.

Sample Storage

     The specified temperature for storage of
soil samples was 4°C, which was monitored
on a daily basis.  All preparation laboratories
had adequate facilities to store the samples at
the required temperature.

     An ammonia leak was discovered in the
cold  storage facility at Laboratory 3.  The
Nessler Reagent Colorimetric test (Greweling
and Peech,  1960), a test for ammonium  con-
tent, was used to assess the possible  con-
tamination of soil samples that were exposed
(unbagged),  single-bagged  in  plastic,  and
double-bagged  in  plastic (Appendix B).  The
conclusions of  the experiment were that the
leak had no effect on single- or double-bagged
samples. All samples processed by Labora-
tory 3 were double-bagged in cold storage.

Equipment

     EMSL-LV  shipped sampling equipment to
the preparation laboratories  where laboratory
personnel were  responsible  for  distributing
equipment to the sampling crews.  The crews
usually picked up supplies while samples  were
being delivered to the cold storage facility. All
supplies  taken by the sampling crews  were
required  to be listed  in  the equipment log
book.

     Laboratory personnel were tasked  with
mixing the Saran solution used  for coating
clods in the field.  Equipment shortages  were
reported to EMSL-LV during the weekly confer-
ence calls. After the soil preparation activities
were completed, leftover supplies were inven-
toried and shipped to EMSL-LV for storage. A
list of the equipment provided to the sampling
crews can be found in Appendix A.

Record Keeping

     Preparation  laboratory  data  for  the
Northeastern  Soil Survey  were placed in log
books  or  on forms produced by  individual
laboratories.    Each preparation  laboratory
maintained the following log books:

     •  Label A -  Labels  that the sampling
        crews had  placed on the inner  soil
        sampling bags were removed from the
        bags and  affixed to pages of  the
        Label A log book.

     •  Clod  Labels - Labels that the sampling
        crews had attached either to the clods
        or to the clod box were removed  and
        affixed  to pages of the clod  label log
        book.

     •  Sample Receipt - Information gathered
        upon receipt of the soil samples from
        the field.

     •  Percent Moisture - Raw data from the
        moisture analyses.

     •  Rock Fragment -  Raw data from the
        rock  fragment analyses.

     •  Bulk Density - Raw data from the bulk
        density analyses.

-------
     •  Inorganic Carbon - Raw data from the
        inorganic carbon analyses,

     •  Sample Processing - Tracking of the
        soil samples  through  the various
        preparation activities.

     Because  a standard format for record
keeping  was not specified, there was great
variation from laboratory to laboratory.  As a
result,  verification  of data was  a difficult
process.

Sample  Drying

     There were no deviations from the speci-
fied sample drying procedure.   Because the
procedure was not sufficiently  detailed, the
sample  drying operations did not proceed as
efficiently as possible. Laboratory 1 identified
wet organic soils of which the outer layer of
the bulk sample had dried to a hard crust,
thereby  inhibiting the flow of air to the rest of
the sample. Laboratory 3 used cafeteria trays
on which to dry the samples, and this resulted
in the collection of  water on the tray surface
beneath the sample.  Both situations created
conditions favoring microbial growth that may
have altered the composition of the affected
soil samples.   Specifications for the  drying
area did not stipulate any ventilation require-
ments to accelerate  the drying  process.  In
addition, there were no requirements  to limit
access  to the  drying room or to the prevent
soil contamination,  e.g., by smoke.

Rock  Fragment Determination

     There were no deviations from the speci-
fied procedures for rock fragment determina-
tion. Laboratory 4 reported that  bulk samples
containing rock fragments greater than 20 mm
in diameter were brought in from the field for
a few pedons.  If this  were  the case, rock
fragment data for  these samples  may have
identified all rock fragments greater than 2 mm
rather than only the 2- to 20-mm fraction.

Soil Homogenization

     There were no deviations from the speci-
fied procedures for  soil homogenization.  Label
B, identifying each sample for the analytical
laboratories, was placed on the appropriate
sample  bag, and each Label A was placed into
the Label  A log  book according  to protocol.
Remaining  sample material  was stored as
specified in the protocols.

Qualitative  Test  for  Inorganic
Carbon

     There were no deviations from the speci-
fied procedures for the inorganic carbon test.

Moisture  Determination

     The protocols do not specify a procedure
for determining soil moisture content.  Conse-
quently, laboratories  1,  2, and 3 used one
method (Method 1),  whereas Laboratory 4
used a slightly different approach (Method 2).
Method 1 utilized two  subsamples of soil. The
first air-dry sample was oven-dried to deter-
mine its moisture content.  On the following
day or at least 24 hours later, a second air-dry
sample  went  through the same procedure.
Unless the absolute  difference between the
moisture contents  of the two samples was
less  than  2.5  percent,  the  procedure  was
repeated.  In contrast, Method 2 utilized only
one soil sample.  The  air-dry sample  was
weighed one day, reweighed the following day,
and  oven-dried.  The  moisture  content of
the sample on the different days was then
determined.

     Both methods were supposed to ensure
that samples had reached an equilibrium air-
dry state.  If the absolute moisture content of
a sample changed  less than 2.5 percent in 24
hours,  the  soil was considered air-dry.  This
could be an erroneous assumption in a humid
laboratory where, for example, a  soil contain-
ing 20 percent moisture may dry slowly enough
to remain  within  2.5 percent of the  initial
measurement for 24 hours. By adhering to the
methodology, the soil would be considered air-
dry and ready for  further  analyses when, in
fact, it was not.  However, when the moisture
data were reviewed, less than 3 percent of the
soils had an air-dry moisture  content greater
than 10 percent.

     A concern  with  Method 1 is the  amount
of soil used in the  procedure.   After a sample
had been  oven-dried, it  could  not be placed
back into  the bulk sample.   If the moisture
values  of   the  initial   two   samples   were
not within  2.5 percent,  a  third sample was

-------
measured,  and  a  comparison  was made
between samples two and three. This process
continued  until an equilibrium was reached,
occasionally consuming a substantial amount
of soil. Because the bulk sample was not ho-
mogenized before this determination and was
discarded  after measurement, the quantity of
soil consumed adversely affected the represen-
tativeness of the sample and the determination
of rock fragments in the bulk sample.

     Another  concern  relates to  moisture
retention.  An individual  moisture sample will
dehydrate  at a faster rate than the bulk sam-
ple  from  which  it is  taken.  The difference
between the initial and second measurement,
as used in Method 1, would better assess the
air-dry moisture content  of the bulk sample.

Bulk Density Determination

     Clod analysis was chosen as the general
method for determining bulk density, despite a
few disadvantages. Obtaining clods from dry,
loose, or  extremely wet soils and from  hori-
zons containing many rock fragments can be
difficult or impossible. Another concern is that
the bulk density values obtained may be higher
than  the  average bulk density of the  soil
horizon that they represent, because sampling
could be biased toward the collection of firmer,
more compact clods capable  of withstanding
disturbance  during sampling and transport.

     Two very similar methods were used to
determine bulk density.  The  methods varied
because of the manner in which the volume of
the clod was determined.  The first method
(Method 1) determines clod volume by placing
a beaker  of water on a balance, taring the
balance, submerging the clod in water,  and
using the  weight of the  submerged clod  as a
direct estimate of the volume of the clod.  This
method of determining volume is described in
the protocols. The second method (Method 2)
utilizes a stand and a beam that are placed on
a balance and tared.  A clod is suspended
from the  beam and  allowed  to  submerge in
water.  The weight of the clod is recorded, and
this  value  is subtracted from the air-dry clod
weight in order to determine the volume of the
clod.

     The  use of either Method 1 or Method 2
was based on  each laboratory's familiarity
with the  method.   Both methods are  valid,
although each method has its limitations. If a
clod floats when Method 1 is used, the weight
of the floating clod does not reflect its true
volume  because some of the  clod  is above
water.  The advantage of this method is that
the clod can be forcibly  submerged, and  its
true volume can  be recorded. If Method 2 is
employed, the measured weight of the floating
clod is zero.  Using this method, bulk density
values for floating clods  would have to  be
removed from the data base because there is
no alternative method for identifying  their true
volume.

      Another common source of error associ-
ated  with both  methods  was the  failure  to
subtract the  weight of the clod tag and the
hairnet  surrounding the  clod.   Laboratory 1
attempted to compensate for  the  error  by
subtracting the oven-dry weight of the tag and
hairnet  from  the oven-dry clod  weight.  The
error surfaced during QAdata evaluation, when
it  was  observed  that clods from  the  field
occasionally  weighed more than the  same
clods with  additional laboratory coatings  of
Saran. The major effect of this error occurs in
the calculation of Saran weight and  density.

      Variations in bulk density measurements
also occur when clods are allowed  to air-dry
between the  initial and second  weighing, i.e.,
after  the clods have been coated with Saran.
Because water vapor can  permeate Saran, any
loss  of moisture  could  affect  the  recorded
Saran weight and density.  If laboratory per-
sonnel initially weighed a moist  clod from the
field,  dipped the clod a number  of times, and
allowed it to dry for  several hours, the clod
could lose an amount of moisture greater than
the weight  of the  laboratory Saran  coatings.
The effect on the bulk density value  would be
dependent upon  the size and original moisture
content of the clod.

      Each   preparation  laboratory  used a
slightly different  procedure for  bulk density
determination.    The following paragraphs
describe the actual bulk density procedure  for
each  laboratory.

Laboratory 1

      Method 2  was used to determine clod
volume in water.  An extra step was included
in the  calculation to subtract  the oven-dry

-------
weight of the hairnet and the tag that were
attached to each clod.

Laboratory 2

     Method 2 was used to determine clod
volume  in water.  The laboratory underesti-
mated  bulk density values by failing to sub-
tract the Saran density from the buik density
measurement.   For  a number of raw  data
observations (187), a field clod weight and a
clod weight after one Saran  coating were
recorded.   The remainder  of the raw  data
observations  (690) did not contain field clod
weights. The bulk density, minus Saran densi-
ty, was calculated using the 137 data observa-
tions. Regression analyses that compared the
187 field clod weights with the corrected bulk
density values  produced  an  algorithm that
could  be  used  to  calculate  corrected bulk
density values for the remaining data.   The
algorithm generated a strong correlation (r2 =
0.9987) and was used to convert the bulk
density values  for  the remaining 690  data
observations.  The  average increase  in bulk
density due to the subtraction of Saran was
slight,  i.e., 0.57 percent.

     The relationship identified by the regres-
sion analyses is as follows:

Db     =  a(uDb) + b

where:

Db     =  corrected bulk density, minus Saran
a       =  slope of the line (1.0413)
uDb    =  unconnected bulk density, including
           Saran
b       =  y-intercept (0.0438)

Laboratory 3

     Method 2 was used to determine clod
volume in water.  While calculating the bulk
density, the  laboratory used an  erroneous
algorithm  from  the  protocols.   The Saran
volume was added to the  clod volume in the
denominator of the equation, rather than being
subtracted from  it.  This discrepancy skewed
each  bulk  density value an  average of 4.7
percent.   All values were  later  recalculated
using raw data supplied by the laboratory.

Laboratory 4

      Method 1 was used to determine clod
volume in water. Because the clod tag and
the hairnet weights  were not subtracted from
the clod weight, there were instances of  labo-
ratory clod weights that were less than the
field  clod   weights.  The data for the 22
affected clods were later  removed from the
data base.

      Because this laboratory used Method 1,
an attempt was  made to identify any floating
clods.  This method involves the use  of a
closed system,  i.e., a  floating  clod should
weigh the same  amount in water as it does in
air.  The bulk density values for  clods whose
weight in water  was within 10 grams of the
air-dried weight were reviewed, as well as the
values for clods  weighing more in water than
in air. It was concluded that the floating  clods
were forcibly submerged in order to record the
true  volume,  and  the laboratory  manager
confirmed this.

Sample Shipment

      There were no deviations from the speci-
fied procedure for sample shipment.  Samples
were shipped from the preparation laboratories
to the analytical laboratories  via overnight air
courier.

-------
                                     Section 4

                         Quality Assurance/Quality
                                       Control
     A  QA/QC program  must  be followed
during the course of survey activities to ensure
that the resulting data are of known quality.
The QA/QC program for the Northeastern Soil
Survey consisted of design and evaluation
components that aided survey participants in
obtaining data that  meets the needs of the
end users.

     The QA/QC design  for the preparation
laboratories included the training of personnel
in the protocols to be followed, establishment
of a communications network, assessment of
data quality objectives, and accomplishment of
on-site systems  audits.  The data  were  sys-
tematically  evaluated to ensure  data quality,
and QA samples were included in each batch
of routine samples to facilitate this evaluation.
The following sections explain some of these
aspects of the QA/QC program  in relation to
preparation laboratory activities.   Other as-
pects of the program will  be addressed in the
quality assurance  report  on the  analytical
laboratory data.

Design Components

 Training

     Preparation   laboratory   personnel
attended a regional workshop held in Orono,
Maine, on August 7 and 8, 1985.  The purpose
of the workshop was to review the laboratory
protocols and to establish a consistent meth-
odology for the laboratories that would ensure
the comparability of data.
Communications

     Weekly  conference calls  assisted  in
keeping the preparation laboratories operating
efficiently  and  consistently  by providing  a
forum that allowed potential  difficulties to be
identified, discussed, and resolved.  Prepara-
tion laboratory managers, QA personnel, and
scientists involved in the study of soil mineral-
ogy participated in these calls.   Issues dis-
cussed during the conference calls included
supply shortages and  clarification of proce-
dures,  e.g., sample labeling, record keeping,
and drying of organic samples.

Data Quality Objectives

     Data quality objectives  for the prepara-
tion laboratories were not established before
the Northeastern Survey was conducted.  The
preparation laboratories were  assessed ac-
cording to the following data characteristics:

     •  Precision and  Accuracy - These are
        quantitative measurements that esti-
        mate the  amount of variability and
        bias  inherent  in a  given data set.
        Precision refers to the level of agree-
        ment among repeated measurements
        of  the  same  parameter.   Accuracy
        refers to the difference between an
        estimate  based on the analytical
        results  and the true  value of the
        parameter being measured.

     • Representativeness - This refers to the
        degree to which the collected data
        accurately reflect the population  or
        medium that is sampled.

-------
     •  Completeness  -  This  refers to  the
        amount of data that is successfully
        collected with respect to the amount
        intended in the design.  A defined
        percentage  of  the  intended amount
        must be  successfully collected  fot
        conclusions based on the data to be
        valid. Lack of data completeness may
        reduce  the precision  of  estimates,
        introduce  bias, and  therefore reduce
        the level of confidence in  the conclu-
        sions.

     •  Comparability  -  This  refers to  the
        similarity   of   data   from  different
        sources included in a single data  set.
        If  more   than  one  laboratory  is
        analyzing samples, uniform procedures
        must be used to ensure that the data
        from different sources are based on
        measurements of the same parame-
        ter.

     These  five data quality characteristics
were identified \r\ the DDRP QA Plan (Bartz et
al.,  1987), and their application to  preparation
laboratory activities  were iterated.   A brief
description  of  the  specific characteristics
follows:

     •  Precision and Accu^cy - The prepara-
        tion laboratory combines sets of field
        samples into one batch containing a
        maximum of 39 routine and duplicate
        samples.   After  processing, i.e.,  air-
        drying, crushing, sieving, and homoge-
        nization, one bulk sample is split  into
        two  subsamples which  are termed
        preparation duplicates.  Comparison
        of physical  and chemical  data for
        these duplicates allows evaluation of
        the  subsampling procedure.

      • Representativeness  - Each bulk sam-
        ple  is  processed  by a  preparation
        laboratory to obtain a homogeneous
        sample.  Homogenization is accom-
        plished   by  passing  the  sample
        through a Jones-type riffle  splitter at
        least seven times.  The riffle splitter
        also is used  for subsampling.   All
        samples  not  being processed  are
        stored at  4°C  by the  preparation
        laboratory.
     •  Completeness - Each  batch of sam-
        ples  sent  to a  contractor analytical
        laboratory includes the preparation
        duplicates.

     »  Comparability - All preparation labora-
        tories process  bulk samples accord-
        ing to the protocols. Strict adherence
        to protocols should result in compara-
        bility among preparation laboratories.

     Precision is identified in  this QA report
by evaluating field duplicate data from the rock
fragment and inorganic  carbon analyses  and
replicate data from the bulk density analyses.
Additional precision estimates are made by
evaluating analytical data from  the preparation
laboratory duplicates and will be documented
in the QA report on the analytical laboratory
data.

     Accuracy cannot be assessed because:
(1) true  values for the parameters in question
are not  known, and (2) it was not known how
to provide preparation laboratories with audit
samples and quality control calibration sam-
ples to  evaluate the rock fragment and  bulk
density  analyses.

     Representativeness of the subsampling
procedure will be assessed in the QA report
for the analytical data.

     Completeness is evaluated in this report
by assessing  each  laboratory's ability to
accomplish the processing and analyses tasks
ior the  number of routine  and duplicate sam-
ples assigned.

     Comparability will  be evaluated by using
the precision data from the preparation dupli-
cates.   This evaluation will be documented in
the QA report on the analytical laboratory data.

 On-Site Systems Audits

     Each preparation laboratory was audited
at least once by QA staff. A round of  pre-
saiTipte audits was performed before sample
processing was underway. The purpose of the
pre-sample audit was to evaluate the facilities
and equipment and to ensure the capacity arid
 suitability of the laboratory to function as  a
preparation   laboratory  for  the Northeastern
                                            10

-------
Soil Survey.  The same QA auditor performed
all pre-sample audits, which ensured a consis-
tency of observation and inquiry. Issues not
treated in the  protocols, e.g., log books and
deviations from  written methods, were dis-
cussed and resolved.   An on-site evaluation
form contained specific questions relating to
the type of equipment available, sample proce-
dures, and methodology.

     The pre-sample auditor concluded that all
preparation laboratories selected for the North-
eastern Soil Survey either had or could obtain
adequate facilities and equipment to perform
the functions specified in the protocols. The
following comments highlight specific concerns
of the auditor:

      • The soil drying room of Laboratory 2
       was located on the  seventh floor of
       an office building, whereas the other
       laboratories used greenhouses. The
       auditor was concerned about inade-
       quate drying space as well as proper
       ventilation for efficient drying.  The
       laboratory planned on adding extra
       shelving.

      • The existence of an  ammonia  leak in
       the  cold storage area of  Laboratory 3
       was identified.  A test to determine
       whether the leakage  would contami-
       nate the soils was  proposed (see
       Section 3).  All samples were double-
       bagged  in  order to  decrease  the
       likelihood of contamination.

      A second round of audits was performed
on laboratories 3 and 4 while the laboratories
were  preparing  samples.  The QA  auditor
evaluated their procedures and followed up on
concerns identified  in  the pre-sample  audit.
The auditor  found that the laboratories were
operating in adherence  to protocol, and the
only area of concern identified was the need
for better record keeping at Laboratory 3. An
ERL-C representative   performed   systems
audits at laboratories  1  and 2 during the soil
preparation   activities;  however,   written
audit  reports  documenting these visits  are
unavailable.
Data Evaluation

Quality Assurance Samples

     Three types of paired QA samples were
included in each batch of samples submitted
to the analytical laboratory:  (1) field  dupli-
cates, (2) preparation duplicates, and (3) audit
samples.

     One  horizon per sampling crew  per day
was sampled in duplicate as specified in the
protocols.   The  first of the duplicate pair was
considered the routine sample, and the second
of the pair was referred to as the field dupli-
cate.  The field duplicate underwent the same
preparation steps  as its associated routine
sample in order to allow  an estimate to be
made of sampling and horizon variability.

     One  sample per batch was chosen by
the preparation  laboratory to be homogenized
and split into two subsamples.  The prepara-
tion  duplicates  were designed  to allow a
quantitative estimate of physical and chemical
variability  in  splits of the sample material.
Comparing data from analyses of preparation
duplicates  allows  a  reliable estimate to be
made of  how  well  the  soil samples were
homogenized before  being subsampled.  An
evaluation of preparation duplicate data will be
presented in  the QA  report on the analytical
laboratory data.

     Two natural audit sample pairs supplied
by EMSL-LV were included in each batch sent
to an analytical laboratory via a preparation
laboratory, but the  audit samples did  not
undergo any processing at  the  preparation
laboratory.  These samples  are  used to  as-
sess analytical performance.  More information
on these audit  samples can be found in the
QA plan (Bartz et al., 1987).  An evaluation of
the audit sample data will be presented in the
QA report  on  the analytical data.

Method of  Estimating Analytical
Precision

     Data for the bulk density and rock frag-
ment  determinations  were grouped into data
                                           11

-------
sets, by laboratory. A scatter plot of horizon
standard deviation versus horizon mean was
generated from each data set to evaluate the
relationship between precision and concentra-
tion. The data for both parameters displayed
a random pattern of standard deviation, indi-
cating  that  precision was independent  o1
concentration.   On this  basis,  a completely
randomized design model was selected for the
statistical estimation  of  precision (Steel and
Torrie, 1960).  The model  that represents data
collected at  a  specific sampling site can  be
demonstrated as follows:

     y,  = u  +  h, + e,j

where:

y,,    =    the variable of interest for the  jth
          number of observations from the
          ith  number of individual horizons
          represented

u    =    the general mean of the population

hj    =    the effect of the ith horizon on the
          variable of interest

e^    -    the random error of analytical mea-
          surement  for  the jth number  of
          observations  from the ith number
          of individual horizons represented.

     The model was used to perform statisti-
cal analyses of:   (1)  bulk density data from
theclod replicates, and (2) rock fragment data
from the field duplicates.   A root mean square
error statistic was used to estimate the pooled
standard deviation (S  ) across all pedons and
horizons for each laboratory data set. The
coefficient of variation (CV) was derived by
dividing the  Sp by the general mean (JQ and
multiplying by 100.

Precision  Results for Bulk
Density Determination

     Data from the bulk density determination
were analyzed by the completely randomized
design model to provide overall S- and  CV
values for the sets of replicate clods at each
preparation laboratory.  In addition, CV values
were generated for sets having a within-set
mean bulk density that was either greater than
or less than the general mean  bulk density.
Summary statistics for the Sp  and CV values
are given in Table 1.

     The CV values less than and greater than
the mean were evaluated in order to determine
whether  or not the statistical relationship of
higher CV values at  lower concentrations, in
this case at lower bulk  densities, would hold
true for  bulk  density data.   The CV values
presented in Table 1 appear to  confirm this
relationship.

     The Sp and CV values for the Laboratory
3 replicates suggest a higher imprecision than
values for the other  laboratories.  The  mean
bulk density of samples analyzed by Labora-
tory 3 also  is higher than  that  of  the  other
laboratories.  Because they finished sampling
earlier in the season when  the  weather was
warm and dry, the sampling crews  supplying
Laboratory 3 may have had difficulty collecting
clods from surface horizons.  Soil conditions
may have favored the collection of clods from
the lower, moister horizons.  The collection of
replicates may not have been as representative
of a horizon as desired.
Table 1.  Precision Estimates for Bulk Density

Laboratory 1
Laboratory 2
Laboratory 3
Laboratory 4
Number of
horizons
sampled
235
303
50
251
Mean bulk
density
(g/cm3)
1.24
1.38
1.61
1.35
SP
0.110
0.096
0.178
0.087
CV
6.82
6.97
10.99
6.48
cvX
7.66
5.26
8.49
5.79
                                            12

-------
     The overall Sp values suggest a consis-
tency of bulk density values within a horizon.
Audit reports  indicated  that  the  sampling
crews  were  able to choose  representative
clods from each horizon and that the laborato-
ries were consistent in  their use of measure-
ment techniques.  However, the exact percent-
age of error contributed to the Sp by horizon
variability, sampling bias, or laboratory impreci-
sion cannot be determined because:  (1) inher-
ent spatial variability made it  impossible  to
sample  identical field clods or to  provide an
audit sample for estimation of potential sampl-
ing bias, and (2)  the preparation laboratories
were not provided with calibration samples to
allow estimation of laboratory bias.

     The following types of  sampling errors
could contribute to sampling bias for the bulk
density replicate clods:

     •  Collection of replicates from  transi-
        tional zones or adjacent horizons.

     •  Mislabeling or  careless handling  of
        clods.

     •  Inconsistent Saran coating procedure.

     •  Bias relating to the structural coher-
        ency of clods.

     Based  on the experience of  the Soil
Conservation Service  (SCS) sampling crews
and the fact that the various field audit reports
did not indicate any major deviation  from the
protocols, sampling bias  is not presumed to
have been a significant  factor affecting the Sp
values.  Some variability in the use of Saran,
e.g., the length of time clods were allowed to
be submerged  in Saran, was  mentioned in  a
few audit reports.  The Sp  values would not be
                       affected if the coating procedure was consis-
                       tent for all replicates from a horizon.

                            At the preparation laboratory, measure-
                       ment  or  method errors  can  introduce bias,
                       including:

                            • Transcription errors in recording clod
                               weight or sample code.

                            • Inconsistent  Saran   coating  proce-
                               dures.

                            • Improper clod handling, e.g., compac-
                               tion.

                            • Incomplete drying.

                            • Loss of soil material during sieving.

                            • Inaccurate calculations.

                            • Faulty weights,  e.g.,  clod tags and
                               hairnets not subtracted.

                            Because audit samples  and calibration
                       samples  were not  provided,  laboratory bias
                       could not be measured.  Therefore, it is diffi-
                       cult to quantify the potential effect of prepara-
                       tion laboratory bias on the Sp  and CV values.

                       Precision Results for Rock Frag-
                       ment Determination

                            Field duplicate data for the rock fragment
                       determination were analyzed by the completely
                       randomized  design model to provide overall Sp
                       and CV values for each preparation laboratory.
                       Summary statistics incorporating these values
                       are provided in Table  2.
Table 2.  Precision Estimates for Rock Fragments
                     Field duplicate
                        pairs
                    Mean
                   % rock
                   fragments
                            CV
Laboratory 1

Laboratory 2

Laboratory 3

Laboratory 4
64

76

21

62
25.1

16.2

14.2

12.0
4.002

1.792

3.367

1.135
15.97

11.04

23.70

 9.47
                                             13

-------
     Because of the simplicity of the method
used for determining the  percentage of rock
fragments in the bulk soil samples, a greater
amount of imprecision can be attributed to a
combination of  sampling  bias  and horizon
variability and a lesser amount to preparation
laboratory bias.  The imprecision may  be an
indication of improper field duplicate sampling
technique or considerable spatial variability in
rock fragments.
Completeness  Results

     The requested  analyses  and soil  pro-
cessing steps were performed on 100 percent
of the bulk samples and clods received by the
preparation laboratories, which satisfied the
theoretical maximum design level of complete-
ness. Preparation duplicates were created for
each batch of samples sent to the analytical
laboratories,  for  a   100  percent  level-of
completeness.
                                           14

-------
                                     Section 5

                               Conclusions and
                               Recommendations
     Hie conclusions  and recommendations
discussed below are summarized from discus-
sions at the exit  meeting,  conference  call
notes, and the examination of raw data.

Data Recording

     Verifying the data from the Northeastern
Soil Survey was difficult because the format of
log books in which the data were recorded
was not consistent from one laboratory to
another.  A  system has been designed that
would allow -the raw data to be entered  into
log books containing pre-printed data forms,
followed by data entry into  a computer data
set having  the  same  format.  This  would
facilitate the  verification process and  would
relieve  preparation laboratory  personnel  of
calculating final  values  as  well.   Possible
components  of a data recording system  are
discussed below.

Preparation Laboratory Forms

     Standardized forms should be developed
on which to  record data from all preparation
laboratory procedures. Recommended formats
are presented for the following forms:

     •  Figure 1 - Sample receipt.

     •  Figure 2 - Bulk density.

     •  Figure 3 - Rock fragment.

     •  Figure 4 - Inorganic carbon.

     •  Figure 5 - Percent moisture.
     •  Figure 6 - Sample processing.

     Note that most of the forms use data-
file variable names as the column headings.

Data Entry Procedures

     Preparation laboratory personnel will not
be required to calculate final values, so there
will be no entry field for  final values on the
raw  data  forms.  However,  the  preparation
laboratory supervisor  should  calculate  bulk
density  from  random samples  in  order  to
ensure placement of the  variables into  the
correct fields.  Soil samples do not have to be
analyzed in the order they appear in the batch
because the sample code  information linking
the data to a  master form will be placed  on
each raw data form.

     On a  weekly  basis, the  preparation
laboratory personnel  will  enter all raw data
into a data base file by using dBase III soft-
ware.  The  program format will have data
entry screens  that display facsimiles of  the
raw data forms.  If  a preparation laboratory
does not have access to a computer system,
QA personnel will  enter the data. After data
are entered, either of two options exist:

     •  Option 1 - The software can be pro-
        grammed to calculate final data. The
        calculated final data can be generated
        on the Form  101  under  the correct
        sample code, and the  preparation
        laboratory can access and print these
        data.  Algorithms to calculate percent
        relative standard deviations for  field
        duplicates, routine samples, and the
                                          15

-------
                                          9t
                                                   •uuo|
                                                                                     «|dui*8
MIM*K <*>•) •»(
        *•!•»!
   Kit
Ift/tl
   IB/Ml 'JO/I »R
                                       >•»!•*•»
                                                                                   •••0
                                                                                            01
                                                                                                   01

-------
11 wlfhlt lit .0.01 gr..t	


jw coot  w  ritio or  mio m
        MILS OtNIITT KAK DATA

IAI_MT   CtOO_Mjfl   tOV   CLOO_00
                                                                                    tiiu   rioAr  OAFC
                                                                                                         CWtdKIJ
                                                                                                                    MM.1ST
                                                                                                                     mriAtt
Figure 2.  Bulk density raw data  form.
                                                              17

-------
All weight
SAM_CODE

























s to the
TOT WT

























F
nearest 0.
4.75-20iran
WT_2

























ercent Rock
1 9
2. 0-4. 75mm
WT_2

























Fragments Page
Prep Lab:
Comments

























/
/
Analyst
Initials

	











/'











Figure 3.  Rock fragment raw data form.
                                                18

-------
SAM_CODE


























REP


























Test
YES


























for
NO


























Inorganic carbon Page /
Prep Lab: /
Comments


























Analyst
Initials


























Figure 4. Inorganic carbon raw data form.
                                                   19

-------
CONT WT=CO
AD_SOIL =
OD_SOIL =
% Moist (R
SAM_CODE



























ntaine
Air dr
oven d
J2P1) -
REP



























r Weight
y soil w
ry soil
% Moist
CONT WT



























Pe
eight plus
weight plu
(REP2) =
AD_SOIL



























rcent Mo
contain
s contai
s2.5 (Ab
OD_SOIL



























isture Page
Prep Lab:
er weight
ner weight
solute Value)
Comments



























	 / 	
/
Analyst
Initials



























Figure 5. Percent moisture raw data form.
                                                   20

-------
S«1_COOE




























ANPIEO




























RECEIVED



























•
AIR DftlCD
STAR!




























1HISH




























!
SIEVED




























AWLE PROCt!
MORGAN 1C
CARBOH




























SIMG DATES
UBSAHPLE.O




























BULK
CHSITT




























RCHIYt
SAMPLE
TORtO




























PWl /
nit LAI --— -
COHMCNTS




























Figure 6.  Sample processing form.
                                                 21

-------
        bulk density replicates can be incorpo-
        rated  into the  software.   Outliers,
        erroneous values, and invalid sample
        code entries can be identified at this
        stage.

     •  Option 2 -   Preparation  laboratory
        personnel can enter the raw data. No
        statistical calculations or conversions
        of raw data to final data would occur
        at   the  preparation  laboratories.
        Instead, the  raw data would be sent
        electronically  to  the  QA  staff.   QA
        personnel can convert the dBase II
        data into a  SAS data set and can
        calculate  final values.  Next the data
        can be analyzed  statistically, and the
        findings reported to the laboratories.

     Either option should work equally well.
Data  entry  errors can  be identified  before
batches are sent to the analytical laboratories.
In fact, data  verification may  be completed
shortly after the final batch of soil samples is
assembled at the preparation laboratory.

     The sample  processing form will provide
a record of the sample codes  from the master
form and the date of specific laboratory analy-
ses from the  raw data forms.  The sample
processing form  can verify that all required
analyses were performed on the samples.

Sample  Drying

     Certain  procedural details  concerning
sample drying  were inadequately addressed in
the protocols.   The procedure  should be ex-
panded  as follows:

     •  Drying efficiency  would improve if the
        samples  were stirred every 24 hours
        to  facilitate uniform  drying.   Steel
        mesh  trays covered with  kraft paper
        could be used for sample drying. This
        would eliminate the water condensa-
        tion that  occurred with the cafeteria-
        type trays.

     •  Specifications for drying facilities, e.g.,
        temperature  and humidity controls,
        space  allocation,  access,  and air
        circulation, should be stipulated.
     •  Special procedures for handling  cer-
        tain soil types, e.g., organic or clayey
        soils, should be provided.

     •  Soils that are known to harden upon
        drying,  e.g., mucky or  clayey soils,
        should  be crushed and mixed before
        they reach constant moisture content.

     •  When  handling  the  samples,  Jhe
        analyst should wear rubber or plastic
        gloves  to  lessen the  possibility of
        contamination.

     •  Elimination  of all sources of contami-
        nation, e.g., smoking and food, should
        be stipulated.

Moisture Determination

     Analysis of the initial raw data values for
percent moisture suggests that the preparation
laboratory personnel were capable of assess-
ing the  air-dry  condition of  samples.   The
following  protocol  modifications  should  be
made for the moisture determination:

     •  The bulk sample should be allowed to
        dry until the  preparation laboratory
        personnel judge the sample to be air-
        dry.

     •  A 10-gram air-dry subsample can be
        removed for determination of percent
        moisture.

     •  A  determination  of field moisture
        should  be made on all samples upon
        their arrival  at the preparation labora-
        tories.  A consistent method for mea-
        suring field moisture must be added
        to the protocols.

Bulk Density  Determination

     The   following  recommendations  are
made to  alleviate   difficulties with the bulk
density procedure:

     •  An audit sample should be included to
        provide  data  for estimating within-
        and  among-laboratory  precision  and
        interlaboratory bias.  (See page 23.)

     •  A  mineral  of  known  density,  e.g.,
        quartz, should be used as a quality
                                            22

-------
        control calibration sample.  Because
        the  data  have  demonstrated  that
        measurement precision is not depen-
        dent upon the level of bulk density, it
        is not necessary for the quality con-
        trol calibration sample to have a bulk
        density within the range of soil bulk
        density values.

     •  Clods  should  air-dry  before  pro-
        cessing for the  bulk density determi-
        nation.  Clod weight  should be re-
        corded immediately before and soon
        after laboratory  Saran coating.

     •  Method 1,  which was outlined in the
        protocols,  is the preferred method for
        determining bulk density. The method
        should be  rewritten to correct errone-
        ous algorithms (see Section 2) and to
        add  specific  instructions for  sub-
        merging clods.

     •  Floating clods should be identified on
        the bulk density raw data form.

     •  Clod   tags should  be removed or
        should be  dried  before  the clods are
        weighed.

     •  Because Saran and acetone are carci-
        nogenic, laboratory managers should
        take extra care  to ensure that Saran
        mixing, clod coating, and clod ignition
        are performed in an operating exhaust
        hood.  Operators should wear respira-
        tors.

Quality Assurance/Quality
Control

Communications

     Although the conference  calls met  the
objective of establishing  a forum where ques-
tions could be answered or issues could be
identified and resolved quickly, documentation
of the discussions and  dissemination of the
information were not done consistently.  The
following suggestions  are made:

     •  The QA auditor should lead all confer-
        ence  calls. This person  or  another
        member of  the QA  staff  will  be
        present for all conference  calls.
     •  The frequency of conferences should
        be  weekly,  unless  the QA  auditor
        decides that biweekly calls would be
        equally effective.

     •  All  pertinent  information should  be
        documented by the conference leader
        in a log book established specifically
        for the soil survey region.  This book
        can identify the participants involved
        in  the  discussions  as  well  as  key
        personnel not in attendance.

     •  Log book notes should be compiled
        and sent to the appropriate partici-
        pants weekly.

Data Quality Objectives

     Data quality objectives  should be estab-
lished for the determinations of bulk  density
and percent rock fragments.

Qn-Site Systems Audits

     The pre-sample audit achieved the objec-
tive of assessing the ability of each laboratory
to function as a ODRP preparation laboratory.
The second  audit was instrumental in evalu-
ating adherence to protocol during soil pro-
cessing.  Each laboratory should be evaluated
before  or during sample processing.  It is
recommended  that one  QA auditor  should
evaluate all the laboratories  for both the pre-
sample  and the  second audits, and another,
the second evaluations.  This would facilitate
a consistent assessment of  all laboratories.

Audit Samples

     Audit samples are needed to evaluate
preparation  laboratory accuracy for the bulk
density determination. The following has been
suggested, but  has not been tested at EMSL-
LV. QA personnel could provide the prepara-
tion laboratories with synthetic samples, e.g.,
plastic eggs filled  with materials  of known
densities.  The eggs would be coded, and the
bulk density of each egg would be determined
at the QA laboratory. A set of 24 eggs could
be sent to each preparation laboratory, which
would be required to calculate the bulk density
of one egg for  each day the laboratory was
analyzing clods.
                                           23

-------
                                    References
Bartz, J. K., S. K. Drous6, K. A. Cappo, M. L     Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie.  1960.  Princi-
     Papp, G. A. Raab,  L.  J. Blume, M.  A.           pies  and  Procedures  of  Statistics.
     Stapanian, F. C. Garner and D. S. Coffey.           McGraw-Hill  Book Company,  New York.
     1987.  Direct/Delayed Response Project:           481 pp.
     Quality Assurance Plan for Soil Sampling,
     Preparation, and Analysis.  EPA/600/8-     USDA-SCS.  1983.  National Soils  Handbook,
     87/020.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection           Parts 600-606.  U.S. Government Printing
     Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.  315 pp.              Office, Washington, D;C. 609 pp.

Greweling, T., and M. Peech.  1960.  Chemical
     Soil Tests.  Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn.
     Bulletin 960. 60 pp.
                                            24

-------
                                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 DORP 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.
                                      25

-------
           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
                          26

-------
                                        Notice


     This document is  a preliminary draft.  It  has not been  formally released by the U.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.
                                           27

-------
                                                                       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 Mineraiogical 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
                                            28

-------
                                                                      Contents
                                                                      Revision 2
                                                                      Date:  9/85
                                                                      Page 2 of 2


                                Contents (continued}


Sect/on                                                                 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

8.0   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
                                          29

-------
                                                                     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
                                          30

-------
                                                                      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 (SAF)
       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
                                          31

-------
                                                                    Acknowledgments
                                                                    Revision 2
                                                                    Date:  9/85
                                                                    Page 1 of 1



                              Ackno wledgments


     Contributions  provided by the following individuals were greatly appreciated:  D. 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.
                                          32

-------
                                                                           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.
                                          33

-------
                                                                           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.
                                           34

-------
                                                                           Section 2.0
                                                                           Revision 2
                                                                           Date: 9/85
                                                                           Page 1 of 8



2.0  Site Selection

2.1   Watershed Selection

     Because the objectives of DORP 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
                                          35

-------
                                                                          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.
                                           36

-------
                                                                         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).
                                          37

-------
                                                                           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 will 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.
                                           38

-------
                                                                           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.
                                           39

-------
                                                                           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
                                           40

-------
                                                                                   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.


      These procedures provide a method for selecting a specific site and locating that site in the
field.



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                                                                               1
Balsam Fir                                                                              5
Black Spruce                                                                             12
Black Spruce - Tamarack                                                                   13
White Spruce                                                                             107

Tamarack                                                                               38
Red Spruce                                                                              32
Red Spruce - Balsam Fir                                                                   33
Red Spruce - Frasier Fir                                                                    34
Northern White Cedar                                                                     37

Red Pine                                                                                15
Eastern White Pine                                                                       21
White Pine - Hemlock                                                                      22
Eastern Hemlock                                                                         23

                                     Deciduous Vegetation Types

Aspen                                                                                  16
Pin Cherry                                                                              17
Paper Birch                                                                              18
Sugar Maple                                                                             27

Sugar Maple - Beech - Yellow Birch                                                           25
Sugar Maple - Basswood                                                                   26
Black Cherry - Maple                                                                      28
Hawthorn                                                                               109

Gray Birch - Red Maple                                                                    19
Beech - Sugar Maple                                                                      60
Red Maple                                                                              108
Northern Pin Oak                                                                         14
Black Ash - American Elm - Red Maple                                                        39

                                       Mixed Vegetation Types

Hemlock - Yellow Birch                                                                    24
Red Spruce - Yellow Birch                                                                  30
Paper Birch - Red Spruce - Balsam Fir                                                        35
White Pine - Chestnut Oak                                                                 51
White Pine - Northern Red Oak - Red Maple                                                   20
                                               41

-------
                                                                          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.
                                           42

-------
                                                                             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
                                            43

-------
                                                                            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  tiZ".

        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.
                                            44

-------
                                                                           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
                                           45

-------
                                                                           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.
                                           46

-------
                                                                           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.
                                           47

-------
                                                                     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
                                           48

-------
                                                                       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  in  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.
                                           49

-------
                                                                       Section 4.0
                                                                       Revision 2
                                                                       Date:  9/85
                                                                       Page 3 of 5
     The general rule  to follow is that the minimum amount of Held 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:
                                            50

-------
                                                                      Section 4.0
                                                                      Revision 2
                                                                      Date:  9/85
                                                                      Page 4 of 5
  1
Region
    2
Subregion
Alkalinity Class
  456
Watershed 10
     The sample code represents the SCS (PIPS) 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 T"  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  2250 mm.
 Figure 4-1. NADSS Ubel A.

                                   ^ NADSS Ubel
                                                 v'
                          Date Sampled:
                                      0   MMMY Y
                          Crew 10:

                          Site 10:
                                        Depth:
                                                       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 = £250 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.
                                            51

-------
                                                                       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.
                                            52

-------
                                                                     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 (PLO).  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 microbia! 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.
                                          53

-------
                                                                                 Section 5.0
                                                                                 Revision 2
                                                                                 Date:  9/85
                                                                                 Page 2 of 8

                                                                Date Received D D M H H Y  Y
                                                                By Data Mgt.  	
                  National Acid Depoaition 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
_

H I
14
15
16
nr?
18
19
f- 	 , 	
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
_>8
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Site
ID










































Sample
Code










































Set
ID










































Coarse
Fragments
i
CF










































Air-dried
Moisture
%
W










































RSD










































Signature of Preparation Laboratory Supervisor:
t'oiiunent :
Inorg.
Carbon
(1C)
Y=yes
N=no











































Bulk
Density
g/cc











































Figure 5-1.  National Acid Deposition Soil Survey (NADSS) Form 101.
                                                 54

-------
                                                                       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.

5.3.2.3-

     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.
                                           55

-------
                                NAOSS Ubtl B.:.:.
                                    ....•...',.•••  ; .'• •'.,. ;•'•.
                               Batch 10:	J^,/'.

                                Samola No:-, „.;''•'
                                                                       Section 5.0
                                                                       Revision 2
                                                                       Date:  9/85
                                                                       Page 4 of 8
Figure 5-2. NADSS Latwi 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 «s2-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 HCt 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
                                             56

-------
                                                                     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  Subsample  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 101

     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
                                          57

-------
                                                                   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.
                                          58

-------
                                                                                 Section 5.0
                                                                                 Revision 2
                                                                                 Date:  9/85
                                                                                       7 of 8
                                                                Data  Received D D M M M Y Y
                                                                By Data Mgt.  	

                 National Acid Deposition Soil Survey  (NAOSS) Form 102
Prep Lab
Batch ID
Analytica
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
JO
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
33
39
40
41
D D M M M Y Y
ID Date Recieved
Date Shipped
1 Lab ID

Air-dried
Moisture t
W RSD









































-j 	 	 	












































Inorganic
Carbon
(1C)
Y-y«e N»no










































Signature of Preparation Laboratory M.anaqer:
Comments :

Coarse Fragments
Shipped?
(Check Y if yes)











































bHL = White Canary = ANA. Lab w/copy to SMC Pink * ANA. Lab w/copy to EMSL-LV Gold « ANA. Lab
Flgurt 5-3.  National Acid Dapoaltlon Soil Survey (NAOSS) Form 102.
                                                  59

-------
                                                                                 Section 5.0
                                                                                 Revision 2
                                                                                 Date:  9/85
                                                                                 Page 8 of 8

                                                               Date Received D D M M M  Y ₯
                                                               By Data Mgt.
                 National Acid  Deposition Soil  Survey (NADSS)  Form  115
D D M M M Y V
Prep Lab ID Date Reoieved
Analytical Lab ID _ Date Shipped

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
iO
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
•12
Batch ID










































Sample Ho.










































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.
                                                 60

-------
                                                                         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.
                                          61

-------
                                                                           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  Ext/-actable Sulfate

     The amount of extractable sulfate will indicate the sulfate saturation of the anion exchange
sites.  Extractable sulfate is  determined  in two different extracts (01 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 suffate 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.
                                           62

-------
                                                                           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.
                                           63

-------
                                                                           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/cm .  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.
                                           64

-------
                                                                          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, m4l 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.
                                          65

-------
                                                                            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 m,.

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 m,c, respectively.

7.3.3.12  Calculations-



                     Moo ~ (MCF + MTS  (0.85)]
           BDfU =
                                MCF       MTS
                      r H2OT     2.65       1.30
      where     BDFM is the field moist bulk density.
                MQO 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:


                                      X (m. - m,)
                           MTS  =    —T^T


      where   X is the total number of coatings (field +  lab).
               a is the number of laboratory coatings.
              m, 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).
                                           66

-------
                                                                            Section 7.0
                                                                            Revision 2
                                                                            Date:  9/85
                                                                            Page 4 of 5


         r H20T  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.
                                            67

-------
          Table 7-1.  Specific Gravity* of Water
•c
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
0.9999
09997
0.9982
09957
09922
09881
09832
09778
0.9718
09653
1
0.9999
0.9996
0.9980
0.9954
0.9919
0.9876
0.9827
0.9772
0.9712
0.9647
2
1.0000
09995
0.9978
09951
09915
0.9872
0.9822
0.9767
0.9706
09640
3
1.0000
0.9994
09976
0.9947
0.9911
09867
0.9817
09761
09699
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
09743
0.9680
0.9612
7
0.9999
09988
09965
09934
0.9894
0.9848
0.9795
0.9737
0.9673
09605
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.
o>
                                                                                                                                                           TJO3JOJ
                                                                                                                                                           oj o»  CD a>

-------
                                                                         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.
     •  vlsqueen 6-mil sheets, (41 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.
                                         69

-------
                                                                          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.
                                          70

-------
                                                                           Section 8.0
                                                                           Revision 2
                                                                           Date:  9/85
                                                                           Page 3 of  3



8.2.3  Visqueen Plastic Sheets

     Visqueen plastic sheets (4* 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
                                         71

-------
                                                                          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.
                                          72

-------
                                   Appendix A
                                   Revision 1
                                   Date: 9/85
                                   Page 1 of 22
          Appendix A

Field Data Forms and Legends
              73

-------
                                                                                       Appendix A
                                                                                       Revision 1
                                                                                       Date:  9/85
                                                                                       Page 2 of 22
 u S Ot««tMlN» Of ar,nieuvtUM

 SOU CONIIMVAIKM IIKVICI
                                          SOIL DESCRIPTION
ici.ioi-
   i n
'.OH IlKItt MPniSINIIO
j«r< . Mil N> r
«Q 0»» 1* 1 11 COMMIT UM( u
, 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , , 1 , , I'
tHMA
lAIIIUOt 0
010 MM >ie i
, 1 , ! , 1
LOMGIIUOf 0
010 MM >IC [
,,1,1,1
                                                           o  so   ca     JO     '«e   "M  "«  '"•  o'"
                                                            I  .  I  ,  I .  i  i  I . '.  I  .  I  .  I  .  i  -
'•"(Or l w*n*>*iif i i

oirm o*vs ol
, . - > , 1 , , ! 1 i
s
,

1
„
c

1
0


1
UtVAIIOM i r»«Mf IMI«MM ,


1111

* • M OMK1 W • M Otm W B M OAK)
«, M , U, M , l«t 1 1 i
W • M OKW , "
j, M i

HMMflAIUHlS *C

Avifur.c AM 4v«t»M.« son.
*N« 1UM
I 1 1 ( ,
WINl«K 1 ANN SUM
1 1 1 l ' 1 L t
WIMt(M
M* 1
AG4

1 l ! 1
^( AIM* ft
SUIIQNMO

1 1 1 t 1
CUN1AUI
SIC1KM

I 1

t 1
i"
«M


•*
t»


       OlflM    N     OlftM     „     OlfIX

               01             01

    I  !  I  !  ,  I  I  ,  I  I  I  I  I   I  ,  ,  I  .
                                               I	i  I  I	I  I  I   I  I  I  ,  I
                                      ___J   VICIIAIKM»rtCllt     I—

                                       '     I      '      I
                                                            |  l  (   , ,  i  1  I   I  1  I
Flgur* A-1.  Form SCS-SO 1-232 (pag«  1 ol 4).
                                                     74

-------
                                                                            Appendix A
                                                                            Revision 1
                                                                            Date: 9/85
                                                                            Page 3 of 22
'II
6
7
8
9
10
_j 	 |_J
I i
I !
I !
| |
| |
! i
I !
I !
I !
Ill Ml
I i ! ! ! I I
I I I I i I I
I I I I I i t
i I I I I t i
I I i I l i i
                                          l »OAM NOUS

HUMMUS
1!
2
3
4
5
6
7






81
91
101
T , | -0.roN.OIM


1














































Flgurt A-1. Continued (page 2 of 4).
                                            75

-------
                                                                         Appendix A
                                                                         Revision 1
                                                                         Date:  9/85
                                                                         Page 4 of  22
Figure A-1. Continued (page 3 of 4).
                                            76

-------
                                                                            Appendix A
                                                                            Revision 1
                                                                            Date:  9/85
                                                                            Page 5 of 22
IFH«.
VII-
CINCI
C A (
>. 0 «
I
_L


|


1
I !
I i
I 1
1 1
1 1
1 1


1
1
' HO
UfASUMO
"OMHTI1S
• NO AMOUNT
f 1
i i
C 11 | I 1
I'll
• 1 1 i 1
C 11 1 1
1 I 1
• 1
i i
C 11 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
• 1 1 1
'•.(<. [ ]_ I
"110
MIASUMO
FKOMftTIIS
UNO AMOUNT
|
1
1
i i
i I
i i
1 | 1 1
1
I
1
i i
! t
1 1
1 | 1 1
t 1 1
1 1 I
I 1 1
• 1 1 ! '
• 1 11
c K | i i
i ( i i
» i
c n
i
• |
C II
1
• I
CJl
1
» 1
e n
i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i t
i i
i i
• t 11
" it- 1 i i
, i ; I
1 ! !
1 1 ,
I 1 1
111!
1 1 , 1
I
1
!
i
1
1
1
1
|
1
1
1
__!_
1 1
1 |
I |
I |
1 I
I |
| I
I I
I 1
1 1
! !
1 !
'
*
1
T
N
t
s
s





















BOOTS
i.
0
or st c
,
I
,

,111
i , i
i
1
, |
,
i |
i |
i i !
I ,
.
i 1 '
i i i
I
,

I
i

1
|
, |


t


i 1


i
I
I
i
i

1 '



1




i
>0*n
SM» of SZ CN
1 1 1
1 1 t
1
,
1
.
1 1 I
i i
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1
] [
1 1
.
t
1
1 t 1
!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
! 1 ill
I'll
1 1 1
III |
1 1 1 t 1






1 | | |






I


1






I
|


1








,





|
|
I
|
|
|






|
|

1

_]_
CONCINfNATIONS
S
*
>NO Of * «
.
1
,
1
. ,



' ' 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 ! 1
1 I




1 1 1
| |
I
|
|
1
I
|
|
I
|
|
|
1 I'M
1 ' 1
1 ' !
. |



1
| |

1


1
|
|
|

1

|


|
|
I














1 1


i ' ,
|
|
|
|
|
|






•




I
»OCK
mtGMINIS
» *
H * 1
o •* o i
\
1
1
^
1


1 1
1 1 1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1 1
I
1








1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1

1
1

1
1
t
1
1
1
1


1
1
1
1
\
1
1

1

1
1
1
1















































t i 1
•o«
IKAGMtMlf
> «
H It
0 •> 0 I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
l
(
|
1
1

1 1
1 [
1
!
1
|
1
1
1
1
1
1
|
|
|
|
|
I
I
1
I
l
,
1
1
1
1

1,
1
1,_
1
|
t _
i_
1
|
1
t,..
L-
I,





























l
                             >1(t FOKM NOliS
LOG
WEATHER
SET 1.0.
UNOERSTORY VEQ.

SUOES It PEO FACE
UNOERSTORY
OVERSTORY
LANDSCAPE




Figure A-1. Continued (page A of 4).
                                             77

-------
                                                               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
     AAQAL
     AAQFR
     AAQNA
     MQPN
     MQUM
     ABOEU
     ABOGL
     ABOPA
     AUDAG
     AUDFR
     AUDGL
     AUDNA
     AUDTR
     AUSHA
     AUSPN
     AXEDU
     AXEHA
     AXEPA
     AXERH
Albaqualf
Fragiaqualf
Natraqualf
Plinthaqualf
Umbraqualf
Eutroboralf
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
AAQDU
AAQGL
AAQOC
AAQTR
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
Ourustatf
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
                                      78

-------
                                                           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
IAN VI
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
 Paleudoil
 Argiustoll
 Ourustoll
 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
 Caiciustoll
 Haplustol!
 Paleustoll
 Argixeroll
 Durixeroll
 Natrixeroll
                                 79

-------
                                                         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
Hapiohumox
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
Ochraquox
Umbraquox
Gibbsihumox
Sombrihumox
Eutrorthox
Haplorthox
Umbriorthox
Acrustox
Haplustox
Duraquod
Haplaquod
Sideraquod
Ferrod
Fragihumod
Placohumod
Cryorthod
Haplorthod
Troporthod
 UAQFR
 UAQPA
 UAQTR
 UHUHA
 UHUPN
 UHUTR
 UUDHA
 UUDPN
 UUDTR
 UUSPA
 UUSRH
 UXEPA
 Fragiaquult
 Paleaquult
 Tropaquult
 Haplohumult
 Plinthohumult
 Tropohumult
 Hapludult
 Plinthudult
 Tropudult
 Paleustult
 Rhodustult
 Palexerult
                                   VUDCH Chromudert
                                   VUSCH Chromustert
                                   VXECH Chromxerert
                                  80

-------
                                                                        Appendix A
                                                                        Revision 1
                                                                        Date:  9/85
                                                                        Page 9 of 22
2.2  Subgroup  Codes

      AA     Typic
      AB04  Abruptic aridic
      AS 10   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     Boraific
   '   BO04   Boroalficudic
      B008   Borollic glossic
      BO12   Borollic vertic

      CA     Calcic
      CA06   Calciorthidic
      CA20   Cambic
      CH06   Chromudic
      CR10   Cryic lithic
      CD     Cumulic
      CU04   Cumulic ultic

      DU     Durargidic
      DUOS   Durixerollic
      DU11   Durochreptic
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  Arenicrhodic
AR14  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
DU02  Duric
DU10  Durixerollic lithic
DU12  Durorthidic
                                           81

-------
                                                                    Appendix A
                                                                    Revision 1
                                                                    Date:  9/85
                                                                    Page 10 of 22
DU14  Durorthidic xeric
DY03  Dystric entic
DY06  Dystric tithic

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  Humiciithic
HU06  Humoxic
HY    Hydric

LE     Leptic
LI01   Lithic
LI06   Lithicrupticaliic
LI08   Lithicrupticenticerollic
LI10   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  Paralithicverlic
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  Hapiudic
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
L118   Lithicustollic
LI22   Lithicxeric
NA06  Natric

OR    Orthidic
OR02  Orthoxic
PA02  Pachicudic
PA06  Paleorthidic
PA10  Palexerollic
PE    Pergelic
PE02  Pergelicsideric
                                      82

-------
                                                                    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
     T002  Torrifluventic
     T006  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
                                       TO04   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
                                          83

-------
                                                                  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
      1  northeast
      5  southwest
2 east
6 west
                         43  backslope noseslope
                         34  footslope sideslope
                         05  toeslope crested hills
                         35  toeslope sideslope
3 southeast        4  south
7 northwest        8  north
2.6   Pedon Position Codes

      1  on the crest                2
      4  on middle third             5
      7  on a slope and depression   8
           on slope and crest
           on lower third
           in a depression
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
             3 on upper third
             6 on a slope
             9 in a drainageway
                         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
                                         84

-------
                                                                      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
                 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
2.10   Mineralogy Codes

        02  not used
        09  chloritic
        10  diatomaceous
        18  gibbsitic
        24  halloysitic
        28  kaolinitic
        34  mixed
        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
                                           85

-------
                                                                 Appendix A
                                                                 Revision 1
                                                                 Date:  9/85
                                                                 Page 14 of 22
      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
44  serpentinitic
08  dysic
14  noncalcareous
06  hyperthermic
12  isomesic
18  thermic
05  cracked
12  ortstein
17  shallow and uncoated
2.14  Kind  of Water Table Codes
       1  flooded
       4  ground

 2.15  Landuse  Codes
 2 perched
 3 apparent
       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

        1 very slow         2  slow
        5 moderately rapid   6  rapid

 2.17   Drainage  Codes

        1 very poorly drained
        3 somewhat poorly drained
        5 well drained
        7 excessively drained
                   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
              3 moderately slow
              7 very rapid
       4  moderate
                   2  poorly drained
                   4  moderately well drained
                   6  somewhat excessively drained
                                        86

-------
                                                             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
      0  glacial drift
      L  lacustrine
      M  marine
      R  solid rock
      H  volcanic ash
E eolian
G glacial outwash
V local colluvium
0 organic
Y solifluctate
S
T
W
X
eolian-sand
glacial till
loess
residuum
U unconsolidated sediments
2.20  Parent Material Origin  Codes

       Mixed Lithology
YO mixed
Y2 mixed-calcareous
Y4 mixed-igneous-metamorphic and sedimentary
Y6 mixed-igneous and sedimentary
Conglomerate
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
Y1 mixed-noncalcareous
Y3 mixed
Y5 mixed-igneous and metamorphic
Y7 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
       Sedimentary

       SO  sedimentary
       S2  glauconite
                  S1  marl
                                     87

-------
                                                             Appendix A
                                                             Revision 1
                                                             Date:  9/85
                                                             Page 16 of 22
Interbedded Sedimentary

BO  interbedded sedimentary
82  limestone-sandstone
84  limestone-siltstone
B6  sandstone-siltstone

Sandstone

AO  sandstone
A2  arkosic-sandstone
A4  sandstone-calcareous

Shale

HO  shale
H2  shale-calcareous

Siltstone

TO  siltstone
12  siltstone-calcareous

Limestone

LO  limestone
l_2  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
                                  88

-------
                                                                 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
       UD 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
       A  anthropic
       O  ochric
       D  durinodes
       W paralithic contact
       T  argillic
       G  gypsic
       E
       Y
       V
petrocalcic
salic
sulfuric
H histic
P plaggen
Z duripan
Q albic
C calcic
N natric
J petrogypsic
I sombric
F fragipan
M mollic
U umbric
L lithic contact
R argic
B cambic
X oxic
K placic
S spodic
 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
                                   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
                                        89

-------


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
CSV 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
                                90

-------
                                                          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
                               SO    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
                   L lime
                               VS  very sticky
                               VP very plastic
                                S silica
 F faint

 Surface Features
       0 distinct
 A  skeletans over cutans
 C  chalcedony on opal
 G  gibbsite coats
 K  intersecting slickensides
 M  manganese or iron-manganese stains
 P  pressure faces
                                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
                                 91

-------
                                                         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         M many

Surface Feature Continuity Codes

P  patchy                 0 discontinuous           C  continuous

Surface Feature Distinctness Codes
F  faint
      0 distinct
 Location of Surface Features

 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
            P prominent
                       H on horizontal faces of peds
                       Z 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
                        1  slightly effervescent
                        3  violently effervescent
 Effervescence Agent Codes
 H HCI (10%)
 P H2O2 (unspecified)
                        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
                                92

-------
                                                           Appendix A
                                                           Revision 1
                                                           Date:  9/85
                                                           Page 21 of 22
       L  limnic
       S  sapric
                 S sphagnum
                 D diatomaceous earth
                 F ferrihumic
                 0 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  Ore sol red
pM  pH meter (1:1 H2O)
pS  soiltex
OA  clay
pH  Hellige-Truog
pN  pH (0.1 M CaCl2)
pT  Thymol blue
50/7 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
                                                  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

 Shape of Pores

 IR   interstitial
 IT   interstitial and tubular
 TU  tubular
 TO  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
                                 93

-------
                                                            Appendix A
                                                            Revision 1
                                                            Date:  9/85
                                                            Page 22 of 22
Kind of Concentrations

A2  clay bodies
B2  soft masses of barite
02  soft masses of lime
C4  lime nodules
02  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
31  opal crystals
S3  silica concretions
T2  worm casts
T4  worm nodules

Shape of Concentrations
 C cylindrical
 P plate like
0 dendritic
T threads
 Rock Fragment Kind Codes
                  B1  barite crystals
                  C1  calcite crystals
                  C3  lime concretions
                  01  mica flakes
                  03  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
                  32  soft  masses of silica
                  S4  durinodes
                  T3  insects casts
O  rounded
Z  irregular
 A sandstone               B
 F ironstone                H
 K organic fragments        I
 O oxide-protected rock      P
 S sedimentary rocks        T
   mixed sedimentary rocks
   shale
   limestone
   pyroclastic rocks
   siltstone
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
                                  94

-------
                                Appendix B


                     Laboratory 3 Ammonium Test


     This appendix is an excerpt of a letter from the preparation laboratory manager of Laboratory
3.  A test was made on soil samples to determine whether or not an ammonia leak in the cold
storage facility contaminated any of the samples from the Northeastern soil survey.
                                      95

-------
                                                                      Appendix B
                                                                      Revision 2
                                                                      Date:  9/85
                                                                      Page 2 of 2


                                                                       December 18, 1985


QA Manager
Lockheed-EMSCO
1050 E. Flamingo Road
Suite 120
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109


     This letter is to confirm for your records the results of the ammonium test performed on soil
samples, as discussed in our telephone conversation.

     At our initial observation  visit I  pointed out a leak of ammonia gas coming from a room
adjacent to the cooler in which we would be storing NADSS samples.  In  order to determine the
extent of possible contamination of the NADSS samples by ammonia, the following procedure was
followed.

     On September 11, 1985, 3 sets of the same soil samples were placed in the storage cooler.
Each set was repeated in triplicate and represented the following:

     1.     one set of uncovered soils
     2.     one set of soils enclosed in plastic liners only
     3.     one set of soils enclosed in plastic liners and canvas bags

     Subsamples of these soils had been previously tested for ammonium content by the Nessler
Reagent Colorimetric test (2M KCI extraction), the standard ammonium test used by the laboratory
(Greweling and Peech, 1960, Chemical soil tests, Cornell Exp. Sta. Bull. 960).  These-preliminary
results showed that control samples  were below the ammonium detection limit at the beginning
of the experiment.

     On  October 9, 1985, each set of soils  placed in the cooler was removed and  analyzed for
ammonium by Nessler Reagent test.  Results showed the following:

     1.     uncovered soils had 10 ppm ammonium
     2.     soils in plastic liners only were below the ammonium detection limit
     3.     soils in plastic liners and canvas bags were below the ammonium detection limit

     According to these results, it appears that no change  occurred  in  the soils covered with
plastic, and canvas and  plastic from the original amount of ammonium.  When left uncovered in
the cooler, 10 ppm ammonium  was adsorbed by the soil, assumably due to  the ammonia leak in
the adjacent room.

     Soil  samples prepared by the department of the NADSS project were placed in 2 plastic liners,
1 canvas bag, an additional plastic liner, and a cardboard box before being  placed in the cooler for
storage.   Thus it can be stated that ammonium contamination  of  these soils would be nil or
negligible.
                                           96

-------